From: mooregr_deleteth1s@greenms.com   
      
   "Henry Spencer"  wrote in message   
   news:I19Ksq.Hus@spsystems.net...   
   >   
   > The key question of a rocket-powered rotor is not whether it produces more   
   > thrust at the start, but whether it gains you enough in total -- bearing   
   > in mind that launchers want to accelerate very rapidly and that propeller   
   > efficiency drops off badly as speeds rise -- to be worth its mass.  Gary   
   > Hudson said that for the classical Roton design, the bottom line on rotor   
   > lift was about neutral for ascent -- no big gain, no big loss -- with the   
   > main benefits being its other roles:  drag device during reentry, lift   
   > device for landing, and centrifugal pump for powered flight.   
      
   You know, it just dawned on me... I don't think SS1's "shuttlecock" design   
   is all that far from Rutan's rotor on the grand scale.   
      
   Hmm, interesting. (at least to me. :-)   
      
      
   > --   
   > "Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend."    |   Henry Spencer   
   >                                 -- George Herbert       |   
   henry@spsystems.net   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)