|
|
|
|
|
|
by nixon_why69
16 days ago
|
|
|
I feel like the whole point is what's most economical/practical. Liquid engines are better than solids on specific impulse, throttling/relighting, this is great if you're going to orbit but solids are better for transport/storage and the downsides are minimal for interceptors or boost-stage for ramjets. What liquid situation changes that? What liquid would be more economical? My instinct is towards minimizing operations outside of the US, keep it simple stupid and just go solid, but could it actually be reasonable to have, say, sealed containers of fuel/oxidizer of whatever type inside the missile and you "pull the pin" to uncap them and start mixing in the ignition chamber? |
|
|
No. The economics really shine if you can mass produce dry engines and then fuel them on site, ideally with locally sourced or even on-based manufactured oxidizer (if you’re going LOX).
Barring that, though, not being limited by AP would make the last comment’s hydrazine path acceptable.