|
|
|
|
|
|
by 7952
3335 days ago
|
|
|
The difference to a conventional rocket is that you have more fuel left at 28 km up. A vertical launch rocket with this kind of engine would also have much of the same benefit. And with none of the extra weight, complexity, and cost of wings, landing gear etc. And that first stage could be reusable based on the SpaceX model. So why not use the extra fuel to increase payload or have a reusable second stage? This could reduce costs for conventional launch companies, and make Skylon less viable. The projections would have to make assumptions about development costs. That seems rather hard to predict with any accuracy. Especially considering how revolutionary every part of the craft would need to be. |
|
|
> And that first stage could be reusable based on the SpaceX model.
Do you see a contradiction in these statements?