shynung

In that case, higher density fuels is at an advantage. For the same fuel mass, less tankage is required, freeing space for payloads or other systems.

Coal-water slurry is much denser than liquid hydrogen (more fuel can be stored in the same tank capacity; water's density alone is 1000 kg/m3 compared to LH2's 70, CWS would be higher), and much safer to handle (not only liquid hydrogen is a deeply-cryogenic liquid, it also forms dangerous explosives in the gaseous form at a wide range of concentrations). The latter also has a peculiar property: it boils, molecule by molecule, off the tank it's in, and cannot be stored indefinitely. Plus, slurrying the coal with a hydrocarbon rather than fuel should kick up it's total energy density.

Burn rate can be adjusted through different particle sizes. It boils down to the mesh screen used when manufacturing the powdered coal to be slurried. Smaller particles usually means faster combustion, but negatively affects the production capacity. Though, I'm also concerned about the injector design needed for this kind of fuel. Since it's a particulate colloid, it could be rather abrasive.

I recently read about a liquid fuel obtained by finely crushing coal and suspending it in water, resulting in something called a coal-water slurry: Considering that: Is it possible for a form of coal/charcoal-water slurry to be used as fuel in an (1) aircraft-mounted turbine gas engines, or (2) liquid-fueled rocket, using either LOX, N2O, or N2O4 as oxidizer? If so, what are the fuel mixture composition likely to be used in each scenario?

I should point out that literacy in North Korea is defined by the ability to write, in Korean, the name 'Kim Il Sung'. I do agree, though, that knowledge about technology, even a little, can give us quite a head start compared to our ancestors if we are ever to rebuild society from scratch.

Aquarius rocket. Cheapskate thing for launching food, fuel, and duct tapes, that can blow itself up 1 out of 3 times without breaking the bank. SSTO, too.

It's not only that, but also the high per-passenger cost that brought her down. It takes a lot of energy to get anything going beyond the sound barrier, no matter what we power them with. The Air France Concorde crash from the DC-10 junk was the last drop in a cup already full.

It'll probably net you a few dozens of .303s, for the high explosives alone. They may not be the perfect material for all purposes, but dynamite sticks can be used for various things.

Most of the Shuttle orbiter's parts are designed to be used several times from the onset, including the heat shield. Compared to the orbiter itself, the external tank and solid rocket boosters are mere dumb aluminium tanks. So, it's more like losing some of the body panels every time the Ferrari is driven. Unfortunately, true to the analogy, a Ferrari is still a Ferrari. Replacement parts for the orbiter are expensive, especially the individually-installed, specially-arranged heat shield (some of them even have odd shapes), along with the SSMEs. In the end, that keeps the launch costs of the Shuttle high, despite being reusable.

They won't even have to pay; NASA are generally open about the research data they have.

They've got a thing or two against Chinese ethnic groups, but not much else. They are pretty quick to anger though; the first thing they do if something goes haywire is to start blaming each other. The military, however, had been rather relaxed, ever since the 2004 earthquake wiped Aceh out. Not much happened ever since.

Not nuclear weapons, no. But space launch vehicles are pretty close to ICBMs. Early launch vehicles were converted missiles, in fact.

I think this book here will give you plenty of insight on the matter.

That's why it was on the poll.

Prepare to be even more amazed. This is, after all, a community of armchair scientists that have played KSP. And yeah, something like this should probably need a more formal organization.

In that case, we might as well do a combined balloon-rocket test similar to the one NASA used to test the LDSD, just on a higher apoapsis.

If we use test rockets, we would get field experience in launch vehicles. We're starting to design a deep-space vehicle here, so I don't think much of what we get from a model rocket would be relevant. And yes, some tests would probably need vacuum chambers or high-altitude balloons, but I just don't see why we should do a model-rocket testing. Unless we make our own launch vehicle from scratch. But that's another story entirely, and one which is likely to be beyond our funds.

No need for a rocket for that; we can test these on the ground. If specific testing requirements are needed, then make a rig to test it on, or find someone who has such a device and ask to use theirs.

Why bother with a pocketcube spacecraft if it's not going to space? Just slap the sensors and computers to the model rocket, and launch it as usual. That said, I think we should go further than LEO. If we can somehow get a ride to GTO, we're halfway to anywhere. BTW, more badass version of (misquoted) Kennedy speech: <--might be good for Kickstarter frontpage

Let's just hope the CubeSat 3U has enough struts to do the job.

Sir, you're trying to falsify a dubious claim with another. I do not see how you might prove the original claim wrong. That said, I'd rather not eat pigs that had human remains as part of its meal. Sounds a lot like Soylent Green.

Space Systems/Loral's LS-1300 spacecraft bus (upon which Sirius' Radiosat 1 is built) fits in a 4-meter fairing. There's an extended version, which fits in a 5-meter fairing. Here's the list of satellites using that bus.

Mmm, a 'Craft Exchange', with subforums like 'Space', 'Land', 'Water', and 'Air'?

Sirius Satellite Radio's Radiosat 1 and SES' Astra 3B weighs about 3.8 metric tons and 5.5 metric tons, respectively. A GPS Block IIR weighs about 2 tons on the pad, 1 in orbit.

Unfortunately, that's also a [citation needed].