Re: Kerosene vs Hydrogen fuelled SSTO rockets

Date:         13 Feb 97 01:37:40 
From:         redin@lysator.liu.se (Magnus Redin)
Organization: Linköping University, Sweden
References:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
View raw article
  or MIME structure

mlindroo@news.abo.fi (Marcus Lindroos INF) writes:

> However, Boeing's SST had little in common with the Concorde and
> Tu-144. 250-300 passengers vs. 100-150, longer range, cruise at Mach
> 3 rather than Mach 2 etc.. Today, the consensus appears to be that
> the SST was the right size but that the fuel economy would not have
> been good.

There is an intresting benefit with a Mach 3 aeroplane. Less time used
per flight makes it possible to fly more flights per day. It is
significant to be able to use 2/3 of the number of aeroplanes to
transport the same number of customers.

I guess there are two large problems with such an aeroplane.
Enviromental, can it be flow withouth being to noisy and does it
pollute the air to much? Economical and technical, can its fuel costs
be low enough? Perhaps if we ever get cheap and plentiful hydrogen
from nuclear or developed solar power?

Regards,
--
--
Magnus Redin  Lysator Academic Computer Society  redin@lysator.liu.se
Mail: Magnus Redin, Björnkärrsgatan 11 B 20, 584 36 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)13 260046 (answering machine)  and  (0)13 214600