Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Chat with XCOR Aerospace (Another Blue Origins/Virgin Galactic Sub-orb Company)

Comments

  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 93,596 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Sub orbital is much easier than orbital.
    The Germans managed thousands of sub orbital launches from mobile transporters in the 1940's with a one tonne payload. And they were very inefficient, obvious improvements would have been not using 20% of water in the fuel, not integrating the fuel tank into the fuselage, using verniers or swivels instead of drag inducing vanes in the exhaust.

    Sub orbital may be of some use for first stage boosters. But the energy requirements of orbital are a magnitude greater.



    It might even be cheaper to achieve weightlessness by using very large magnets and using VR goggles linked to cameras in orbit.


Advertisement