Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Most of the air, in fact. If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Comparison_US_standard_atm..., you will see that air density is way lower at 30km.

That is important because a lot of the energy expenditure for rockets is spent overcoming air resistance, instead of for lifting the rocket against gravity (that also is what makes the idea of a space elevator so enticing).

Once you are at 30km, getting anywhere is relatively cheap.




I'm not sure this is correct. Low earth orbit [1] is ~200km in altitude, and ~7km/s. So to get in this orbit you must provide an energy of 2 MJ/Kg to get 200km high, and 25 MJ/Kg to get to orbital velocity. So the vast majority of the energy expenditure is to get speed, not altitude.

I would be suprized if air drag in the first 30Km is the bulk of the energy expenditure.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed#Earth_orbits


That's absolutely correct, but launching above most of the atmosphere means that you don't have to design the rocket to take atmospheric loads. Light-weighting a rocket has a pretty big effect on the payload / rocket ratio which is good.

Taking X kg off the weight of a rocket typically means that you can take X/k (where k < 1) off as well because that was additional structure, fuel, or engine capacity that is no-longer needed to support what you've already removed. Of course, now that the rocket is even lighter, there's another round of mass reduction.

Don't worry kids, the series converges in a few iterations, but the point is that removing any weight from a rocket is a huge deal.


The best I could find is <http://www.rocketmime.com/rockets/rckt_eqn.html>. If, in that example, I adjust air density, I get:

  - 1.2 = normal density:
    - top speed      118 m/s
    - powered height 100 m
    - total height   335 m

  - 0.05 = a guess at the density at height:
    - top speed      150 m/s
    - powered height 113 m
    - total height   972 m
Back to the problem at hand: if you were to fire this rocket from 30 km up instead of from sea level, it would get about the same potential energy, but about double the kinetic energy. Kinetic energy, as you indicate, being the more important factor, I think it helps if you manage to bring a rocket up high using some other method than a rocket (which, I think, can only be efficient if it accelerates rapidly)

However, I am not sure this is correct. Feel free to correct me.




Consider applying for YC's W25 batch! Applications are open till Nov 12.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: