Scramjets !!!! It works

From: ANTIcarrot [mailto:dante.feditech@...]

" And on the other hand we have rockets which have worked for
decades, are easy to build and do not require optimisation of the rest of
the vehicle in order to merely function - let alone produce useful thrust.
"

There *are* reasons to favour some of the newer approaches. The first is
that a Scramjet first stage -- or even a `normal' jet first stage, such as
Scaled Composites' `White Knight' lifter for `SpaceShipOne' -- can provide
Cheaper Access To Space (CATS), which has been a * very reasonable* goal
from the beginning. (Old-style rockets might be "easy to build", but that
doesn't mean they'll cost less than a new, better, more efficient system.
ELV vs. RLV) Second -- and much more important, I would think --we have to
talk about safety. The cryogenic fuels used in the rockets you favour --
and in the Shuttle -- are very expensive to store *and* to create, and very
dangerous. `Challenger' blew up during launch, because the cryogenic
fuel/oxidizer combination it used was extremely explosive. And `Columbia'
disintegrated in mid-air during an attempted landing, because the cryogenic
nature of it's fuel/oxidizer mix created massive pieces of ice, which came
off the ET during launch (possibly carrying pieces of insulation with
them?), that damaged the heat-shielding tiles. Neither of these tragedies
would have occurred using the Scramjet technology of the X-43, or the system
Scaled Composites demonstrated *can* reach space.

There's a line between using `what works' -- and switching to what's better.
I understand the more conservative viewpoint, but the old, cryo-fueled ELVs
need to go away, as quickly as possible, especially for manned launches.
Just IMO, of course...

Dave