Making strong recommendations on a subject you know very little about is
silliness. Refusing to listen to those with experience is silliness
squared.
On Thursday, April 30, 2020, Craig Fink <webegood@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Silliness abounds, I do not understand your point here?
On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 12:06 AM Henry Spencer <hspencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2020, Craig Fink wrote:
Solids all the way, heathens! Monoatomic solid hydrogen! Noneconsidered
of your silly oxidizers!
:-)
Flying in the atmosphere, it's made of O2 and N2. O2 is usually
an oxidizer. May as well use it.
If you can store monoatomic hydrogen aboard somehow :-), any attempt to
add an oxidizer to it will reduce performance. Even if acquiring oxygen
from the atmosphere was free (it's not), just adding the hardware you'd
need to react it with the H would surely be a net loss, considering that
the monopropellant Isp of H is circa 2000s.
If we could get 2000s out of a chemical rocket, safely with decent T/W,
there'd hardly be a jet engine on Earth. Nobody would bother building
jet
fighters -- they'd all be rocket fighters. Transports would go
suborbital
ballistic, on rocket power, rather than dawdling along within the
atmosphere. There would be no runways, because rocket VTOL would be
better. And nobody would seriously consider anything but reusable SSTOs
for spaceflight.
Henry
--
Craig Fink
WeBeGood@xxxxxxxxx
