Not many have, though I've posted them up a few times while ranting at people about excessive expectations with alternative energy and/or space travel. Google 'energy density' if you're interested in more.




Aerodynamics is definitely a factor but that whole game changes once you get up above around 35,000 feet, which is about 1 minute into a shuttle launch IIRC. Keep in mind that a spear, the basic design for rockets and missile, is basically a cylinder, and spears, arrows, etc have been used for millenia because the desing is fairly aerodynamic.




Well, that's the problem, the list of constraining factors isn't enormous at all and we really can't do better if we really wanted to. A rocket is a pretty simple device using a principal the same as a kettle really, which is why I mentioned it. We need a better fuel, or we need better robots, that's why I'm always cynical whenever anyone on the site gets nostalgic for moon landings. With chemical rockets the only way to go further is to go bigger, we've basically maxed out that tech and now just make little semi-related improvements. With a kettle over a fire, if you want to boil water faster your only option is to make a kettle out of a material that can handle more heat, the tech's basically maxed out for any major improvement, along comes a microwave where you can basically blow massive amounts of power directly into the water without the container having to absorb and release it first, so it's faster because it uses a different way of getting the energy into the water. We can't go much further with chemical rockets, because basic chemistry puts some restrictions on how much energy a chemical reaction can produce per mass, our rocket design is already about as good as it gets, it's our fuel that's the limiting factor.