It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why aren't we shooting supplies into space?

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 04:03 PM
reply to post by N. Tesla

The article i supplied above states that the target is 2018. That is 10 years away.

Here is a link discussing the plummeting price of SWNT's:

Here is the patent:

$50 a gram is the lowest price you can find them for sale. Production costs are much, much lower. The raw materials needed are not very costly, and if you have the infrastructure to create the SWNT's you can easily make them for much, much less than $50 a gram.

Keep in mind that NASA has patented a few production methods, and certainly has the capability to improve on that cost.

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 04:25 PM

Originally posted by N. Tesla
I'm not saying anything about the tethers. I'm saying that there is not enough of the material to build it. and how will the elevator get back to the ground? I guess rockets will slow it but then how much fuel will this thing be using or what kind of braking system will there be. and i still don't think that they will be able to get that much tether into space. maybe in 50 years but not any sooner.

You need to stop thinking rockets...If this concept were to employ rockets for power, why wouldn't anyone wishing to get to orbit just keep using.......rockets?

A space elevator will be powered by electricity. The electricty will turn motors or generate a strong EM field, or power lasers, etc. The electricity will be generated by any of the methods we use today...anything from wind turbines, to solar, to hydro, to coal, to nuclear fission.

The idea of simple electro-mechanical power to slowly, safely, and cost effectively lift a payload to orbit is the whole idea here. Rockets need to lift their payload PLUS a mass of fuel 100's of times grater than the payload. With the elevator, you waste no energy on lifting fuel.

Your're right - this stuff is likely quite a few years into the future, maybe more than 50.

The cannon idea shows some imaginative thinking on your part but it's a dead end. If it made sense, someone would be doing it. If you want to see another economical way to get into low earth orbit, check out this site....

check out Space Ship One and Space Ship Two

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 06:10 AM
The is significant talk on tethers and how good they can be and how they may easily lift payload to space over a thousand miles above the earth's cast.
I do have one question how do we get the end of the his tether into space.
I read on this list that a pilot study did make use balloons to lift the end of their tether to some height, but you see this is only possible for a few miles after that the helium approach will not work because the helium or even hydrogen balloons may not go up to some thousand miles (I think, am interested really knowing if they did) .
If this is the case, I have (IMHO) difficulty envision the possibility to growing the tether all the way up till where it's end will be long enough to that (assuming that it will be moving with the earth), the earth's rotation and it's length will actually provide it with enough angular velocity to generate enough centrifugal force to counter the earths gravitational pull.
Let me put it in simper terms, lets assume the tether will weight x kilos per mile, if we anchor one end to the crust then raise the other end, for each mile m we raise (by some means) the other end we shall be lifting mile_number * x kilos. Now we could have super large balloons to lift till where they run out of steam (because perhaps the air is too thin at this altitude that helium's relative lightweight will not be effective) when what do we use to get that end of this tether beyond this limit and into the geo balance distance over 1000miles from sea level.


posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 08:39 PM
If you knew about Tesla's invention of the FOO design of 1944
and the more modern Triangles and Two Football Field Texas sized
UFOs then there is no problem.

We are putting beam accelerators in orbit in one piece.

All you do is surround the craft in positive ions.
Flat wound coils on the bottom generates positive and negative chargers
and beam off electrons at the top.

Well anything negative even negative ether particles.

So any metal craft of any size and weight can become a UFO.

posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 04:20 PM
what does that have to do with anything

posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 01:30 PM
reply to post by N. Tesla

So far, the most promising practical technology is a magnetic rail gun that would accelerate a payload fast enough at a 30 degree angle to get above most of the atmosphere(between 3 and 4 miles per second). A small inexpensive rocket motor would complete the journey into orbit. It has been determined that a 10 stage rail gun would do the job for a 1000 pound payload with existing technology. The launch would be far cheaper then using a rocket for the entire trip. Unlike a writer of fiction (or optimistic posters), scientists must obey the laws of physics. The heat produced by going through the air at full orbital speed would be considerable, hence the more practical goal of just getting it above most of the atmosphere and using a small rocket to complete the orbit. By the way, the heat is NOT produced mainly by friction which is a popular misconception. It's created by the projectile compressing the air in front of it. That's why the front is the hottest, and the sides are relatively cooler.

posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:01 PM
Not sure why this thread was bumped but its at the top for some reason, so I will point something out.

1. Okay say we build this giant space cannon and start launching parts and such up to the ISS. What happens when they get there? Once you escape the earths atmosphere, there isnt a whole lot of drag or gravity to slow down the "package". So we fire a box of toilet seats and double A batteries up to the astronauts aboard, and if the trajectory is acurate, kill them all due to rapid depressurization from the package going THROUGH the space station instead of to the space station.

2. The original post mentioned shuttles being used once. This is simply not true. Challenger had over 20 missions in before it was lost. I don't have the stats handy but they are not single use craft.

posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 04:14 PM
Well i have to say i enjoyed reading this old thread.

So the iraq gun was suppose to shoot a projectile as large as a phone boot?

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in