Bankers: “are we still going to be rich after?”

Zurich District Court: “a tuppence for the poor sir?”

Bankers: “here! Now begone before you start reminding me of poor people.”

Thank you, you are correct. Was up very late and writing absentmindedly. With your correct though, it still backs up above posters point.

Efficient as in reducing the overall weight of a rocket to overcome materials physical limits. Am I wrong in thinking that bigger isn’t always better, the same way insects do not reciprocate the same damage as an elephant from falling from relative heights. I imagine though that the balloons, no matter the capacity of weight they would negate, would need to be detached within the first minute once the acceleration of the rocket out paced their natural lift. Again, minutely more efficient, but not worth the engineering/cost effectiveness.

So it would be minutely more efficient at getting larger payloads up, but is not currently cost effective basically?

That’s something interesting I’ve never really thought about. A good example though as the polar is water will boil off in space with much lower temperatures, similar to how a pressure cooker reduces waters boiling point.

It would be interesting to know what different reactions takes place in the body to cause the different outcomes.