Space program questions

A space elevator could be an option.

Chickens and eggs. So much of a space elevator is likely going to have to be built from above, from orbit reaching down, that you're not going to get one without a very healthy space infrastructure to begin with.

I've seen Space elevator concepts that didn't require huge initial masses - with a very thin tape to start with. So, you MIGHT not need that massive space infrastructure to start with.

OTOH, you DO need incredibly strong materials, which we don't yet have. Basically you need something on the close order of ropes made of carbon nano-tube fibers, and those tubes need to be metres or kilometres long, not OTL's current cm or mm long.
 
If Gerard's talking about what I think he's talking about, it involves spinning space stations launching payloads into higher trajectories by extending them on tethers and releasing them when they are aimed at the desired destination, quite literally like a slingshot.

The three problems immediately obvious here are one, Newton is going to have something to say about this, it's not going to be orbitally stable unless there's as much coming down as there is going up;

second, the input energy for all of these cosmic spinners is coming from where, exactly?

third, this is not looking small and discrete- we are looking at some fairly hefty lumps of space architecture here, with fairly high input and maintenance requirements.

I'm not sure if this is blue sky or blue pill thinking, really.


On the other hand, space elevators, if it turns out that one is possible without starting at the top and working down, great. Probably need nanotubes either way.

Building out around a guide wire seems the way to go, but it sounds easier to lower said cable down to earth than to try to build it upwards as a tower. In the end I wouldn't object to whatever works.
 
I have read your posts there, I cannot understand what it is you are talking about. From what I gather, and this is probably wrong, but is the best I can do, is that you are proposing that we build something in orbit, and spins on a central axis, and then make launches from its rim in order to propel objects outward from LEO?

Is this in fact what you are talking about?
 
If Gerard's talking about what I think he's talking about, it involves spinning space stations launching payloads into higher trajectories by extending them on tethers and releasing them when they are aimed at the desired destination, quite literally like a slingshot.

The three problems immediately obvious here are one, Newton is going to have something to say about this, it's not going to be orbitally stable unless there's as much coming down as there is going up;

second, the input energy for all of these cosmic spinners is coming from where, exactly?

third, this is not looking small and discrete- we are looking at some fairly hefty lumps of space architecture here, with fairly high input and maintenance requirements.

I'm not sure if this is blue sky or blue pill thinking, really.


On the other hand, space elevators, if it turns out that one is possible without starting at the top and working down, great. Probably need nanotubes either way.

Building out around a guide wire seems the way to go, but it sounds easier to lower said cable down to earth than to try to build it upwards as a tower. In the end I wouldn't object to whatever works.
You beat me to it.:D I don't know enough about this to be able to have much of an opinion. If we posit a Sling Stone type launch, would we then not need to either toss something equally massive in the opposite direction? Or could there be more than two cables? Then I would have to ask, how does the SS decelerate once it gets to where we tossed it to? Are we talking about tossing a nuclear powered craft off into the far distances of the inner solar system?

The thing about the space elevator that I have never gotten, is how the tower/cable/nanotube what have you, is not causing vibration and drag within the atmoshpere, and thats not even mentioning the different directions the air masses are moving in and varying speeds at different altitudes.

Also, I think someone said that a space elevator would work on the moon? I thought that the whole key concept was the an object in geostationary orbit would be teathered to the spot on the serface it was above, but if the moon is tidelocked to the earth, how does this work? I ask because I honestly do not know.
 
Last edited:
Also, I think someone said that a space elevator would work on the moon? I thought that the whole key concept was the an object in geostationary orbit would be teathered to the spot on the serface it was above, but if the moon is tidelocked to the earth, how does this work? I ask because I honestly do not know.
The moon is indeed tidally-locked to the Earth, thus, the same side of the moon faces the Earth at all times, with the Earth rotating below it. The reason a lunar elevator can work is the LaGrange points--points in a two-body system where the gravity from the smaller of the two main bodies is balanced by the gravity of the small one to create "locked" points--an object at EML-1 or EML-2 will have a fixed position relative to the Moon and the Earth, and thus relative to points on the surface of the moon. So just as you can reach a space elevator down from an anchor in geostationary orbit around Earth to Earth's surface, you can reach a tether down from L-1 or L-2 to the lunar surface.
 
You wouldn't want to put a fully fueled Saturn-V in orbit.
Fair enough. I used a SV as an example, because I could find the figures for what it does from surface to LEO, and I don't know where to find such for anything else, lol.

I would still kike to know, just do I can get a feel for what difference being in LEO would make, is what could a SV, launching from LEO to points outward bound do. I can find it's numbers for what it can do from earths surface to LEO, by going to wiki, but how do I find out what that same 130 tons to LEO can do once you are already in LEO.
 
Last edited:
The moon is indeed tidally-locked to the Earth, thus, the same side of the moon faces the Earth at all times, with the Earth rotating below it. The reason a lunar elevator can work is the LaGrange points--points in a two-body system where the gravity from the smaller of the two main bodies is balanced by the gravity of the small one to create "locked" points--an object at EML-1 or EML-2 will have a fixed position relative to the Moon and the Earth, and thus relative to points on the surface of the moon. So just as you can reach a space elevator down from an anchor in geostationary orbit around Earth to Earth's surface, you can reach a tether down from L-1 or L-2 to the lunar surface.

EML=Earth Moon LaGrange? I remember reading something that mentioned the L-5 society. Was this about putting orbital colonies into stable orbits (positions) between the earth and moon?

Also, and this is probably a really dumb question, but wouldn't there be more like a ring or donught shaped zone? Or there is, but only descrete points are stable?
 
EML=Earth Moon LaGrange? I remember reading something that mentioned the L-5 society. Was this about putting orbital colonies into stable orbits (positions) between the earth and moon?

Also, and this is probably a really dumb question, but wouldn't there be more like a ring or donught shaped zone? Or there is, but only descrete points are stable?
There are specific points--L-1 between the two bodies, L-2 on the opposite side of the smaller, L-3 on the opposite side of the parent body from the smaller (very unstable), and then L-4 and L-5 positioned 60 degrees ahead and behind the smaller body in its orbit. Check the wikipedia page--there's a really good explanation of where those are and the math of why they're specific zones.

And yeah, the L-5 Society was about space colonies at L-5, which is one of the leading/trailing Lagrange points--those two are a bit more stable long-term than L-1/L-2.
 
If Gerard's talking about what I think he's talking about, it involves spinning space stations launching payloads into higher trajectories by extending them on tethers and releasing them when they are aimed at the desired destination, quite literally like a slingshot.

The three problems immediately obvious here are one, Newton is going to have something to say about this, it's not going to be orbitally stable unless there's as much coming down as there is going up;

second, the input energy for all of these cosmic spinners is coming from where, exactly?

third, this is not looking small and discrete- we are looking at some fairly hefty lumps of space architecture here, with fairly high input and maintenance requirements.

I'm not sure if this is blue sky or blue pill thinking, really.


On the other hand, space elevators, if it turns out that one is possible without starting at the top and working down, great. Probably need nanotubes either way.

Building out around a guide wire seems the way to go, but it sounds easier to lower said cable down to earth than to try to build it upwards as a tower. In the end I wouldn't object to whatever works.

Many things here:1* the spinner and 2* the orbital station.
The slingshot exemple by CarribeanViking, use a base launching and no autonomy after launch, while the attraction will do the rest for the return, neglecting the need for corrections in flight, still fuel bases. It's a no, no !
I'm talking about an autonomous spinner that could do the job of dropping, in the first phase to build the moon station, but more than that, it has the inner capacity of acceleration and deceleration at will, by an atomic generator with a point of friction controlled at the general panel, for one. Second, the axis of the spinner is accessible by the control panel for a 360 degree orientation.
Like in a rotor, you know very well that if the bearings are not perfect and resistants, you will generate instability that are to be avoid at all cost. No one need an accident at that speed so, the stability has to be perfect on the long run. To convince yourself, try to go to the rotor of a dam, adjusted to the milimeters, guiding tons and tons of water and good for years of use. The external built has to be supporting of tons and tons of pressure and resistant to radiation, heat and cold. As per the size of it, it depend of the accelerator capacity. Heavier the load, bigger the accelerator. We already have the basics of the accelerator for particules and now we have to miniaturized that system to accelerate a big structure. When the acceleration
will be up to move, the weight will not be a problem, the control or the orientation will become important. The panel of control as to be as flexible as the control of an electronic game player and ready to respond to very little impulse on the axis. This way you have control in all directions and you can stop anywhere, for download and upload. While we can do those things, we have to remember the ultimate goal, that is to put ourself in a cosmic position to draft the area and find what's usable for future missions. All the rest is for other interests that are are not our topic for today. I don't think
Newton would mind to much but Albert coud have something to add.

By the way, I like that idea of elevator to the moon. With some adjustments,
for those stuck on fuel, we can work on the prototype for the spinner from the moon, starting the design on earth: need three structures to the spinner, the external is the strongest capable to absorb shocks, radiations, heat and cold, the second, isolated of the first, has a base and top atomic accelarators to facilitated the stability and they turn always in the same sense of rotation,
and the third one is absolutely isolated by isolators that I don't know the nature but the physicists do, that will allow a complete balance in all directions.

2* the orbital station is less problem than the spinner. Everybody is familiar with a gyroscope. What we are not familiar with, is the big size needed. That gyro would have to be installed in space in our galactic space or an other one
after the first phase of 2026. It would have the capacity to received a spinner for what ever reason,and be big enough to accommodate a spinner in station. If we talk about a spinner of 150 feet in diameter, we are talking of a gyro, probably 1500 feet in diameter. Hey, math's freeks, make the calculations.

Ok, for the smokers, I don't, and, for the pills freaks, I don't either so, go brainers !
 
Fair enough. I used a SV as an example, because I could find the figures for what it does from surface to LEO, and I don't know where to find such for anything else, lol.

I would still kike to know, just do I can get a feel for what difference being in LEO would make, is what could a SV, launching from LEO to points outward bound do. I can find it's numbers for what it can do from earths surface to LEO, by going to wiki, but how do I find out what that same 130 tons to LEO can do once you are already in LEO.

Your Saturn-V example, it could send about 100,000-lb to the Moon.

What you are talking about is Delta-V budget. So for example the Delta-V required to go from LEO to Lunar Orbit is 4.04 km/sec. Go from Lunar Orbit to lunar surface is 1.87.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget

The easiest I have found is to Download this Delta-V calculator here
http://home.arcor.de/francisdrakex/download/

You can then use this to build a spacecraft add propellant etc and calculate what it takes to move Mass around the Solar System.
 
Your Saturn-V example, it could send about 100,000-lb to the Moon.

What you are talking about is Delta-V budget. So for example the Delta-V required to go from LEO to Lunar Orbit is 4.04 km/sec. Go from Lunar Orbit to lunar surface is 1.87.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget

The easiest I have found is to Download this Delta-V calculator here
http://home.arcor.de/francisdrakex/download/

You can then use this to build a spacecraft add propellant etc and calculate what it takes to move Mass around the Solar System.

brovane, forget the propellant, to much smoke, we are talking about clean air here !
 
Without getting into magic etc. If you just use normal mass fraction calculations that a re-usable launch vehicle will put about 1% of it's mass into Earth Orbit you would have a vehicle with a total mass of 100,000 metric tons. To achieve a ratio of 1.2G at lift off you would need 264 Million pounds of thrust so about 147 F1A engines (Assuming 1.8 Million lbs of thrust at sea level). :confused:

brovane, my question to you is this: how much wait has a planet, what ever the planet, to maintain itself in the galaxy, without any support and for so long ?
Subquestion: what's the wait of a mass accelerated on itself a thousand time when we know it's contracting in such occurence ? More? Less? or equal ?

One pound of feathers = one pound of dearth, what about the volume occupied ? The same is not the case here, the g on moon, as you know, is not the g on earth and so on. To compensate the g, we bring a different set
of forces, first the velocity of the spin itself and then the movement of a fraction of the original wait, like to pitch a golf ball compared to the launch of a metal ball by an athlete. The difference is related to structure, speed and inner forces of the spinner. The rest of the process is following the same basic rules as for the launch from earth...
 
Your Saturn-V example, it could send about 100,000-lb to the Moon.

What you are talking about is Delta-V budget. So for example the Delta-V required to go from LEO to Lunar Orbit is 4.04 km/sec. Go from Lunar Orbit to lunar surface is 1.87.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget

The easiest I have found is to Download this Delta-V calculator here
http://home.arcor.de/francisdrakex/download/

You can then use this to build a spacecraft add propellant etc and calculate what it takes to move Mass around the Solar System.
Good info, and thanks!:)
 
Well, not magic, at least. Let us just assume that we get some form of surface to LEO lift vehicle, it doesn't really matter what, but it only fills that function, and then go from there with actual existent technologies.

So, the premise is that a lift vehicle, that costs billions each, but is capable of reliably putting into LEO a 1,000 ton payload weekly, for 20+ years, comes into existence in the near future. What could our current space technologies do from that point?

The problem is this: what use is this magic machine?

The truth is, there is very little off of Earth that we need (or at least, very little that would be valued by our current economic and political systems - insurance against extinction isn't much regarded at the moment), what we do need that we have to leave the planet for takes very little mass to do. Most likely the massive machine you propose would cost impractically large amounts since there'd only be a demand for maybe one or two launches in a decade (honestly, I think even that is pushing it, since it is assuming all customers on the Earth are willing to put their payloads in the cargo bay - including both the American and the Chinese and the British and the Russian spy sats). Much more efficient to maintain a fleet of small and medium sized rockets which get used more often.

fasquardon
 
The problem is this: what use is this magic machine?

The truth is, there is very little off of Earth that we need (or at least, very little that would be valued by our current economic and political systems - insurance against extinction isn't much regarded at the moment), what we do need that we have to leave the planet for takes very little mass to do. Most likely the massive machine you propose would cost impractically large amounts since there'd only be a demand for maybe one or two launches in a decade (honestly, I think even that is pushing it, since it is assuming all customers on the Earth are willing to put their payloads in the cargo bay - including both the American and the Chinese and the British and the Russian spy sats). Much more efficient to maintain a fleet of small and medium sized rockets which get used more often.

fasquardon
Well, I have to say that you seem to be of the opinion that there is nothing of worth in space, that warrants manned missions, to say nothing of permanent populations being established. A simple answer could be in the form of this question.

Right now, and for all of our history up to now, where are all of our manufacturing facilities and raw materials coming from? The bottom of Earth’s gravity well.

Once we can get much more into space, meaning factories and solar power sats and labs and colonies and shipyards, we can then start to move much more effectively deeper into the solar system. How much wealth awaits? And who will get there first? If we can begin to build colonies in orbit around earth, where do we go from there? Mars? The Asteroid belt? Or perhaps the moons of Jupiter or Saturn? Venus or Mercury?

We right now are limited to just the surface of a tiny little globe, when we could have the ability to explore and colonize the vastness of our solar system.

Now, back to other questions.

Someone mentioned the solar power sats, how big would they need to be to deliver the equivalent of a nuclear power plant to the earth?
 
Well, I have to say that you seem to be of the opinion that there is nothing of worth in space, that warrants manned missions, to say nothing of permanent populations being established. A simple answer could be in the form of this question.

Right now, and for all of our history up to now, where are all of our manufacturing facilities and raw materials coming from? The bottom of Earth’s gravity well.

Once we can get much more into space, meaning factories and solar power sats and labs and colonies and shipyards, we can then start to move much more effectively deeper into the solar system. How much wealth awaits? And who will get there first? If we can begin to build colonies in orbit around earth, where do we go from there? Mars? The Asteroid belt? Or perhaps the moons of Jupiter or Saturn? Venus or Mercury?

We right now are limited to just the surface of a tiny little globe, when we could have the ability to explore and colonize the vastness of our solar system.

Now, back to other questions.

Someone mentioned the solar power sats, how big would they need to be to deliver the equivalent of a nuclear power plant to the earth?

Yes sir, that't the right answer and the right question.
 
Well, I have to say that you seem to be of the opinion that there is nothing of worth in space, that warrants manned missions, to say nothing of permanent populations being established.

That's not what I said at all.

I said that in our culture, what we can get from manned missions and permanent establishment of populations is not valued. In our culture.

That is a world away from what you assumed I was saying.

fasquardon
 
That's not what I said at all.

I said that in our culture, what we can get from manned missions and permanent establishment of populations is not valued. In our culture.

That is a world away from what you assumed I was saying.

fasquardon

fasquardon, what you are not saying is, what is not valued as to be valued. Like in any marketing operation, we have to create the need and, to do so, we have to show how cool it is to be cool. The anxiety to leave the earth is so atavistic that just to imagine what it could be, is waking up all kinds of phantasms, like the first explorators to america where imagining. We have to admit first, that the unknown is scarier than reality. The preconditions to the introduction to cosmos, belong to the psychologists and even to the psychiatrists, for deconditionning toward the unknown and create a reflex to reality and not to anticipation. In my language, you learn to cross the bridge
when you're in front of it. Socratis would have to told us, not to confuse reality for his shadow.
 
Top