It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Space elevators? how about tubes??

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Sorry if this is all wrong of me to post here. It is my first ever post and i am new to this site.

For people who know what space elevators are can continue. For those that don't : en.wikipedia.org...

Ok short and to the point. After watching a video on how the LHC spins protons. i was wondering if this same kind of tech mixed with gauss gun setup, could launch satellites or other misc things like capsules with astronauts etc. I have not seen another post with this subject in mind, sorry if its been discussed before.

Anyways the gauss gun effect would spin the object faster and faster ramping up the speed. Shifts to a vertical tube and launches. With some small minimal additional thrust from the craft could aid it to low earth orbit. Going from
0 to 11.2 km/s to overcome earths gravitational pull (9.82 N/KG) But i would ned to estimate wieght to figure escape velocity.
How about a space catapult Kinda like the "Sling Shot" ride at state fairs. Much more taller though. Preferably a deep shaft would be made into the earth or a mountain.

Any thoughts on this?

Thanks and Cheers.




posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by djmolecular
 


Is there still the need for a tether ? Is the Gauss gun just the means to propel the payload ?

thanks .



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by djmolecular

Ok short and to the point. After watching a video on how the LHC spins protons. i was wondering if this same kind of tech mixed with gauss gun setup, could launch satellites or other misc things like capsules with astronauts etc. I have not seen another post with this subject in mind, sorry if its been discussed before.

Anyways the gauss gun effect would spin the object faster and faster ramping up the speed. Shifts to a vertical tube and launches. With some small minimal additional thrust from the craft could aid it to low earth orbit. Going from
0 to 11.2 km/s to overcome earths gravitational pull (9.82 N/KG) But i would ned to estimate wieght to figure escape velocity.
How about a space catapult Kinda like the "Sling Shot" ride at state fairs. Much more taller though. Preferably a deep shaft would be made into the earth or a mountain.

Any thoughts on this?

Thanks and Cheers.


In theory, it might work, but as a practical matter, there's a reason the LHC (and every other high-end particle accelerator) is a near-vacuum. The sort of accelerations generated would cause massive aerodynamic problems with your vehicle. Add in the prolonged exposure to extreme magnetic fields, with their potential to damage onboard electronics, the sheer bulk of the LHC (about 17 miles around the track), and the amount of power required to accelerate any meaningful payload, and rockets suddenly become the obvious choice...they're cheaper, more compact, less stressful on payloads, and safer.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 10:15 PM
link   
I think I remember seeing a theoretical idea once somewhat like yours. It's been awhile, but I think the general premise was to build a railgun-like device, either underwater or in a deep hole (so that it could have a very long tube to accelerate the payload through) and accelerate the load through this tube, so that by the time it reached the earth's surface, it was already travelling past escape velocity. I can't find the specific one I'm thinking of, but google had a bunch of similar hits.

The key difference in your idea is the circular tube to accelerate the thing and then the vertical tube for launching. The main problem I see with that is the incredible difficulty/cost in construction. The LHC and similar particle accelerators have diameters kilometers long. Now, while those are that big because the particles are being accelerated to near lightspeed, and therefore one to reach escape velocity wouldn't be as large, I'd still think it would be huge, and more importantly, it would have to be built at a steep angle, which means either it would be incredibly high, or be very deep underground. (based on your description and this paragraph, I imagine it looking like a 'b' or 'd', with the round part buried underground and the straight part sticking up vertically or mostly vertically)

I wouldn't want to be an astronaut spun around in one of those!
But if it could be built, it seems like it might work for unmanned payloads like satellites.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 10:20 PM
link   
You mean something like this?

In the abstract, they propose a 100 km long evacuated tunnel within which a magnetic levitation system would accelerate a spacecraft to orbit speeds. Upon reaching the end of the tunnel, which would be roughly 5 kim above sea level, the craft would coast into orbit, using a small rocket thruster to even out its orbital path.

www.gettingtherefromhere.info...

The additional acceleration forces involved in going in a circle could prove to be very uncomfortable.

[edit on 4/8/2010 by Phage]



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 02:58 AM
link   
Explanation: I agree that its a great idea for launching non-living payloads such as cargo ect. into space! [i.e. low earth orbit and beyond!] Phage has earned a St*r!

But to focus back on the original "tethered" space elevator idea, I found your idea [as mentioned in the OP's title] of a tube tether very interesting.

S&F!

Here is why...

At the moment the idea for a space elevator with a tether is that the tether is an extremely long, thin and not very wide carbon nanotube ribbon that is kept at tension by the forces involved and the crawler just climbs up and down as required.

The crawler has to grab on to this ribbon and without distorting it or puncturing it, raise or lower itself into or back from orbit.

Now the instant that I read the threads title I imagined this ribbon being designed and built with a curve, so as that an entire tube could be erected [or lowered from space] and the inside of the tube could be either evacuated or pumped full of gas so as to [de]pressurize to help add rigidity and strength to the infrastructure! I also believe that the tube shape would also help to do this by its very geometric nature as a tube [form/function ect]!

I have several other ideas that are swimming around my head at the moment, but they are too ambiguous to detail here at the moment!

Personal Disclosure: Thanks heaps for bringing up a subject very dear to my heart!



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Escape velocity at the surface of the Earth is roughly 25000mph. I'll be darned if anything can reach that speed without evaporating before reaching orbit.


Originally posted by djmolecular
0 to 11.2 km/s to overcome earths gravitational pull (9.82 N/KG) But i would ned to estimate wieght to figure escape velocity.




[edit on 9-4-2010 by daniel_g]



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by UmbraSumus
 


Im sorry , the reference to elevators was in regards to a cheaper means of placing things in orbit. So no tether. I dont like that idea.. what if the tether broke. That would be alot of weight crashing.

The guass gun is just the effect I was aiming for to use in this tube. The payload should be able to ride on a cushion of magnets like a Maglev Train. Virtually frictionless. The setup would cost a boatload, but i believe launches would be cheaper in the long run. Satellites etc..



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Even if the tube was very large thus reducing somewhat the effects of centrifugal force? And if astronauts can withstand the launch speed the shuttle accelerates to, why not this? I will lock at that link you provided.

Thanks.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by DragonsDemesne
I'd still think it would be huge, and more importantly, it would have to be built at a steep angle, which means either it would be incredibly high, or be very deep underground. (based on your description and this paragraph, I imagine it looking like a 'b' or 'd', with the round part buried underground and the straight part sticking up vertically or mostly vertically)




Yes, thats one of the ideas i had floating around... a lower case "b" shape. Looks as if Phage burst my bubble though.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaLogos



But to focus back on the original "tethered" space elevator idea, I found your idea [as mentioned in the OP's title] of a tube tether very interesting.

S&F!

Here is why...

At the moment the idea for a space elevator with a tether is that the tether is an extremely long, thin and not very wide carbon nanotube ribbon that is kept at tension by the forces involved and the crawler just climbs up and down as required.

The crawler has to grab on to this ribbon and without distorting it or puncturing it, raise or lower itself into or back from orbit.

Now the instant that I read the threads title I imagined this ribbon being designed and built with a curve, so as that an entire tube could be erected [or lowered from space] and the inside of the tube could be either evacuated or pumped full of gas so as to [de]pressurize to help add rigidity and strength to the infrastructure! I also believe that the tube shape would also help to do this by its very geometric nature as a tube [form/function ect]!

I have several other ideas that are swimming around my head at the moment, but they are too ambiguous to detail here at the moment!

Personal Disclosure: Thanks heaps for bringing up a subject very dear to my heart!




Awesome idea as well... And thanks, i am just glad i didnt get reipped to shreds on this post and someone actually liked it.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by djmolecular
 

How large of a circle? The space shuttle maxes out at 3.2g on launch. In a circle with a radius of 50 miles a speed of only 3,500 mph will match that.

Remember, to reach orbit you've got to get to 17,000 mph. That would be 73g (ouch).

www.rcpro.org...



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Running the math myself:

11.2 km/s is the angular velocity.

Say you have a 10km diameter acceleration path; a bit bigger around than the LHC which is about 8 and a bit km in diameter.

The centripetal acceleration required to keep an object moving at that speed going around in a circle is v^2/r =(11200m/s^2) / 5000m = 25088 m/s, or about 2557gs. a human can briefly survive 10gs, so no. Anyone trying to get into space that way would die long before it got up to speed.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   
I think I saw a program on the History Channel or Science about this, basically it was like a big gauss gun that would fire the payloads into space, but they said that it would be impossible for humans to be launched because of the extreme g-forces



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Yeah, that looks pretty close to what I was thinking of. This sort of thing might've even been discussed on ATS in the past; it's quite possible I read about it here a long time ago.



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 11:30 AM
link   
If i remember correctly there was discussion about the gauss type setup, but it was technically impractical at this moment in time, maybe something like the hole in the earth would have to be 1 mile deep or something like that.



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   
First of all, Thankyou for bringing this topic up. I love discussing this stuff.

you said that you could not find a thread about this stuff before (not surprising) here is one for a little while ago that outlines a lot of the problems with most alternative space launch methods.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

With all due respect, let me divulge the other side of the story. LHC, Gauss, and mass driver technology is a wonderful look at a space launch possibility that remains outside of our grasp because of a few simple things.

1. Power involved to accelerate a sizeable mass to an escape velocity is excessive (not impossible, excessive)

2. As Phage already has stated, the construction is not something that could be easily undertaken. (5 mile high rail....built by union or gvt workers....come on)

3. AH yes, 3. Here is the main problem with the technology. HEAT! You can accelerate something all you like in a vacuum, but when it hits atm pressure...blammo, it is called impact force, or impact loading, and it breaks stuff.

3.1 If you try and accelerate an object to 11km/s in atm pressure, you will generate an extreme amount of heat, from friction with the air (ever seen a video of a shuttle entering the atmosphere...pretty hot) Im not saying that the payload couldnt withstand it, but what powers the magnets, or rails or whatever. (conductive metal) What is a not so nice property of conductive metal...It melts real nice at low temperature (except tungsten, which we dont have that much of anyhow)

What im saying here is that modern materials science is no up to the task (you will see this again shortly) As frictionless as you make it, the atmosphere is not frictionless, and there fore will generate lots of excess heat. Im not saying its not a good idea, it just wont work here...would work fine in space or on the moon.


Space elevator- (buy falling space cable insurance now)

Let me be frank, Here is the issue (as discussed in the other thread) Geosyncronous orbit is a ways up there (42,000km). Thats a long connection.

I have not heard the hydrostatic idea before (pretty cool idea). But keep this in mind. one cubic meter of water, A relatively heavy fluid, has a mass of 1000kg. It is still pretty heavy stuff. Also, remember pressure, if the fluid was contained in a tube a few hundred to a few thousand miles long, the stuff at the bottom would have an incredibly high pressure. (assuming more than atmospheric pressure of course).

I am not trying to be critical, just stating some of the basic facts that often go unrecognized.

[edit on 10-4-2010 by LeeTheDestroyer]



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Thanks for all the input, much appreciated. I am however forwarding all my ideas and thoughts to Michio Kaku. He has assited me in the past on ideas and brainstorming. I'll update when the man gets a chance to get back to me. I respect this man very most highly regardless of what others might think of him.


cheers



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


So i am gonna just theorize on non living payloads. Prefferably a sphere capsule with payload inside. I dunno im just thinking about easier and cheaper payloads to orbit.
How about a space plane for tourism???

Launch payloads off of that with little to minimal velocity givien the altitude of the space tourism plane.

Meaning launch said payload of said plane.

thoughts??


5 mile long tube horizonatally on the ground, near the end of the line it changes to a short distance vertical tube????

non living cargo.


Also same priciple as the plane. Launch payload in accelrated tube... After launch, then use boosters to make it the rest of the way to orbit. Less fuel costs. I think the plane would be a better idea.






[edit on 11-4-2010 by djmolecular]



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 07:47 PM
link   
I think launching payloads from planes is actually more expensive, let me explain.

Ideally, the energy you are going to need to launch, say, a space shuttle from the ground, is the same energy that it would take the 'plane' to lift the shuttle all the way to, say, 90,000ft and then let the shuttle continue from there. However, we need to take into account that since this plane is carrying space tourists, the payload from 0 to 90,000ft is actually greater thus we need more energy and the trip gets more expensive. (didn't something like this happen in superman?)

However, I like the idea of tourists beign included in regular launches. If they wanted, the next generation of NASA shuttles could easily include a 10 passenger module that dettached from the shuttle at a very high altitude(100,000ft enough?). I'm sure there are hundreds of people that would pay to ride a space shuttle to the edge of space. The cost of the launch would of course be greater, but the space tourists could help cover a good part of it.

[edit on 11-4-2010 by daniel_g]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join