Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: FlamingCobra on October 10, 2011, 04:46:08 pm
-
I know the title of this thread is "Non-Rocket Spacelaunch," but we're going to talk about the space elevator before we do anything else.
Right now, there are three possible materials we could make a tether with:
- Diamond
- Carbon Nanotubes
- Graphene
IMHO, all of them would be terribly hard to produce on such a large scale. Especially graphene, since it is one layer of atoms thin.
I've conversed with this british guy who started the space colonization wiki and he came up with this idea:
Our current technologies are unable to provide materials that would be strong enough to build a space elevator on Earth, the gravity here is just too strong, though carbon nanotubes have proved strong enough to fullfil the theoretical requirements. But imagine what happens when you have two (or more) bar magnets. If you place the two "north" poles of the bar magnets together, they try to repel each other. If we made a space elevator piecemeal, using alternately repelling bar magnet principles, would some of the weight of our space elevator be taken on by the electromagnetic field, meaning that we could actually build a space elevator with the materials and technologies we currently have? We could power these magnets using space solar power attached to the end of our elevator.
I don't know if this would work. It just seems too easy. And, if it would, I feel like the idea would have already been thought up and it would already be on wikipedia and.... otherwise discussed.
Um... yeah.... so..... what do you guys think?
-
At current tech, we can't build a Space Elevator.
We can, however, build a Skyramp (http://www.g2mil.com/skyramp.htm), which is where I personally think we should be focussing our efforts for Reusable Launch.
-
Um... yeah.... so..... what do you guys think?
I think you missed your calling. You should be out in the desert chasing a large flightless bird. :p
-
No. It would not work.
I'm sorry for not giving an elaborate explosion but I'm laughing too hard
-
One of these days Alice...one of these days, bam, zoom, straight to the moon!
-
I suppose we can't expect that to work.
He has a degree in psychology
this is what I came up with:
Regular, every day rockets are used to blast material and parts and stuff from different countries into space to assemble a space platform in very low Earth orbit (much lower than the ISS). Because it is in such a low orbit, it will lose altitude very quickly. That's where VASIMR thrusters come in. They should already be equipped on the ISS by the time this project begins. VASIMR thrusters will reduce the need to keep blasting fuel into space so the platform can stay in orbit. As long as the platform is close enough to the Earth, it should be able to siphon hydrogen atoms off of the upper layer of the Earth's atmosphere and use it in the VASIMR thrusters.
To get power to the platform, the ISS will be put to good use. Power collected by the ISS will be beamed to the platform via microwaves. So basically, now there is a reason to keep that hunk of junk up there besides for research.
Attached to the platform will be an every day, run-of-the-mill, conventional, made-with-today's-technology crane. Hooked to the crane will be a box with a door.
Hot-helium blimps or zeppelins carry cargo from the ground to way way way up in the atmosphere to within the crane's reach. Then, the blimps or zeppelins (depending on how much cargo is being carried) unload their cargo into the box. The crane then hauls the box back up out of the Earth's atmosphere and into space. Then, the cargo is used for whatever purpose. Assemble something right there on the platform, or sling it to the moon with a mass driver, or whatever.
So, except for the hot-helium blimp part, this could be done with today's technology. But it shouldn't be too hard to figure out how to heat the helium inside a blimp without the helium escaping.
So would that work?
At current tech, we can't build a Space Elevator.
We can, however, build a Skyramp (http://www.g2mil.com/skyramp.htm), which is where I personally think we should be focussing our efforts for Reusable Launch.
At our current tech level can we build a mass driver/startram?
-
One of these days Alice...one of these days, bam, zoom, straight to the moon!
I lol'ed. Excellent reference.
OT: Honestly, the first thing that we need, as a species, is a goal. Regardless of how we get there, we need to decide why we want to go back to the moon. I believe we should go there to exploit resources and establish the presence of the aerospace industry as a stepping-stone for our push to colonize and research the rest of our solar system. Other people might have different goals.
As for a space elevator: no. Just...no, not right now. We're going to have to dedicate willpower and a lot of funding to R&D if we want to get off this rock.
-
Now you know! (http://www.howstuffworks.com/space-elevator.htm)
-
Stephen Hawking says we have only 100 more years to get off this rock or we're ****ed.
Go back to the moon for helium-3.
-
At current tech, we can't build a Space Elevator.
We can, however, build a Skyramp (http://www.g2mil.com/skyramp.htm), which is where I personally think we should be focussing our efforts for Reusable Launch.
after reading some of that sight im actually kinda liking this kinda launch (http://www.g2mil.com/tunnel-launch.htm). also there is also the lofstrom loop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_loop), which looks a little far fetched but might work.
-
At current tech, we can't build a Space Elevator.
We can, however, build a Skyramp (http://www.g2mil.com/skyramp.htm), which is where I personally think we should be focussing our efforts for Reusable Launch.
At our current tech level can we build a mass driver/startram?
Don't need one, read the site. The initial thrust could be provided by jet turbines (http://www.g2mil.com/jet.htm).
-
Two words:
Space Cannon.
-
Stephen Hawking says we have only 100 more years to get off this rock or we're ****ed.
Go back to the moon for helium-3.
Tsiolkovsky said, "The Earth is the cradle of humanity, but mankind cannot stay in the cradle forever. "
-
Two words:
Space Cannon.
The G-forces would kill humans.
-
Indeed, but it'd work for cargo that doesn't need delicate handling (which means everything you'd trust Polish Mail with :)).
-
I... I don't understand.
-
Polish Mail has a reputation of not threating packages too well, "Fragile" designation or not. Space Cannon would be a great cargo delivery system when G-forces are not an issue (in case of though cargo like building materials). The joke was about that if something is though enough to be sent via Polish Mail, it's though enough to be launched from a Space Cannon.
-
Oh...
They taught us next to nothing about Europe in pretty much all my social studies classes.
-
I wanted to put U.S. Mail there (it has similar reputation, from what I've heard), but then I remembered I'm from Poland. :)
-
ANYWAY...... the title of the thread is non-rocket spacelaunch.
skyramp involves rockets.
-
Now, it may be a tad ignorant to say, because there's always a new innovation to be had...
But you're not getting anything off this rock without some form of propulsive force. And because your space elevator is generally inviable, the fact is that you need flight systems that can boost themselves into space at some level. The question then becomes, "how can one do this more efficiently?" Non-rocket spacelaunch as a thread title be damned. How do you make a better system?
Now, the tube launch isn't a bad concept, giving the flight vehicle that extra initial velocity, thus reducing a good fraction of the fuel wasted in the zero-speed phases of launch. BUT, the infrastructure would be difficult to maintain, and your lauch vehicles would be limited by the configuration of the launch system. In short, it's a short-term, novelty system with fairly limited application.
Actually, if you want to reduce the fuel consumption on the ground from a secondary catapult system, a steam catapult is interesting to at least consider. The technology is also very well vindicated. However, it should also be noted that the USN has been involved with the development of new electromagnetic launch systems, as seen here (http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2011/10/03/New-carrier-launch-system-tested/UPI-13601317652464/).
"Lightcraft," very UFO-ey looking ship concepts, using intense heat from a ground source to generate propulsive thrust, are most interesting. They combine my new love of aerospike nozzle shapes with... well, nerdy engineering stuff that I just cant put to words. And the list goes on.
The fact is simple, efficient space flight cannot be achieved until you have a space flight system which can easily tranist from the ground to orbit. That said, I'm quite certain that spaceplanes will be the future for SSTO flight, while true space ships have yet to evolve for deep space flight. I suppose Apollo was the closest we've seen of the latter thus far, if the space stations are not considered.
-
skyramp involves rockets.
No offense intended, but I feel that a 'your mom' joke would fit in perfectly here.
-
ANYWAY...... the title of the thread is non-rocket spacelaunch.
I was this close to abusing mod powers and making a liar out of you here. :p That said, this is HLP. We have heard of on-topic threads, but I don't think anyone's ever actually seen one, much less been in one.
Thaeris: I don't see how the skyramp/tunnel launch infrastructure would be harder to maintain than existing rocket launch infrastructure, especially given that, thanks to mining, we're actually pretty damned good with deep tunnel engineering these days. And while you do have a sort of a point about limited configurations, we're already dealing with that with the limitations imposed by rockets.
Noone's saying the ramp/tunnel is the best possible system, but it's important because it's significantly better than what we have now, imposes no new limitations, and it relies on zero new technology - it could literally be started tomorrow. I don't think there's a single alternative, except more and bigger inefficient rockets, that can claim those key factors.
-
ANYWAY...... the title of the thread is non-rocket spacelaunch.
I was this close to abusing mod powers and making a liar out of you here. :p That said, this is HLP. We have heard of on-topic threads, but I don't think anyone's ever actually seen one, much less been in one.
Thaeris: I don't see how the skyramp/tunnel launch infrastructure would be harder to maintain than existing rocket launch infrastructure, especially given that, thanks to mining, we're actually pretty damned good with deep tunnel engineering these days. And while you do have a sort of a point about limited configurations, we're already dealing with that with the limitations imposed by rockets.
Noone's saying the ramp/tunnel is the best possible system, but it's important because it's significantly better than what we have now, imposes no new limitations, and it relies on zero new technology - it could literally be started tomorrow. I don't think there's a single alternative, except more and bigger inefficient rockets, that can claim those key factors.
A quick though on size limitation would it be better to use a form of linear induction, allowing for a launcher with no walls or roof that could launch a load of any shape or size so long as the device is able to overcome the weight/drag of the launch vehicle and payload?
-
I say we break out the jet-powered rocket pants! This excellent and innovative plan only has two minor drawbacks..
-
I say we break out the jet-powered rocket pants! This excellent and innovative plan only has two minor drawbacks..
you got enough beans?
-
At current tech, we can't build a Space Elevator.
We can, however, build a Skyramp (http://www.g2mil.com/skyramp.htm), which is where I personally think we should be focussing our efforts for Reusable Launch.
Actually, you are incorrect. We have the technological capability to build space elevators on Mars just fine.
-
you probably dont need them on mars, just build a liner accelerator up the side of olympus mons. that would probibly be powerful enough and long enough (and the air is thin enough) to make escape velocity. on the other hand the fuel requirements to leave mars are not all that bad, provided you can make enough fuel with the resources on mars.
-
Thaeris: I don't see how the skyramp/tunnel launch infrastructure would be harder to maintain than existing rocket launch infrastructure, especially given that, thanks to mining, we're actually pretty damned good with deep tunnel engineering these days. And while you do have a sort of a point about limited configurations, we're already dealing with that with the limitations imposed by rockets.
Noone's saying the ramp/tunnel is the best possible system, but it's important because it's significantly better than what we have now, imposes no new limitations, and it relies on zero new technology - it could literally be started tomorrow. I don't think there's a single alternative, except more and bigger inefficient rockets, that can claim those key factors.
A quick though on size limitation would it be better to use a form of linear induction, allowing for a launcher with no walls or roof that could launch a load of any shape or size so long as the device is able to overcome the weight/drag of the launch vehicle and payload?
I don't think so. Most (all?) rockets that we launch right now would fit inside the proposed tunnel, minus the first stage. The other thing to consider is that the writer of the site that Black Wolf linked actually suggests that because a launch tunnel would be done long before any "space plane" design, it could initially be done with the current Atlas rockets minus the now unnecessary first stage.
Also keep in mind that a launch tunnel would use a sabot which would allow for any shape of craft to be launched so if we develop a better, more efficient shape after some practice at it well it just means that the system will be cheaper. At that, we already live with the limitations of current launch technology to assemble things like the ISS. The components of the ISS, if I am not mistaken, are all less than 5 meters in diameter (about the width of an average lane of a road). We are currently able to construct tunnels almost four times that diameter (apparently the largest tunnel boring machine (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tunnel_boring_machine&oldid=455032952) is 19.25m), so I really doubt having the free space for whatever design is going to be an major issue for the first few tunnel launchers.
To be honest, my primary concern with the launch tunnel is how often the lining is going to need to replaced, which I understood (I can't find reference to it on the wikipedia pages) to be an issue with Project Bablyon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Babylon) and Project HARP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_HARP), though they were explosive based and not pneumatic.
-
tbms lign the tunnel with prefab concrete sections as they progress. these sections would likely be easy to replace as they wear out. you could probibly manufacture the sections with a thick layer of plastic or other material that protects the concrete from damage. i also dont see why the piston needs to grind against the wall. you could attach guide wheels on a radial suspension around the sides of the piston to eliminate friction leaving a small gap between the piston and the wall. wheels could also be steered for roll control through the tunnel and be equipped with breaks to limit the acceleration to be safe for human launch (if neccisary). then use a heavy rubber (steel reinforced) seal to prevent pressure loss through this gap. id actually avoid a sabot, and integrate the rocket support structure into the piston itself. explosive bolts would then separate the piston from the rocket right after it clears the tube and just before the rocket engines fire. the piston would then fall harmlessly into the ground or into a body of water so that it can be recovered and reused. the piston would be a fairly beefy steel structure and could probably be parachuted down safely.
-
Actually, you are incorrect. We have the technological capability to build space elevators on Mars just fine.
To realistically claim you have the capability of building something somewhere, you first have to demonstrate the ability to actually go to that place. As for Mars, sure in theory we have the technology to reach it with a manned mission. It provides a huge technical and engineering challenge and the mission would be pretty high risk. So we're not doing it.. yet.
In short, my point is, you're claiming that we can build something that's a huge engineering and logistical challenge on it's own, and you say we can do it on a place we can, in theory, barely reach? It's nice to dream every now and again, but it's been my honest observation that your theories need a reality check :)