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

The Space Shuttle is already 96% propellant to 4% structure (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/expeditions/expedi...). You're going to get much appreciable gains from lighter rockets.



The 96% number refers to the orange fuel tank. Once you factor in the shuttle, the payload, and rocket engines, it's more like... 94% fuel. Some rockets are 88% fuel, but still only ~2-3% payload. A lighter rocket could mean 10% payload.


I was being kind of sparse in details, sorry.

Having a material that can self support itself into orbit can potentially unlock practical variations of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_rocket

whose main problem is: The simplest design has a pressurised water tank where the water is heated before launch, however, this gives a very low exhaust velocity since the high latent heat of vapourisation means that very little actual steam is produced and the exhaust consists mostly of water, or if high temperatures and pressures are used, then the tank is very heavy.

Although, that would also require the material to be very heat resistant as well. Which might be problematic. Compressed air might also work at that sort of level of material as well. At least for initial launch stages until you need to switch over to another type of propellant (or a more controllable engine).


I thought the Space Shuttle was already primarily a steam rocket. It held liquid oxygen and hydrogen, which was combined, ignited, and the result is high temperature water (steam).

Another way I wondered about, is to have a cold water tank with a nuclear reactor in it. As long as you ignore the safety part of the equation, do the physics work out? That is, would you get more thrust than from recombining hydrogen/oxygen?




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

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

Search: