Skip to content

Comment on British aerospace company claims biggest engine advance since the jetparent

Comments

A tank's weight is proportional to volume, not surface area, assuming equal pressure and material strength.

The weight of a full tank, yes.

The weight of an empty tank, no. An empty tank is mostly a shell, and the size of that shell corresponds to area.

Also, you often can't just simply stretch tanks - you need to increase thrust. Otherwise your payload drops because of lower T/W and more gravity losses in early flight.

I am assuming that Elon Musk's 5-10% estimate takes things like this into account.

Incidentally "early flight" in this case is very early. At the ground, oxygen levels are a bit over 20%. But as you go up, oxygen drops off faster than nitrogen, so oxygen intake falls off slower than drag. At some point you'll gain nothing. I do not know what that point is, but the oxygen/nitrogen level is part of why it is most efficient for commercial airlines to fly at around 9 km high. So it is really just a few km that you get a potential benefit. But your top speed at that moment is a pretty small fraction of what you need to get to orbit.

Nope, the shell. In a bigger tank (similar material and pressure) the shell has to be thicker. It's mathematically trivial.

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.