If we are to ever seriously build an interstellar, or even intra system ships with any efficiency, we are going to need a spaceyard- a platform, or station in orbit where we can build without wasting incredible amounts of fuel and materials, just to leave orbit. Now in relation, I was thinking about how we can get materials/whatever into orbit in a much less costly manner.
In Red Mars, they pull an asteroid into geosync orbit, and from materials in the asteroid, made a loooong cable that reached to the ground. There may have been a counterweight, but I don't think that would work well from that height.
I have also read (scifi of course) of platforms that were built to that incredible height. Perhaps there is a way to combine the two, as neither is very feasible in itself, imho.
Are there any other ideas out there, or improvements to these?

Cretin101010

Well it's interesting about using these methods, allow me to
ask you to try an experiment when you finish with it tell me how you think then, ok.


materials: stainless steel 3x5 tray withflanges to retain fluid.(mercury)
flange is to be 3mm H.

one 60 cc of pure mercury.
2 x 12" 14 awg wire insulated.
Frequency generator 2g / omega
ice pack or controled tempreture enclosure.

building instructions.

solder one wire to steel 3x5 and connect end to generator lead
place steel 3x5 into temperature controled enviroment or ice pack
pour the mercury keeping it evenly leveled.place other lead on top
of mercury but not allowing it to go to the bottom.
when mercury hardens begin applying frequency starting with 5+v
at 2g Hz slowly increment the frequency and observe what happens.
if properly constructed you would have acheved Anti- Gravity in your lab.
also for a more interesting result please contact me.

Originally posted by FRAMPITO
Well it's interesting about using these methods, allow me to
ask you to try an experiment when you finish with it tell me how you think then, ok.


materials: stainless steel 3x5 tray withflanges to retain fluid.(mercury)
flange is to be 3mm H.

one 60 cc of pure mercury.
2 x 12" 14 awg wire insulated.
Frequency generator 2g / omega
ice pack or controled tempreture enclosure.

building instructions.

solder one wire to steel 3x5 and connect end to generator lead
place steel 3x5 into temperature controled enviroment or ice pack
pour the mercury keeping it evenly leveled.place other lead on top
of mercury but not allowing it to go to the bottom.
when mercury hardens begin applying frequency starting with 5+v
at 2g Hz slowly increment the frequency and observe what happens.
if properly constructed you would have acheved Anti- Gravity in your lab.
also for a more interesting result please contact me.

Very interesting! I dont have the means of constructing the experiment, please explain how it looks and works.

Methods for cheaper launch are already being experimented with. Witness the X-33 which was a plane to space concept, reducing the price considerably from the disposable rocket boosters.

Also is the laser launch system. This is now being tested in model size in the desert. It uses a laser to shine upwards into a small model of the general design of a saucer. The idea of it is to shine into a chamber in the bottom of the model. This creates plasma within the chamber, which leaves through nozzle ports around the perimeter of the model. The problems are that we do not have a laser of sufficient size to do an actual launch. The model tears up from excessive velocity and has stability problems. But it is feasible.

Originally posted by wet1
... The model tears up from excessive velocity and has stability problems. But it is feasible.

Wet1,

In the most recent tests I am aware of, the team has used models that have holes bored through the axis as well as holes bored perpendicular to the axix. The hole in the axis allows the laser light to pass through the model and vaporize the air ahead of the model. This creates a vacuum that actually provides lift as well as reducing air resistance and thereby damage to the model.

The holes perpendicular to the access are being tested from the standpoint of allowing computer control to open and close them as need for guidance. If a hole is opened perpendicular to the model during flight, the air is vaporized in the direction of the hole, causing a vacuum and a pull in that direction. This would give you the possibility of control.

G'day all, they sound like a couple of good ideas there, my opinion is there will be a number of competing ideas in production soon.

I like carbon nanotube structures and the space elevator.

Did you know we have started building a 1km high tower in Mildura Australia to provide a power source?

Only 120 more ks to reach space and 6000 for a geostationary ;)

The late Gerald Bull proposed the idea of "firing" payloads into orbit before his untimely death. In fact it is largely held by many, that Dr. Bull would have successfully put a variety of satellites and equipment into earth orbit if the United States Government would have backed his research into this very promising field.

The main advantage of putting payloads into orbit is the simplicity of the design, as well as the low cost. Besides there being far fewer components to fail during launch, the cost of supplying the main thrust energy is far less than that of a conventional rocket engine. Reliabilty is also a major factor, since the launch mechanism itself (the super gun) would be far more reliable than any chemical propulsion vehicle that has been developed to date. Dr. Bull had many forward looking ideas for his super guns. I believe that he had even envisioned a way to launch people into orbit as well.

<img src="http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sfigs/Sharpgun.jpg">


Dr. Bull was actively working toward these ideas, and I believe that he would have etched a very postive name for himself in Aerospace history, if he hadn't ran afoul of Corporate money and dirty politicians.

Unfortunately without the USA government as a primary backer, he did seek investment monies from Iraq, to further his promising research. I am saddened at his untimely death and the suspicious circumstances surrounding it. I believe that if the competing Aerospace companies had not influenced the politicians (lawmakers) of the USA, then Dr. Bull would have recieved the necessary financial backing for his research. In fact, as I watch the money trail of Congress, it isn't very difficult to to take a "God's Eye" perspective & see what goes on "behind closed doors."

Rumor has it that Iraq could have used the big gun to send bio terror towards Israel. Some one capped him before he can finish it up. I saw it in TLC, but do not remember if it was a magnetic gun principle.

Unless, we find a cheaper way to put millions of pounds in space, forget interstellar travel. My feeling is that one of these days we will find a way to teleport matter to space, which will go around the gravity issue (unless someone finds a way to nullify gravity which looks daunting with present science).

In the meantime magnetic gun sounds good, so does some type of tether system...

How much force one needs to send 100,000 pounds of load to geo-synch orbit? If I have a gadget that provides a constant force, what minimum force I need, even if it takes 5 hours to reach the top?

Conventional explosives were used in Bull's designs.

Pro. Max Arturo
You are referring to the Canadian HARP project for upper atmospheric studies.

<a href=http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Smartlet.htm><font color=RED> The Harp Project</font></a>

interesting ideas from above...but surely using a huge gun...with undoubtedly massive amounts of tnt..would just shatter whatever sits in the barrel....im talking huge velocity..put against the satellite...surely it would suffer some damage...let alone placing human cargo in the barrel....no thanks...more like scrammble egg job there...why not try using helium balloon on a huge scale...carry the load to high alttiude....then release the payload....and use a final small rocket to place in orbit...surely this is doing things on the cheap side!!what do u guys think on this one...

why not try using helium balloon on a huge scale

This could work on a small scale at least. Has anyone the numbers on the atmospheric pressure and weight of helium at different pressures?

I mean: - How high could a large helium balloon (approximately 1000 cubic meters at 1 atmosphere preasure -sea level-) carry a payload of approximately 1 ton?

Also, the balloon has to be very elastic due to the expansion of the helium at a greater altitude.

the idea of building an "elevator" to space has been around for a while, but is not feasible with current materials because simply put the combined mass of the "elevator" would be to great (structurally impossible to stay supported)....

However, new research into organic (carbon) nano-tubes polymerized in a particular fashion would completely revolutionize materials design, and this problem as well.

ONE HUGE repelling magnet? sorry. just feeling silly....please continue...:D

There is another problem with the tensile strenght of materials. At present we just can not make them strong enough.

One of the thoughts is that you need a counter weight to maintain the elevator taunt. This is usually pictured as a small asteroid or something of sufficent mass to do the job and put into syncronsis orbit relative to the ground where the elevator is based. The stress upon the elevator from this mass overcomes the strenght of any material we can yet manufacture.

A Single body space craft would be a good start. For some reason
I don't like the elevator or balloon concept. To limited and rigid.
The real problem right now is that 98% of the weight of a space
craft is fuel.

To quickly solve this problem, I see combination of a 2 kilometers
magnetic acceleration track, combine with a laser driven engine
to get past mach 7, and then engage onboard scamjet engine to
get to orbit at full velocity, get back to earth, fill the small fuel
thank and get on the track a couple hours later if needed. This is
full reusability, flexibility, performance and low cost in the same
package.

With the space craft on the magnetic track, you can reach some
serious speed without friction on the track itself with relatively
low G acceleration. When your off the track, the ground based
laser beam is activated to push you from track launch speed to
mach 7 where the scam jet take the relay to achieve the desired
orbit velocity.

The only resources needed onboard would be a small amount of
propellant to power the scamjet, oxidant is taken directly from
atmosphere and initial acceleration is provided by electromagnet
on the track and laser on the ground. The payload/fuel ratio
would then be greatly improved. The maintenance and operating
cost would be greatly reduced, mainly because most of the
energy required would be ''offboard'', which is a 1000 times more
efficient procedure. Maintaining and operating a magnetic track
and a laser is far less costly than many other concept. Scamjet
has no moving part so very low maintance needed.

All the technology involved here are within reach. We know it
work, we only need an other 5 to 10 years to polish it to make it
reliable. Can't wait for my fisrt space flight in 2015 !

After we reach 100% payload/fuel weight ratio (no fuel on board),
the next and final step will be to get anti-gravity device to lift
insane mass to space at will. But this is an other story...

Steph

The electromagnetic rail gun may well become reality. In this idea, there is a very long electromagnetic rail that is a lot like magnetic levitation trains which are presently being used all over the world. With the rail gun, a capsule of sorts would be gradually accelerated to tremendous speeds before leaving out and speeding through the atmosphere into orbit. The nice thing about this idea is that the G-force load on the equipment payload and (or) passengers could be controlled so as not to crush the human or equipment payload. From orbit, the payload could either be boosted to any orbital height with small onboard rockets or ion engines, or be accelerated into deep space if necessary.

The project Harp (Gerald Bull) gun idea could be feasible if the payload was accelerated in explosive stages along the theoretically huge gun barrel. I recall reading something like that in some of the proposed theoretical designs. Basically, there would be explosive charges that would be detonated at various stages along the gun barrel. As the capsule (bullet) passed certain points, another explosive charge would be detonated. This would continue successively so as to increase barrel pressure, and therefore capsule velocity.

With both ideas however, there is still a problem with excessive atmospheric pressures and therefore temperatures. I suppose this heat problem would be something that could be overcome since the space shuttle routinely travels at similar speeds, though not at the lower altitudes.

Either way would be extremely cost effective in comparison to Space Shuttle Launches. I have often heard that either system would cost a mere fraction of today's conventional rocket systems. This would set aside far more money for NASA to build space stations, launch satellites, send exploratory probes to other planets, or to even build some kind of permanently space based craft, like the Enterprise.

Wouldn't the moon work just as well? With no gravity, and an enviable amount of surface space, it would be a perfect base of operations for launching. Also consider that at any given time any point on the light side of the moon is facing some part of Earth, perfect for communications. It is a very hospitable environment for any kind of human habitation, but would suffice as a launching point.

Teg,

Maybe I misunderstand. The reason for an asteroid is for an anchor point, as a beanstalk can not just stand on it's own.

The topic was basically how to get out of earth's gravity well by some means other than chemical rocket boosters. The boosters are extremely expensive and make sending something up like the ISS a project that no one country wants to strap their GNP to do. If the cost per pound could be reduced to a few hundred dollars or less to put an object into orbit a lot would be possible that isn't today due to economics. If the cost per pound were say $5 per pound, (I realize that is not a practical figure) then some of today’s businesses and corporations could afford to expand and make their products in space where it would be cost effective and better control and quality could be obtained than can be here on earth with it's gravity as a problem. Also energy could be obtained at a cheaper cost than what we now have to ante up for to help pay for the manufacturing costs when you purchase a product from a store.

I was only suggesting that the moon would have all the benifits without the work of dragging an asteriod into Earth's orbit, which if significantly large enough might change the rotation of the Earth by affecting our tides.

I see your point.

I have long been a supporter of the idea of using the moon for an initial base.

The only problem with the moon is that it is not geosyncronsis. It does not remain fixed over one point of the planet, which would be necessary if it is to serve as an anchor point. I am sure that you are correct that it would have some additional drag in the earth through tidal action but I would think that the mass of the asteroid would be small compared to the moon. I will do some looking later as all this as been figured already, maybe I can come up with a link to give you an idea of the size that is being mentioned.

I don't think Teg was at all talking about usaing the moon as an anchor point... the discussion so far has talked about a number of ideas, not all of which were the "big tower - asteroid anchor" idea...

I think (from simply reading) that he means that the moon would just be a good base.... with very low gravity launching vehicles would be easier.

which doesnt exactly account for getting fuel, or payloads to the moon, which is basically what the problem is, how to get things from earth to orbit.... more efficiently

I quite agree with Teg that a moon base would be the way to go. A place for gathering resocures, doing astromincal work, and putting a fine edge on our present level of technology.

As [f] made mention it is getting there that is the problem. (with equipment and supplies)

Once there it would merely be a matter of setting up "camp" and then proceeding with the business at hand.

take as little as possible and get your materials from space, moon, asteroids etc. how much would it cost to get 10 tons of rock to the moon versus mining it there

I agree that the a solid moonbase is probably our ticket for further space exploration: Raw materials, Low gravity.

Most of the proposes exotic transport solutions, whether it be guns, rockets, (s)ramjets, ion/electro motors, thethers, beanstalks etc. simply are more possible and cheaper to build on the moon.

While the initial costs for a fully fledged industrial moonbase are VERY high it would pay-off as the moonbase starts to support itselve and no longer material from earth needs to be send in, the launch costs for further exploration will become much cheaper there

So Instead of spending Billions in the development of high tec efficient new technology we could also choose to spend our billions on crude BIG sluggish but effective russian rockets to get there and then start saving.

If we choose high tec, I think we should go for the electrodynamic thether solution and have a rotovator round the moon
:D

http://www.techtv.com/news/scitech/story/0,24195,3370398,00.html

The multi-stage gun mentioned was the German V-3. It was built but never completed or worked properly.

I've heard of another big gun approach using liquid or gas propellent. The problem with guns is that the "push" only lasts as long as it takes for the fuel to burn. For explosives, that's a very short time. By putting your propellent in a long pipeline, it takes longer for it to be consumed. You also provide a larger amount of propellent that way as well. Then you can use a longer barrel backed up by that longer sustained push as the fuel is consumed in the "pipeline" resivoir. I saw this in PopSci or other source.

I would like to hear more about the experiment in sending an alternating current through mercury.

About 10 years ago someone mentioned to me mercury in relation to UFO or anti-gravity propulsion system. This person explained nothing, but just put forth a relationship. The previously mentioned experiment is the only time I've heard anything else on the subject.

Some people have suggested, but have not properly explained, "anti-gravity" devices using gyroscopes. I kind of put 2 and 2 together and came up with the following scenerio:

What if you take a torroid chamber (donut) filled with liquid mercury. Being a metal, you can use electromagnets to force the liquid mercury to spin inside this tube. What happens to the gyroscopic force vector if the gyroscope is a liquid? Perhaps nothing more than generate heat, but an interesting experiment I would think.

What ever happened to those electric generation plants that used liquid metal? (Liquid sulfur was it?)

The murcury thing works with any superconductor. Teh problem is that the weight reduction is somewhere around 2%, far too little to be of use. If the force can be inceased somehow, it cousl prove useful.

The main problem(which is not a problem) is that the payload has to be hardened to withstand the force of the acceleration. The acceleration lasts as long as there is enoug hpressure behind the projectile. The calculations preformed showed that a 1m gun can fore a 4,000lb projectile. Think of a 5m gun...

The moon, while only having 1/6g, is still not practal. I posted some ideas under the thread "Private Space Initiative." One of those was to use a suitably sized asteriod AS the ship. It would be simple, I think, to pressurize caves and tunnels cut in the rock. Then all we need is an engine, if you want to go somewhere.

No matter how it is done, getting humans and building materials off the earth and into space in large quantities requires incredible amounts of energy. Any approach to the problem must work solve the energy problem.

Hydrogen fusion is likely to be the only source of such energy. Fission is not feasible due to the lack of sufficient fissionable materials. Hydrogen is the most plentiful material in the universe. Jupiter contains incredible amounts of it.

We need to develop fusion technology, which might never be feasible outside of the interior of a star. Assuming it is possible, we then need to develop the technology to build hydrogen harvesting and fusion facilities on Jupiter. Using controlled hydrogen fusion for energy, launch containers of liquid hydrogen off of Jupiter and send to Earth or Earth orbit.

BTW: For incredible amounts of energy, hydrogen fuel cells and other chemical processes are not sufficient. There is not enough oxygen or other chemicals. Hydrogen fusion is the only process for which there is sufficient fuel.

An interesting possibility is to make an entire planet into a space ship. Hollow it out, fill it with hydrogen at pressures and temperatures sufficient for fusion. With nozzle like holes at say the South pole, the entire planet acts like a rocket. Replenish the hydrogen fuel from vast clouds of hydrogen found in most galaxies. Or perhaps replenish from other Jupiter like planets.

While small scale controlled hydrogen fusion might not ever be possible, we might be able to develop the technology of large scale fusion. Containing hydrogen at millions of degrees and incredible pressures in the small quantities required for a power plant presents some formidable problems. It might be easier to develop the technology to to contain huge amounts in the interior of a planet.

Consider the ratio of surface area to volume as the volume increases. The larger the volume the smaller the ratio. Heat loss is related to surface area. Per unit of volume, it is easier to keep a big object hot than a small one.

Gifted and anim8er... I think that the weight reduction of superconductors is different from that of the "mercury" experiments. Or, at least what they are looking at is. The superconductor change is a levitation effect from an opposing force. The mercury device is actually looking for an effective reduction in mass or change in the local G-field, but not an opposing field (unless you invoke torsion arguments). While the superconductor effect is well documented, there is no current evidence that the mercury devices work. (Not that they dont, it just hasnt been documented or published).

While putting something in orbit requires a lot of energy, (Not incredible, it's not that much worse than a flight on the Concorde.) the problem is that doing it with rockets requires many times a lot of energy, because most of the energy goes to lifting the rocket and the fuel, and rockets aren't terribly efficient at using energy to create momentum.

Since I was in the L-5 society back in the 70's, I've heard of lots of non-rocket ways of getting into space, most of which were feasible from the standpoint of physics. The Lofstrom "launch loop" (http://www.islandone.org/LEOBiblio/SPBI116.HTM), for instance, and all the allied kinetic structures, which use the force from deflecting high speed projectiles to support a very tall structure, and accelerate a payload.

Then there's magnetic launching. Yes, you actually could lauch a payload into orbit by using opposing magnets. The one that stayed on earth would have to be many kilometers in diameter, though, and it's field would overwhelm the Earth's magnetic field over a sizeable portion of a continent. Try getting the enviromental impact statement for that approved, not to mention the NIMBY (Not in MY backyard!) problem to overcome.

You can lauch objects into orbit using a mass driver, from the Earth's surface. The acceleration path has to be maintained in vacum, with a really fast door at the end to let the payload out, and then slam shut again before the vacum was lost. And the payload would have to be really tough, to survive punching up through the atmosphere at mach 25. The bigger the payload, by the way, the lower the acceleration it's subjected to by the atmosphere. You could send manned payloads up that way, but the mass driver would have to be really long, and the payload really heavy. The "bang!" when that freight train smashes through the air would blow people's eardrums out for miles around, too, so you'd need a site that was unoccupied, and ideally had a tall mountain on the east coast of someplace, so that you could lauch above most of the atmosphere, out over water. Oh, and near the equator, too.

A varient of this I thought up myself, (Though I'm not claiming that nobody else thought of it!) would be to use the "Strong pusher plate with a shock absorber" concept which was to be used in Project Orion (http://www.islandone.org/Propulsion/ProjectOrion.html), together with a ground based mass driver, which would shoot bombs at the vehicle, which would be propelled by those conventional explosions. Most of the energy could be provided by electricity to the mass driver, and the vehicle doesn't need to carry it's own fuel, so it can be quite small and light for the payload it carries. Likewise the mass driver can be relatively small, because it's launching much smaller bombs than the size of the vehicle, albiet very frequently.

How about a microwave beam to supply the energy, where the vehicle rides on that beam (converting energy to electric propulsion). Many small loads to space - that way you do not have to carry and lift fuel....

The lightcraft experimental laser launch vehicle

http://www.finds-space.org/images/Tregennacraft.jpeg

*here* (http://www.finds-space.org/beamedpropulsion.html)

I wonder what has happened in the last year and a half? Are they still testing the Lightcraft? Is it now top secret?

I would imagine that the hold up is that they need better technology and funding to build a huge laser.

Here is the diagram of my electric propulsion.

http://www.kmci.net/images/Payload.jpg

Wow, This old thread was a great reading.

Combine the three ideas. Create the gun barrel and magnetic rail into single component. The first problem come to mind is the height of this barrel; the solution is to build this barrel into the ground as deep as possible or in the deepest mine or something natural like that. The barrel is also composted of magnetic propulsion. The first stage of the rocket uses the barrel to explode fuel and gain high velocities quickly along with this the magnets too propel the rocket at the same time. And just as the rocket nears to leave the barrel the second stage booster or scram jet starts its action. Any problems here ?

A note on the tether approach...

The problem with the tether idea is that one cannot get something for nothing.
Even if a tether were anchored to a very massive object (such as an asteroid) in
geosynchronous orbit, the reaction from the mass being accelerated up the tether
would eventually force the anchor into a decaying orbit.
If left alone, the anchor would eventually enter the atmosphere, after winding 36000km of tether around the earth - not a pleasant scenario.

One could counteract this by boosting the anchor back into the correct orbit, using
exactly the same amount of energy as was used to accelerate your object up the
tether (assuming no friction, air resistance etc). Your net gain would be 0 - you
have put as much work into keeping the anchor in the correct position as you have
saved by climbing into orbit.

Add this to the enormous amount of energy spent in positioning the massive anchor
in the first place, and you have not really gained anything at all.

Sorry to be a killjoy on an otherwise imaginative idea...

I reference this page way to often, but because it so good!
http://www.islandone.org/APC/

It covers just about everything for space travel propulsion!

Cretin42,

start reading here:
http://www.islandone.org/APC/Tethers/01.html

A note on the tether approach...

The problem with the tether idea is that one cannot get something for nothing.
Even if a tether were anchored to a very massive object (such as an asteroid) in
geosynchronous orbit, the reaction from the mass being accelerated up the tether

Add this to the enormous amount of energy spent in positioning the massive anchor
in the first place, and you have not really gained anything at all.

Sorry to be a killjoy on an otherwise imaginative idea...

Thanks, James, and yes, that is true of all tether launch systems, even the smaller and more practical rotating tether systems.

However you are assuming that there is no inwards movement of mass; it may be that imports down to the Earth are economically viable- mined He3 from the Moon for instance-
or if not, the the outward material can be balanced by simple ballast, perhaps talings from Moon mining operations.

If you use a lot of downwards ballast in a tether lifting system, you can gain energy from that system; this is one way of extracting energy from the rings of Jupiter and Saturn-
magnetic energy could be converted to electrical energy by flinging mass into those giant planets
(until the rings are all gone anyway)

eburacum45,

why don't you look at my site, they found the solution.
1. for everthing you bring up, bring something down.
and/or
2. Use the earths magantic feild as propulsion for LEO tethers.
http://www.islandone.org/APC/Tethers/electrod.gif

Very good link; I have read it, a while back; and linked to it too, as I recall.

I think we might well be using tethers in the next fifty years or so-
but I wonder if there are not hidden safety issues to do with such momentum transfer and powerful magnetic/electric fields.

Is the below possible ? if not then telling how to make it possible is compulsory.

Create a SPACE HANGER, Its a pulley hanging form space just into the above atmosphere. The pulley hangs from a geostationary Space Taxi Station. A small Space Taxi is released up using a very very large helium balloon. This Space Taxi rises up enough to reach the end of the pulley, flys towards using jets and attaches itself to the pulley, then it is pulled up by the Space Taxi Station.

All this is done with minimum fuel so what say ?

PS. A compressor can be used to bring the balloon back on earth.

why not just make the pull go all the way to the ground?

The moon has gravity, sufficient to render launching vehicles from there for solar system study or engineering as quite inefficient especially when compared to launching them from the Lagrange points and using other such points for gaining momentum in an idea that has already been used to launch a satellite into a polar orbit with much more efficient fuel use.

Dinosaur, yes, lets use fusion energy, from the sun. One serious company with knowledge of the recent breakthroughs in carbon filament manufacture states that with sufficient funding they could have a space elevator constructed in as little as 15 years, powered by solar power. A low orbital platform suspended from helium balloons with an elevator to the platform that can launch small payloads into space is considered feasible now using available materials and to cost very little (search for project beanstalk)..

jamesm, send an elevator down at the same time as you put one up on a space elevator (with matching mass, lots of stuff we can best manufacture in orbit is needed on the planet) and you will cancel out the loss of orbital velocity. .

Consider, the main thrust of space exploration and access has been military in nature. I contend that the major barrier to facilitating humanity to become a space based species is the nature of our society, concerned more with forcing opinions than finding jointly rewarding solutions. Science is not respected in a world where power mongering is the major occupation. Technologies that empower people, that increase liberty, are at odds with the oligarchies that rule. Most are too immersed in the propaganda to see how general policies are most often an attempt to impose rather than consolidate. Mutual reward is not our priority. Suspect this to change or kiss your ass goodbye.

It seems NASA has deliberately not done what has been thought here by mere armatures.

May be they wanted to fool US citizens for creating weapons grade technology with their tax money.

Look guys all this theorising is a total waste of effort... the reality is it is too complicated and more complicated than stupid reaction rocket engines....

Where are you going to get material that conducts electricity that is strong enough to dangle 42,000 kms and thick enough to conduct mega amps, ( because there is a differential electric potential all the way down to the ground )

First you had better learn how to harness lightning,,, this is a small fish compared to the whale you are dreaming about.

Inertial drives are a reality, and this makes for "driving" (as per a car) into space, with almost no effort, maybe a thousand HP per ton per hour (derived from IC engine figures, not puff out the arse as in rockets)

But it is good to dream, dream on you crazy diamonds....

Latest Discover magazine has an article on space elevators, gaining momentum and support despite it being a virtually unmentioned subject in most circles. The NASA researcher in the article estimates that we can build them in less than 15 years. A specific detailed plan and art work are presented. Its a good read.

>> I see combination of a 2 kilometers magnetic acceleration track, combine with a laser driven engine to get past mach 7, and then engage onboard scamjet engine to
get to orbit at full velocity, get back to earth


The major problem as I see it, for space craft is vibration and extreme forces on ascent and re-entry... basically by all conventional methods the craft is destroyed quite quickly.

Controlled ascent (at say 1g, much like an elevator ) and controlled descent are the first priority and this level of control of gravity can only be achieved by an inertial engine. Controlled max LOW vel in the atmosphere is also a prime consideration.
Basically if you havn't got FINE control you are sitting on a bomb....

Fuel is negligable in an inertial drive as coupling to mass movement is efficiently direct.

Preferrably ascent and descent should be from wherever to wherever.... not confined to an exclusive site... this is more critical if planetary exploration is to be efficiently achieved.

any designs on the drawing board for an inertial engine Zarkov? anywhere on the net?

has anyone thought of a good old slingshot?

Latest Discover mag has a short article on the successful testing of a pilotless ramjet to mach 7. It was launched mounted on a high speed missile/jet that was in turn mounted under a Boeing 707. It is thought as a possible way to deliver payloads to low Earth orbit. Don't think I'd ever want to ride on such a thing.

I don't like the magnetic railgun system much. Great for building destructive cannons with dumb payloads, not so great for getting anything organic into orbit (Acceleration to an orbit-making velocity over a relatively short distance, such as a cannon barrel, will surely kill the unfortunate souls on board). Also not so great for launching delicate satellites or any electronics whatsoever; the itense electromagnetic fields will fry all the circuits.

The space elevator is creative, but well within the bounds of sci fi. Fifteen years suggests an overactive imagination. First of all, the materials to support the weight of the system do not exist. Second of all, in order to maintain a geostationary orbit, one must have a conventional thrust mechanism onboard the anchor to counter the pull of whatever climbs the tether. Granted, you might see a cost savings in the short term, but not in the long.

The only idea of any merit is the one least discussed: the laser (or microwave) powered microvehicles. Also, one idea that has not yet been mentioned but has merit for lengthy voyages (say, sending probes and satellites to the outer planets) is the solar sail technique. Use the pressure effect of solar wind to propel a small craft more or less indefinitely, albeit slowly. Not to mention it has a certain poetic eloquence, as a throwback to the sailing ships of yesteryear.

However, once in space, conventional rockets will rule the day for the foreseeable future (even speaking in sci fi terms), at least when the goal is to get your perishable payloads (say, human beings) across great distances in the least possible time. Plasma rockets may replace their chemical counterparts (they are far more fuel efficient, and have a much greater energy potential), as the technology to create and contain plasma matures.

I'm not a big fan of hydrogen fusion, either. The only method for theoretically containing the intense heat given off by the reaction would be extremely powerful electromagnetic fields. Unfortunately, the energy required to maintain the shielding would likely bleed a signifigant portion of the energy gained, at least using the methods known or imagined today. Although, using planets themselves as spaceships is a creative idea. In such a scenario, why not use the core itself (which comes prepacked as a self-sustaining, self-containing, energy rich system). Simply drill a hole, and funnel a small amount of bleed energy, just enough to defeat the force of gravity holding the globe in place. Given a long enough time table, you wouldn't need much, and as the system is has an atmosphere, gravity, natural resources, etc. time is one thing you have plenty of. Too bad the builders will not live to see the fruits of their labors.

Anti-matter fusion, as another option, solves your problems with excessive heat (to a degree, of course). However, creating and sustaining the anti-matter fuel is a problem, as is the amount of energy lost to other types of radiation (gamma and x-ray), which too must be shielded.

As far as I can tell from that Discover article they missed a recent innovation that promises stringing the carbon nanotubes togethor to make large ribbons sooner so that 15 years may be an over estimate (the researcher suggests less than 15 years himself). A thread sized diameter suspends a car. The NASA researcher has a few kilometers long rope made of the stuff. To start, the ribbon is unreeled to descend to the surface at the same time the other half is released in the other direction. The base is on a floating platform so it can be moved to avoid space junk. The ribbon suspends itself enough to support a few tons climbing up without any further counter weight. For more traffic, some of the climbers are parked at the mid point and beyond to increase the amount that can be transferred up the ribbon (thinner than a newspaper). Apparently, at the end, items released will have a velocity sufficient to carry them to the moon or start on other solar system expeditions.

Solar sails are an excellent idea. Faster designs incorporate a hybrid system with rockets or some other propulsion. Apparently, using the various Lagrange points in the solar system as a type of super-highway appears feasible, decreasing the required fuel and increasing speeds. http://cellar.org/iotd.php?threadid=1895

>> any designs on the drawing board for an inertial engine Zarkov? anywhere on the net?

Look up Dean drive... it supposedly worked (marginally) however the principle is sound.

Problem is all atempts to understand the principle failed... except..

I will answer question BUT I will not disclose the principle... I am leaving this madhouse

As far as I can tell from that Discover article they missed a recent innovation that promises stringing the carbon nanotubes togethor to make large ribbons sooner so that 15 years may be an over estimate (the researcher suggests less than 15 years himself). A thread sized diameter suspends a car. The NASA researcher has a few kilometers long rope made of the stuff. To start, the ribbon is unreeled to descend to the surface at the same time the other half is released in the other direction. The base is on a floating platform so it can be moved to avoid space junk. The ribbon suspends itself enough to support a few tons climbing up without any further counter weight. For more traffic, some of the climbers are parked at the mid point and beyond to increase the amount that can be transferred up the ribbon (thinner than a newspaper). Apparently, at the end, items released will have a velocity sufficient to carry them to the moon or start on other solar system expeditions.

Solar sails are an excellent idea. Faster designs incorporate a hybrid system with rockets or some other propulsion. Apparently, using the various Lagrange points in the solar system as a type of super-highway appears feasible, decreasing the required fuel and increasing speeds. http://cellar.org/iotd.php?threadid=1895

Ok, lets assume these miracle fibers really do work (I'm skeptical... wouldn't the military be eating this stuff up for body armor?). How do you account for the pull of objects climbing the rope? I read some of the higher posts, and one idea that got tossed around was to have a payload come down the rope at the same time as one was climbing up. This would not work, however, as it takes less energy to climb down than it does to climb up, obviously. Gravity is assisting, rather than resisting. You still end up requiring a conventional lift system mounted on the anchor, to counter the downward force, which adds up to longterm operating costs. Why not just use the simple, and cheap laser-lift method?

Here's a site that might give you some answers to your questions. One scientist believes the first one could be operating in 12 years time, with a number in use in 15 years. http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=1410 The report is dated April of 2002. If you dig deeper, you find it stated that the material will be available in five years and a working system inside of a decade.

edited for spelling

Here's a site that might give you some answers to your questions. One scientist believes the first one could be operating in 12 years time, with a number in use in 15 years. http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=1410 The report is dated April of 2002. If you dig deeper, you find it stated that the material will be available in five years and a working system inside of a decade.

edited for spelling

Oh, I see. They use electromagnetic lift. That should cut the counter force down to a marginal fraction of what it would have been otherwise, in the same way magrail tracks reduce friction. Won't be a perfect machine, but much more efficient. Still, you are going to have to reorbit the anchor at some point, as the pull forces cannot be eliminated.

It would be interesting, no doubt. I would love to see such a device erected in my lifetime. NASA could recoup its losses selling advertising space on the cars themselves, perhaps.

Many have said that it takes a lot of energy to get into orbit. I was wondering exactly how much, and did some of the math. I didn't get the kinetic energy for orbit, but, assuming a one-ton item, you go from 2372 J in kinetic energy on the ground to 2,512,549,691 J in potential energy in orbit (assuming that gravity is, indeed, 98% of itself). You also have more kinetic energy in orbit, since you have to get into freefall. Even if you go up in one day, that's 104,689,471.625 joules per hour.

Here are my assumpitions:
mass = 1 ton, or 1016 Kg
LEO is about 160 mi., or 257,495 m
acceleration due to gravity at 160 mi. up is 98% of earth surface normal

I think that the sun is the best bet for that kind of energy, but we need a way to tap it.

edit: I just used a conversion program to find out that the 2.5 billion joules is roughly 698 kilowatt-hours.

yet another edit: See the next page for better numbers!

>> roughly 698 kilowatt-hours.

not much for a crane !!!! (or equivalent such as an inertial drive)

In the elevator design I've referred to, lasers are used to fire upon photovolatics on the climbers, from below and above. Yes, the sun. I have come across amazing predicitons for wind from the DOE and the various Wind Energy Associations and I expect it can be our main terrestrial source of power relatively fast. Interesting that the design suggests anchoring the floating base of the elevator near the coast of Ecuador (due to its being relatively free of lightning). South America alone is considered as having wind potentials enough to power much of the planet, mainly in the plains of Patagonia.

What would the centriptal force be like on a 5 click string spun really fast, say, as fast as the earth is spinning?

Roman, it would have to be more then 5km long or else gravity will pull it down.

I beg y'all's pardon; I used Earth's radius as its diameter, and I left out the kinetic energy of orbit in LEO.

given: 1 ton mass, roughly 1016 Kg; LEO is 160 mi. (S.W.A.G.), roughly 257.495 Km; the universe consists of point masses

On the ground, I figure that the potential energy is zero and the kinetic energy is 109,285,528 joules.

In orbit at 160 miles up, the potential energy, with gravity at 98% of its strength on earth, is 2,512,549,691 joules. the kinetic energy, going 8033.7 m/s, is 32,786,490,530 joules.
(Note: 99.25% of surface normal gravity is actually the figure (not 98%), so the potential energy is marginally greater. The kinetic energy was computed with the correct figure.)

The work necessary to put one long ton (1016 Kg) in orbit is 35,189,754,694 joules, or 9774.932 kilowatt-hours. The amount of energy varies directly with mass, so this number is scalable.

WellCookedFetus
If U take the pulley down till it reaches the ground then that will add too much weight. Hence Space pulley is better that Elevator.

Use centrifugal force as it rotates around earth to pull things up the space station from high atmosphere, read my initial posts. If U r interested then I can explain more, but there are evil people like below ones.

talk2farley
Rather than wasting Ur time on posting what wont work why not talk only on what will work, may b U cant think good enough, that Ur way of life isn’t it ?

Zarkov
We Don’t need Ur expertise , U r not good enough.