![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 00:50:59 GMT, "johnhare"
wrote: I do advocate some forms of air breathing propulsion for some acceleration missions. I do not believe in hauling it all to orbit, or increasing architectural complexity of the vehicles to the degree I tried posting this on sci.space.tech, but it doesn't seem to have gotten there... :-( I was reading a textbook the other day ("Space Propulsion Analysis and Design" - Humble, Henry & Larson, McGraw-Hill, 1995) Under the topic of 'Advanced Propulsion Techniques', they described a rocket motor that uses ram-air to augment the on-board oxidizer supply - using some air to aid in burning a fuel-rich mixture. Which got me to thinking - could it be turned around...? Add a supplementary oxidizer to current turbojet engine designs? This way, the engine could still operate at higher altitudes. Also, using an oxidizer that could absorb sufficient heat from the incoming airstream (cryogens, maybe...?) would reduce the air temperature, thus allowing the engine to operate at higher Mach numbers. Where air becomes too thin, the air inlets could be closed, and the engine would operate in a purely rocket mode. Not being an engineer, I have *no* idea what the kind of pitfalls would be to such a system... but might it be worth exploring? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Same Old Rockets for Bold New Mission ? | BlackWater | Technology | 6 | May 15th 04 03:26 AM |
Pressure fed versus pump fed rockets | Larry Gales | Technology | 16 | November 19th 03 11:18 PM |
Our future as a species - Fermi Paradox revisted - Where they all are | william mook | Policy | 157 | November 19th 03 12:19 AM |
Rockets not carrying fuel. | Robert Clark | Technology | 3 | August 7th 03 01:22 PM |
"Why I won't invest in rockets for space tourism ... yet" | RAILROAD SPIKE | Space Station | 0 | July 30th 03 12:06 AM |