Back to my idea for a hot second. I total forgot about the space Elevator idea, but I always felt it counldn't be done. Then again with the weather balloons we use, and it's been shown they can lift a person safely, then why not use this as the start to getting people up to the edge of space. Then you can use a drone to fly around at that level to move the balloon to the life line, then up you go the rest of the way from that point. The drone can be on it's own balloon system, that way you can't use up a ton of fule to fly it around the 2nd balloon to move it around the area. This might be the start of any space Elevators in the early years. Might work but we still need to get the main piece up by rockets for now, then once we have the platform in orbit, you can do the space Elevator ideas.
Why move people into space?
Like it's been said:
1. Factory type production is one main plus.
2. Shuttles to other space stations in orbit from the platform
3. Launch point to the moon and or other planets
4. The Ultimate Sight Seeing location.
There is so much that can be done with this idea. If we use the money we waste every year, we could have been on the moon with a colony by now. Why put a colony there? Well that's a great spot to mine or even just make a hotel lol . I think it would be a great vacation spot.
sorry to put a damper on that idea, but that's not as feasible as it sounds. first of all, while it's been said that he was "on the edge of space" that's still a long way off from a stable orbit, even balloons have an upper altitude limit, eventually the air is thinner then the gas in the balloon and it will either pop or loose buoyancy. Part of your idea was to place an orbiting capture system to take the payload the rest of the way, but in reality, there is still too much air, even at the altitude of the balloon, for a satellite to orbit efficiently. Also, the balloons used in that freefall stunt were massive, incredibly expensive and extremely delicate. They are so delicate that they can only be used once, as soon as you start inflating it, you must either use it or throw it away. They are also very susceptible to high winds, meaning that if you have any wind you have to abort, if you abort, that means you need a new balloon too, whereas a rocket can sit on the pad until you can launch it. Another problem is that the larger the payload, the bigger the balloon needs to be, that capsule was about the largest payload you could lift efficiently. It's much too small to carry a rocket that can boost your payload into a typical satellite orbit, even if it could there wouldn't be much room for a payload; and it couldn't be effective for delivering packages to ISS. Forgive the pun, but your costs will balloon much higher then you think.
Existing technology lets us mount Scramjets on a Jet Aircraft to propel it up into Space.
If you saw the original plans for the Space shuttle before the "committee" got to it you would see a similar approach.
They originally envisioned a "Space Car" that would take off from a normal runway, fly to Scramjet altitude/ speed and ride that into orbit. It had small maneuvering thrusters and carried a payload. It was a single satellite.
Not satisfied with this they rebuilt the idea so that it could carry the immense payload you see today.
Then there was no place for fuel.
So they put on a centerline tank.
They got it standing up now, thus ruining it's ability to take off from a normal airport, they had main engine start.
It didn't move anywhere. It's weight exactly equaled the thrust available.
So they put model rocket engines on it, producing the technology you see today .
The private sector has a chance at this because they aren't burdened with all that NASA enlightenment.
The major hurtle space exploration is getting things from the ground into space, most of the energy used is spent just in getting things out of a gravity well, using a balloon is still limited to atmosphere, any kind of vehicle to capture the balloons and move them to higher orbit are still energy sinks, those ships would need to be fueled and maintained so this isn't much of a benefit to the process and to move any kind of payload the balloon would need to be huge, a space elevator that has some kind of permanent structure may be currently technologically impossible but maybe some kind of orbital crane.
Kim Stanley Robinsons Mars trilogy went into great detail about the terraforming of Mars and the construction of a space elevator system that had an asteroid in geosync orbit moored to the planet using a cable made of diamond fullerenes. Elevator cars would move up and down the cable carrying cargo and personnel and the asteroid would serve as an orbital spacedock/launch platform. The asteroid was chosen for the raw materials needed to manufacture the cable which was constructed in space and lowered from orbit. The novels are an interesting read, Robinson did a lot of research and everything he describes in the books is scientifically plausible.
If something is not broken, don't fix it, if it is broken, don't leave it broken.
Existing technology lets us mount Scramjets on a Jet Aircraft to propel it up into Space.
If you saw the original plans for the Space shuttle before the "committee" got to it you would see a similar approach.
They originally envisioned a "Space Car" that would take off from a normal runway, fly to Scramjet altitude/ speed and ride that into orbit. It had small maneuvering thrusters and carried a payload. It was a single satellite.
Not satisfied with this they rebuilt the idea so that it could carry the immense payload you see today.
Then there was no place for fuel.
So they put on a centerline tank.
They got it standing up now, thus ruining it's ability to take off from a normal airport, they had main engine start.
It didn't move anywhere. It's weight exactly equaled the thrust available.
So they put model rocket engines on it, producing the technology you see today .
The private sector has a chance at this because they aren't burdened with all that NASA enlightenment.
I'm pretty sure it didn't happen that way (unless you have documentation?). SSTO was considered impossible with the technology available during the shuttle's development. Scramjets are still highly experimental and certainly would never have been seriously considered for the main engine system for NASA's primary orbiter during the 1970s.
The system was also designed in entirety before they actually built the thing... there were design changes during prototyping and construction (which is why the prototype OV-101 Enterprise was never converted to the final design, but OV-105 Endeavour was constructed instead), but the layout was decided on before the prototypes were built. They didn't "forget" to include room for fuel or miscalculate the thrust needed for the loaded shuttle. And the Solid Rocket Boosters are by no means mere model rockets, but some of the most advanced solid-fuel rocket systems ever built.
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them." -Thomas Marrone
Thats a okay idea to get into space what about travelling? I know somewhere in the states a company is making a plasma engine called VASIMR and there another company making another plasma engine but in a different configuration, cant remember that name but they look very promising from what I have read and seen on youtube.
Except the cable and most of the physics you mean??
Not really, Buckminsterfullerenes, carbon nanotubes and boron nitride nanotubes are being researched right now, it's not a 'what if" question anymore but a "how to" one. That said, they are science fiction novels but it isn't absurd science fiction, there's no faster than light travel or communications, no artificial gravity using energy fields, no molecular transportation.
A space elevator would in the long run be the cheapest way to get people into space, rockets etc still require a fuel burning booster of some sort, a mass driver would kill the passengers with the acceleration forces needed for escape velocity and even if that weren't a risk it still would require a massively expensive amount of energy to operate. The elevator would be massively expensive to build, but once up and running, operating cost and energy requirements would be the least by far of any of the alternatives.
If something is not broken, don't fix it, if it is broken, don't leave it broken.
take the strongest (known) material on earth (Diamond) hit it with a mallet in the wrong direction it breaks
Nanotech doesn't change the basic physics
it has to constantly support its own weight plus payload amplified several times by torque stress
And while being sheered constantly by rotational forces
Plus you have to sterilise the corridor its in of all space debris
Basically if we could make spider silk 12 feet thick spun into a rope it MIGHT work
but it would still last only until it broke or caught fire
its cheaper and more effective to manufacture everything on earth and leave it there
Short of a self repairing Living material space elevators and so on are impossible
material would have to be ultra light , extremely strong , non conductive , heat resistant , and unable to stretch
I found a concept of a lunar version of a space elevator. Looks cool for a space to moon trip, but I don't see this same system work with a earth to space connection.
BUT, I still thing my idea could work with the weather balloons. Maybe we can make a better version of the current balloons, one that is a lot more durable. Plus add a turbine to help with lift, and this just might work. The space elevator in the video, if you just had that end right at the place where the weather ballons ended, you can still use my drone idea to move the capsule to the line, and it would get pulled up into space to the station or HUB.
I don't the weather and condition at that level I have no clue about, but it seems if guys like these can do it:
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them." -Thomas Marrone
What I dont get is back in 2003 they cancelled the x-33 which is the miniature version of the VentureStar which was supposed to replace the shuttle but was cancelled due to the internal tank problems but later managed to make a new one and it works, why not use it? Also they designed other new technologies such as a new heat shield and the Aerospike engines? im surprised they did not upgrade/retrofit the shuttle with these new technologies.
sollvax, there is always someone saying it's impossible until somebody else figures out how to do it, all I'm saying is the the whole idea of a space elevator is being researched right now and a lot of governments are very interested, Japan in particular. Space Elevators, Space Fountains, Launch Loops, Skyhooks, Rotovators. Yes it's mostly theoretical, yes we can't do it today but that doesn't mean we will never be able to do it. Impossible is a word that is used more often than wisely and we have plenty of examples of when that words use was premature.
rajo11, politics and budgetary constraints killed VentureStar, a true reusable spaceplane would be a boon, but there are no incentives to develop it when the same goals can be accomplished using existing rocket technology. If 9/11 had never happened the picture might be different, but with a national debt of hundreds of billions of dollars due to the war, spending billions more developing and implementing a new spaceplane became untenable.
If something is not broken, don't fix it, if it is broken, don't leave it broken.
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them." -Thomas Marrone
sollvax, there is always someone saying it's impossible until somebody else figures out how to do it, all I'm saying is the the whole idea of a space elevator is being researched right now and a lot of governments are very interested, Japan in particular. Space Elevators, Space Fountains, Launch Loops, Skyhooks, Rotovators. Yes it's mostly theoretical, yes we can't do it today but that doesn't mean we will never be able to do it. Impossible is a word that is used more often than wisely and we have plenty of examples of when that words use was premature.
rajo11, politics and budgetary constraints killed VentureStar, a true reusable spaceplane would be a boon, but there are no incentives to develop it when the same goals can be accomplished using existing rocket technology. If 9/11 had never happened the picture might be different, but with a national debt of hundreds of billions of dollars due to the war, spending billions more developing and implementing a new spaceplane became untenable.
yeah but the tank problem was the nail in the coffin, if it worked we would have the venturestar now.
Comments
Trampolines.
sorry to put a damper on that idea, but that's not as feasible as it sounds. first of all, while it's been said that he was "on the edge of space" that's still a long way off from a stable orbit, even balloons have an upper altitude limit, eventually the air is thinner then the gas in the balloon and it will either pop or loose buoyancy. Part of your idea was to place an orbiting capture system to take the payload the rest of the way, but in reality, there is still too much air, even at the altitude of the balloon, for a satellite to orbit efficiently. Also, the balloons used in that freefall stunt were massive, incredibly expensive and extremely delicate. They are so delicate that they can only be used once, as soon as you start inflating it, you must either use it or throw it away. They are also very susceptible to high winds, meaning that if you have any wind you have to abort, if you abort, that means you need a new balloon too, whereas a rocket can sit on the pad until you can launch it. Another problem is that the larger the payload, the bigger the balloon needs to be, that capsule was about the largest payload you could lift efficiently. It's much too small to carry a rocket that can boost your payload into a typical satellite orbit, even if it could there wouldn't be much room for a payload; and it couldn't be effective for delivering packages to ISS. Forgive the pun, but your costs will balloon much higher then you think.
If you saw the original plans for the Space shuttle before the "committee" got to it you would see a similar approach.
They originally envisioned a "Space Car" that would take off from a normal runway, fly to Scramjet altitude/ speed and ride that into orbit. It had small maneuvering thrusters and carried a payload. It was a single satellite.
Not satisfied with this they rebuilt the idea so that it could carry the immense payload you see today.
Then there was no place for fuel.
So they put on a centerline tank.
They got it standing up now, thus ruining it's ability to take off from a normal airport, they had main engine start.
It didn't move anywhere. It's weight exactly equaled the thrust available.
So they put model rocket engines on it, producing the technology you see today .
The private sector has a chance at this because they aren't burdened with all that NASA enlightenment.
Kim Stanley Robinsons Mars trilogy went into great detail about the terraforming of Mars and the construction of a space elevator system that had an asteroid in geosync orbit moored to the planet using a cable made of diamond fullerenes. Elevator cars would move up and down the cable carrying cargo and personnel and the asteroid would serve as an orbital spacedock/launch platform. The asteroid was chosen for the raw materials needed to manufacture the cable which was constructed in space and lowered from orbit. The novels are an interesting read, Robinson did a lot of research and everything he describes in the books is scientifically plausible.
[/sarcasm]
The system was also designed in entirety before they actually built the thing... there were design changes during prototyping and construction (which is why the prototype OV-101 Enterprise was never converted to the final design, but OV-105 Endeavour was constructed instead), but the layout was decided on before the prototypes were built. They didn't "forget" to include room for fuel or miscalculate the thrust needed for the loaded shuttle. And the Solid Rocket Boosters are by no means mere model rockets, but some of the most advanced solid-fuel rocket systems ever built.
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them."
-Thomas Marrone
A space elevator would in the long run be the cheapest way to get people into space, rockets etc still require a fuel burning booster of some sort, a mass driver would kill the passengers with the acceleration forces needed for escape velocity and even if that weren't a risk it still would require a massively expensive amount of energy to operate. The elevator would be massively expensive to build, but once up and running, operating cost and energy requirements would be the least by far of any of the alternatives.
Nanotech doesn't change the basic physics
it has to constantly support its own weight plus payload amplified several times by torque stress
And while being sheered constantly by rotational forces
Plus you have to sterilise the corridor its in of all space debris
Basically if we could make spider silk 12 feet thick spun into a rope it MIGHT work
but it would still last only until it broke or caught fire
its cheaper and more effective to manufacture everything on earth and leave it there
Short of a self repairing Living material space elevators and so on are impossible
material would have to be ultra light , extremely strong , non conductive , heat resistant , and unable to stretch
SSTO is "Single Stage to Orbit." If you use a balloon to get that high, it's not a single stage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yenK_Bq1gPU
BUT, I still thing my idea could work with the weather balloons. Maybe we can make a better version of the current balloons, one that is a lot more durable. Plus add a turbine to help with lift, and this just might work. The space elevator in the video, if you just had that end right at the place where the weather ballons ended, you can still use my drone idea to move the capsule to the line, and it would get pulled up into space to the station or HUB.
I don't the weather and condition at that level I have no clue about, but it seems if guys like these can do it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoMN-zg7r3M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCAnLxRvNNc
Then why can't is work on a bigger scale. Never mind that balloon burst lol. We use strong type that don't have that issue.
Okay ... a "small spacecraft". Better? :rolleyes: :P
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them."
-Thomas Marrone
this is what I am talking about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oYI1CNaGrc
rajo11, politics and budgetary constraints killed VentureStar, a true reusable spaceplane would be a boon, but there are no incentives to develop it when the same goals can be accomplished using existing rocket technology. If 9/11 had never happened the picture might be different, but with a national debt of hundreds of billions of dollars due to the war, spending billions more developing and implementing a new spaceplane became untenable.
Job, jobbed!
"Hey I can Fly " " thats impossible" "oh right I won't jump off a cliff then"
But some things really are impossible (like perpetual motion)
First things first people.
Like getting rid of our dependence of fossil fuels.
Accessing other planets would help with that. :P
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
That's completely different from space travel.
Perpetual motion is possible in space. :cool:
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them."
-Thomas Marrone
http://youtu.be/sG_xGzpSOfA
And no perpetual motion is NOT possible in space
Its not possible anywhere
the law of Entropy says that Energy is expended by movement and that it is a property of matter
Nothing is perpetual
indeed nothing moves without an energy source at some point
The chemical energy of the Sun provides most of the power in our solar system (including the solar winds) for example
But any system no matter how low in friction or gravity runs down eventually (unless there is an external energy source)
this is one major reason why interstellar travel is improbable
I'm hoping it won't come to that. You are however right.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
yeah but the tank problem was the nail in the coffin, if it worked we would have the venturestar now.