From: cdorrough@nortonconsultants.com   
      
   "Henry Spencer"  wrote in message   
   news:In4nDr.Lyo@spsystems.net...   
   > In article <1127135506.835715.74830@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,   
   >   wrote:   
   > >Would it be feasible to use air breathing jet engines as the 1st stage   
   > >(or as strap-ons) of a launch system?   
   >   
   > Yes, but with the exceptions of air launch from an existing aircraft, and   
   > systems which use the jets for some other purpose as well, using rockets   
   > is better.   
   >   
   > Jet engines and their air intakes are complex and heavy, work only over   
   > limited ranges of speed and altitude, and are quite fussy about the   
   > smoothness of the incoming airflow (which means you can't just hang   
   > them on anywhere).  Rocket engines are light and compact, don't care   
   > about speed or airflow, and work *better* as altitude increases.   
   >   
   > >This would mean you do not have to lift the oxidizer for the 1st stage...   
   >   
   > Why is that an advantage?  Liquid oxygen is compact, relatively easy to   
   > store and handle, and so inexpensive that it's nearly free.  It *is*   
   > heavy... but with rockets, extra thrust is cheap.   
   >   
   > Design group after design group has come up with an elegant jet/rocket   
   > design, and as an afterthought compared it to an all-rocket approach...   
   > and been startled to discover that the all-rocket system looked to be   
   > simpler, more capable, and cheaper both to develop and to operate.   
      
   Hi, Henry - what then are your thoughts on MIPCC??   
      
   To a layman, it *seems* like it might work (as a first stage).. with a huge   
   cross-range advantage over all-rocket.   
      
   Thanks,   
   Cameron:-)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)