From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.written

"The world's biggest rocket: How SpaceX's new Starship 'V3' differs from
its predecessors"

https://www.space.com/space-exploration/launches-spacecraft/the-worlds-biggest-rocket-how-spacexs-new-starship-v3-differs-from-its-predecessors

rCLStarship V3 will also launch from SpaceX's newest pad, the second the company has erected at its Starbase site in South Texas. The upgraded
hardware is meant to mature Starship's design, moving the vehicle from
test flights toward an operational architecture that can support the
rapid reuse, high flight rates and orbital refueling necessary for
missions like the ones Starship plans to fly for NASA's Artemis program,
which will land astronauts on the moon.rCY

rCLV3 stands about 5 feet (1.5 meters) taller than previous Starship
builds and packs a much heavier punch. Both stages rCoSuper Heavy and Ship
rCo have been equipped with SpaceX's new Raptor 3 engine rCo sleeker, more powerful and more reliable upgrades over the previous Raptor 2. For the
Super Heavy booster, that means 33 engines firing with a combined thrust
of over 18 million pounds at liftoff.rCY

Big sucker. Gonna be a heck of a ride.

Lynn

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.written

On Sat, 16 May 2026 18:17:16 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:

Big sucker. Gonna be a heck of a ride.

Why do we need bigass monster rockets?

Because the rocket equation is a bitch, thatrCOs why.

If only you could use low-thrust, long-running engines from deep in a
gravity well, basically taking your time (hours, days) to reach escape
velocity ...

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP_Aerospace>
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.written

Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On Sat, 16 May 2026 18:17:16 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:

Big sucker. Gonna be a heck of a ride.

Why do we need bigass monster rockets?

Because the rocket equation is a bitch, thatrCOs why.

If only you could use low-thrust, long-running engines from deep in a
gravity well, basically taking your time (hours, days) to reach escape >velocity ...

You don't mean "escape velocity," you mean "escape the gravity well."
Escape velocity has no meaning here.

But, the bad news is that if you take the slow and steady method, when
you integrate over time, the total amount of emergy used is greater.
So to do this, you'd need to have a lot of energy to throw away.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.written

On 5/16/2026 10:59 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

On Sat, 16 May 2026 18:17:16 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:

Big sucker. Gonna be a heck of a ride.

Why do we need bigass monster rockets?

Because the rocket equation is a bitch, thatrCOs why.

If only you could use low-thrust, long-running engines from deep in a
gravity well, basically taking your time (hours, days) to reach escape velocity ...

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP_Aerospace>

Well, that's a new one for me.

Interesting, but very ambitious.

pt
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.written

On 5/17/2026 8:31 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On Sat, 16 May 2026 18:17:16 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:

Big sucker. Gonna be a heck of a ride.

Why do we need bigass monster rockets?

Because the rocket equation is a bitch, thatrCOs why.

If only you could use low-thrust, long-running engines from deep in a
gravity well, basically taking your time (hours, days) to reach escape
velocity ...

You don't mean "escape velocity," you mean "escape the gravity well."
Escape velocity has no meaning here.

But, the bad news is that if you take the slow and steady method, when
you integrate over time, the total amount of emergy used is greater.
So to do this, you'd need to have a lot of energy to throw away.

Or, a method of making your vehicle less dense than the surrounding
air. Which is what they propose.

pt
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.written

Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

On 5/16/2026 10:59 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

If only you could use low-thrust, long-running engines from deep in a
gravity well, basically taking your time (hours, days) to reach escape
velocity ...

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP_Aerospace>

Well, that's a new one for me.

Interesting, but very ambitious.

This method was used in Wibberley's _The Mouse on the Moon_. It has
some efficiency issues but for that matter you could consider the space elevator to be a "slow and steady wins the race" solution as well. But
the space elevator does not need to constantly expend power to keep the
capsule in-place like a rocket does.

Of course we don't have the almost unlimited power of cheap wine that
was available in Grand Fenwick.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.written

On Sun, 17 May 2026 08:31:18 -0400 (EDT), Scott Dorsey wrote:

On Sun, 17 May 2026 02:59:32 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

Why do we need bigass monster rockets?

Because the rocket equation is a bitch, thatrCOs why.

If only you could use low-thrust, long-running engines from deep in
a gravity well, basically taking your time (hours, days) to reach
escape velocity ...

You don't mean "escape velocity," you mean "escape the gravity well."
Escape velocity has no meaning here.

Misunderstanding of physics, much?
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.written

On 5/16/2026 9:59 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

On Sat, 16 May 2026 18:17:16 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:

Big sucker. Gonna be a heck of a ride.

Why do we need bigass monster rockets?

Because the rocket equation is a bitch, thatrCOs why.

If only you could use low-thrust, long-running engines from deep in a
gravity well, basically taking your time (hours, days) to reach escape velocity ...

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP_Aerospace>

Really, all we need to do is find the right wine.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.written

On 5/17/2026 6:46 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

On Sun, 17 May 2026 08:31:18 -0400 (EDT), Scott Dorsey wrote:

On Sun, 17 May 2026 02:59:32 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

Why do we need bigass monster rockets?

Because the rocket equation is a bitch, thatrCOs why.

If only you could use low-thrust, long-running engines from deep in
a gravity well, basically taking your time (hours, days) to reach
escape velocity ...

You don't mean "escape velocity," you mean "escape the gravity well."
Escape velocity has no meaning here.

Misunderstanding of physics, much?

No.

Its true that a 'slow rocket' uses more fuel, because it needs
to support its own weight against gravity every second until it
reaches escape velocity or orbit. That's the failing of 'the
mouse on the moon' scenario.

But, what if you didn't have to supply that support? If you
bother to read the wikipedia article and follow it's links,
you'll find that the scheme here is to raise spacecraft
on balloons as far as possible.

At 145,000 feet the payload is transferred from a launching
balloon to a near-orbital one, which needs to be absolutely
humungous to supply lift up into near-space. Finally, a
smallish rocket gives the push to get into orbit.

I'm skeptical, since a spacecraft will have to be
accelerated to orbital velocity regardless if it starts
on the ground or stationary at a high altitude.

But there's no physics being broken here.

pt
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.written

Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote or quoted:

humungous to supply lift up into near-space. Finally, a
smallish rocket gives the push to get into orbit.
I'm skeptical, since a spacecraft will have to be
accelerated to orbital velocity regardless if it starts
on the ground or stationary at a high altitude.

For a 10,000 kg payload, the potential energy difference to be
overcome to get to a height of 400 kilometers is in the ballpark
of 10^10 Joules and the kinetic energy needed for the orbit then
is like 10^11 Joules. Due to the limited efficiency of rockets you
mentioned this translates to 10^12 Joules for getting up vertically
with a rocket and again about 10^12 Joules to get up to orbit speed.

So, as a very rough first estimate, a balloon lift to 400 kilometers
would save about half the propellant or less, given that real
rockets already start early to get their tangential speed so as to
be more efficient (it is more efficient to accelerate diagonally).

If a balloon would lift a rocket to any height with no
tangential orbit speed, the rocket would start to fall down the
moment the balloon is released, so it might loose some height
while it's trying to accelerate to its tangential orbit speed.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.written

On 5/17/26 18:30, Jay Morris wrote:

On 5/16/2026 9:59 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

On Sat, 16 May 2026 18:17:16 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:

Big sucker.-a Gonna be a heck of a ride.

Why do we need bigass monster rockets?

Because the rocket equation is a bitch, thatrCOs why.

If only you could use low-thrust, long-running engines from deep in a
gravity well, basically taking your time (hours, days) to reach escape
velocity ...

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP_Aerospace>

Really, all we need to do is find the right wine.

There are some VERY nice California Reds that might do the job. I have a
few downstairs right now. Taken on an empty stomach, they will get you
pretty high.
--
----------------

Dave Scruggs
Senior Software Engineer - Lockheed Martin, et. al (mostly Retired)
Captain - Boulder Creek Fire (Retired)
Board of Directors - Boulder Creek Fire Protection District (What was I thinking?)
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.written

In article <rocket-20260518185900@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>,
Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:

Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote or quoted:

humungous to supply lift up into near-space. Finally, a
smallish rocket gives the push to get into orbit.
I'm skeptical, since a spacecraft will have to be
accelerated to orbital velocity regardless if it starts
on the ground or stationary at a high altitude.

For a 10,000 kg payload, the potential energy difference to be
overcome to get to a height of 400 kilometers is in the ballpark
of 10^10 Joules and the kinetic energy needed for the orbit then
is like 10^11 Joules. Due to the limited efficiency of rockets you
mentioned this translates to 10^12 Joules for getting up vertically
with a rocket and again about 10^12 Joules to get up to orbit speed.

So, as a very rough first estimate, a balloon lift to 400 kilometers
would save about half the propellant or less, given that real
rockets already start early to get their tangential speed so as to
be more efficient (it is more efficient to accelerate diagonally).

This gives me an idea. You can save on delta vee by launching from the equator. Now, that only gets a bit less than half a kilometre per
second. All we need to do is spin up the Earth so the equatorial
velocity is a bit less than orbital velocity. Huge mass ratio
savings!
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.written

ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote or quoted:

is like 10^11 Joules. Due to the limited efficiency of rockets you
mentioned this translates to 10^12 Joules for getting up vertically
with a rocket and again about 10^12 Joules to get up to orbit speed.

In the idealized case of a rocket first going up only until it
has reached 400 kilometers and then only accelerating sideways
to get to orbit speed, during the first lift, the fuel for the
second phase also needs to be lifted to 400 km - otherwise the
energy to get the rocket up to 400 km would actually be /less/
than the energy needed for orbit.

On October 13, 2021, William Shatner experienced a pure vertical
lifting with no sideways orbit speed to a height of 107 kilometers.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2