Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

First Look At New Mexico's Space Terminal

Posted by kdawson on from the ad-astra dept.

Raver32 sends us to space.com for first light on the design of New Mexico's Spaceport America. Quoting: "The winning design is the work of URS Corporation — a large design and engineering enterprise — teamed with Foster + Partners of the United Kingdom, a group with extensive experience in crafting airport buildings. When the 100,000 square-foot facility is completed — the centerpiece of the world's first, purpose-built, commercial spaceport — the structures will serve as the primary operating base for Sir Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic suborbital spaceliner, and also as the headquarters for the New Mexico Spaceport Authority."

131 comments

  1. But... by hax0r_this · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Can it charge the yamatto cannons on my Battle Cruisers?

    1. Re:But... by fractoid · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Nope, it can construct Wraiths, but you need a control tower for cruisers. They come pre-charged by the manufacturer, but once discharged you must wait for your reactors to recharge the supercapacitor banks. Budget cuts, you know.

      It shouldn't take long, anyway, since battle cruisers are only about as long as a mid-sized bus. That always bugged me, but not as much as the way that entire missions happened inside command centers that are only slightly larger than said battle cruisers... >.<

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    2. Re:But... by zegota · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I'm pretty sure the Battle Cruisers were Russian, not New Mexican.

  2. ha! by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 2, Funny

    Spaceports instead of airports?! Where the hell is my flying car?! It's the 21st Century for God sake! I was promised flying cars!

    --
    The game.
    1. Re:ha! by TheSpengo · · Score: 0

      coming soon I imagine... http://moller.com/ ;)

      --
      Weaksauce as they say...
    2. Re:ha! by SleepingWaterBear · · Score: 0, Troll

      They're coming: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/31/021820 2

  3. Anybody else by sirknz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Get the mental image of it looking like a run down backwater airport in about 20 years time?

    1. Re:Anybody else by ashitaka · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dibs on being the first to say:

      "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious."

      --
      If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
    2. Re:Anybody else by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 3, Informative

      ...a run down backwater airport in about 20 years time? Maybe. There is going to be plenty of competition. From Seed magazine:

      New Mexico isn't the only state with atmospheric ambitions. In March the Wisconsin legislature voted for a $15-million spaceport in Sheboygan. Oklahoma is converting a former B-52 base into a launch site for things like rocket-powered Learjets. Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos is quietly building mission control for his space company, Blue Origin, on his West Texas ranch, while Virginia-based Space Adventures plans two enormous facilities in the United Arab Emirates and Singapore. Spaceports in Florida, Virginia, Nevada and Alabama are also in the pipeline. And as happens when growing industries begin to mature, there is a winnowing process in which only the most fit survive. Since they are the closest one to me, I do hope they make it.
    3. Re:Anybody else by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      Actually, my mental image is like much of Mexico - partially done. It's something I've seen lots of in Mexico, but just don't see here in the states - buildings and structures stopped halfway. It's weird to see nice, quality brick houses and the like built up about halfway and then just... abandoned!

      So, I figure the tarmac would be all laid out, the foundation for the buildings poured, and then whatever mysterious forces cause projects to die halfway would kick in and we'd have another open wound in the Earth facing the sky.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    4. Re:Anybody else by McFadden · · Score: 1

      Given the amount it's likely to be used, I can't understand the size of the place. Just how many people do they expect to be queueing at the check-in desk brandishing their $200,000 tickets?

      Presumably, the vastness is to allow the entire roster of passengers plus crew for a single day to play a little 5-a-side soccer before they take off. Providing they can find a couple of janitors to make up the numbers.

    5. Re:Anybody else by sjf · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Am I the only one who thinks that the spaceport looks like the Millenium Falcon ?

    6. Re:Anybody else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i was expecting two large posts driven into the ground with a giant rubber band stretched between them

    7. Re:Anybody else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be honest, the mental image I got was more like a vagina. To be honest.

    8. Re:Anybody else by frycarson · · Score: 1

      Yeah, a vagina is what that looks like. Like bad cg pr0n.

    9. Re:Anybody else by AGMW · · Score: 1
      Actually, my mental image is like much of Mexico - partially done. It's something I've seen lots of in Mexico, but just don't see here in the states - buildings and structures stopped halfway.

      You see the same sort of thing in Spain too. A single storey building with the rebar poking out the top where the concrete supports would be for the second storey.

      I believe in Spain there's some tax loophole where you don't have to pay something if the building isn't completed. Is it local/council taxes/rates perhaps. Anyway, if there's a similar deal in Mexico, that could explain it.

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    10. Re:Anybody else by owlnation · · Score: 1

      Vagina was the first thing I thought of too. Mind you, it is one of the first things I always think about.

      The fact that this will be run by a company called Virgin doesn't help.

      Man, re-entry is going to be fun.

    11. Re:Anybody else by zero_offset · · Score: 1

      Offtopic? You got screwed.
      Since the story amounts to "LOOK! PICTURES!" you're about as on-topic as you could possibly get.

      And yes, the Millennium Falcon was my first thought.
      It looks so much like it, in fact, that you just might deserve a -1 Redundant...

      --

      Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005

    12. Re:Anybody else by aplusjimages · · Score: 1

      I was thinking it look more like a vagina. "Welcome to the womb."

      --
      Can I bum a sig?
    13. Re:Anybody else by stungod · · Score: 1

      You might be. The first thing I thought of was vagina, followed closely by toilet seat. Once you get past that, it's just an airport.

    14. Re:Anybody else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> buildings and structures stopped halfway

      This is common in countries where inflation is rampant. In this situation, cash becomes worthless very quickly, so individuals try to turn cash into hard goods that hold their value. Building is a good way of doing this. Often people will build a house, one room at a time, while living in it.

    15. Re:Anybody else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Re:Anybody else (Score:5, Funny)
      by ashitaka (27544) on Tuesday September 04, @10:52PM (#20473837)

      Dibs on being the first to say:

      "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious."


      You were the third to say it. But at least you got credited for it, while the first two posters were modded down for being redundant.

      Obligatory Obi-Wan Quote (Score:-1, Redundant)
      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04, @10:31PM (#20473633)

      "Mos Eisley spaceport: You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious."


      and

      oblig. Kenobi quote (Score:0, Redundant)
      by Gothmolly (148874) on Tuesday September 04, @10:36PM (#20473681)

      You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villany.

    16. Re:Anybody else by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Looks like a soggy nacho to me. /NM resident here

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    17. Re:Anybody else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've sold spaceports to Brockway, Ogdenville and North Haverbrook.
      And by gum, it put them on the map...

    18. Re:Anybody else by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      Richard Branson was interviewed by Neil Cavuto on Fox and he asked him that question and Richard said that 40,000 people have paid something down towards a deposit (could be as little as a few hundred dollars or maybe a few thousand...he didn't say) and that there were several hundred fully paid reservations already ($200,000 paid in full that is). Richard also said that his parents are going with him on the inaugural flight (he may have said that his mother wasn't going to go, but I don't remember).

    19. Re:Anybody else by Gkyluig · · Score: 1

      The fact that New Mexico's Spaceport America needs hundreds of millions of dollars of public funds does not bode well for its competitiveness in the market. I've actually been down to the sight, and I'm excited about it, but as a taxpayer in New Mexico I'm not too happy about having to pay for it while not getting a spaceflight myself.

    20. Re:Anybody else by Abreu · · Score: 1

      mod parent up.

      Mexico went through several economic crisises during the 80's and 90's

      It was not uncommon during the nineties to see luxury buildings half-made and abandoned after the last peso/dollar debacle...

      Also there are several places where a family can buy a lot using their savings, and then pay a single mason for a week or so every once in a while (whenever they have some extra cash) to build the house slowly, one brick at a time.

      --
      No sig for the moment.
  4. The real question by Weaselmancer · · Score: 5, Funny

    Can they get a killer whale to the moon?

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:The real question by syrinje · · Score: 1

      ...or at least a bowl of petunias!?

      --
      See that long UID - that's what you get for lurking too long
    2. Re:The real question by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

      We can do it for $1.50 US

    3. Re:The real question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod parent up

      also, please tag this article masa

    4. Re:The real question by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Can they get a killer whale to the moon? What about the Big Whale?
  5. Free Willzyx! by acordes · · Score: 1

    I initially read the headline as "First Look at Mexico's New Space Terminal" and I immediately thought of the South Park episode where they send the whale to the moon. God, what a great episode. /Si, fly.

    1. Re:Free Willzyx! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that the same one where Cartman hires a Mexican laborer to write an essay?

    2. Re:Free Willzyx! by asm2750 · · Score: 1

      We're whalers on the moon, We carry a harpoon. But there ain't no whales So we tell tall tales And sing our whaling tune.

  6. WOW! by Corpuscavernosa · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I thought it said "First look at Mexico's Space Terminal". While clearly I have nothing against Mexico, it seemed like a poor placement of resources considering the widespread poverty. All's clear now, thank you.

    --
    We figured out a long time ago that it's easier to elect seven judges than to elect 132 legislators.
    1. Re:WOW! by megaditto · · Score: 1

      You got the wrong country, but I think your larger point is relevant: with all the unemployment, illiteracy, crime and hate in New Mexico, should they really be spending all this money to build a spaceport at this time?

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    2. Re:WOW! by d0rp · · Score: 1

      As someone who lives in New Mexico (and spent most of my life here), I can say things really aren't that bad. There's actually a lot going on in the state. We've got two national laboratories, three air force bases, and a number of companies have facilities here including Intel. Ever heard of the atomic bomb? That was made in New Mexico.

    3. Re:WOW! by megaditto · · Score: 1

      My point wasn't that NM sucks; sorry if it came out that way. I am just suggesting that the taxpayer money (if they have to have it) could have been spent better on something else, like scholarships for poor kids or a terraforming project or whatever benefits the taxpayers (a tax rebate perhaps)?

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    4. Re:WOW! by d0rp · · Score: 1

      My point wasn't that NM sucks; sorry if it came out that way. I am just suggesting that the taxpayer money (if they have to have it) could have been spent better on something else, like scholarships for poor kids or a terraforming project or whatever benefits the taxpayers (a tax rebate perhaps)? I suppose that the taxpayer money could be better spent, but I bet their hope is that this will create more jobs for locals as businesses start to move in, which would be a huge benefit.

      As far as the scholarships idea, we already have the New Mexico Lottery which gives full-ride scholarships to college for all graduating seniors going to one of the state universities (assuming they keep their grades up). Unfortunately I opted to go out of state initially and then came back after 2.5 years so I wasn't able to take advantage of it.

  7. I think not... by djupedal · · Score: 1, Informative

    "...the centerpiece of the world's first, purpose-built, commercial spaceport"

    I take it whomever spit out that little piece of wishful marketing spin never visited the 'Nazca Lines' on the Plains de' Peru, eh, Bunky?

    1. Re:I think not... by p0tat03 · · Score: 1

      How did that get modded informative? Are the mods subscribing to unsubstantiated low-budget conspiracy theory shows now? The Nazca Lines are important archaeologically, but there's nothing to suggest that they are of extraterrestrial origin, or that it was involved with spacecraft at all.

    2. Re:I think not... by hador_nyc · · Score: 1

      um are you saying that Nazca was a spaceport? Riiiight, keep watching your X-Files re-runs!

      --
      - Mike
      Once you've lost your temper, you've lost the argument - Me
    3. Re:I think not... by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 2, Funny

      Pffffft. You're a crackpot. The Nazca Lines wasn't a commercial spaceport, it was run by a not for profit collective.

      --
      I don't therefore I'm not.
    4. Re:I think not... by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      Put down the bong and close your copy of "Chariots of the Gods". It is not a work of reputable archeology.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    5. Re:I think not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poor djupedal. Slashdotters have no sense of humour until they've had their second triple espresso. I thought it was a hilarious comment...

  8. Millennium Falcon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one who thinks their spaceport looks a little too much like Han Solo's ship?

    1. Re:Millennium Falcon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not the only one. The resemblance is totally amazing

  9. My first thought... by Hawthorne01 · · Score: 2, Funny

    "What a piece of junk!"

    "She made not look like much, kid, but she's got it where it counts. I made a lot of special modifications myself, but if you don't mind, we're in a bit of a hurrry, so..."

    --
    "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
  10. New Mexico has a Spaceport Authority? by Pinkfud · · Score: 2, Funny

    When did that happen? Well, I guess since they have Roswell, it makes sense.

    --
    The world is my oyster. That's why it's always in a stew.
  11. oblig. Kenobi quote by Gothmolly · · Score: 0, Redundant

    You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villany.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  12. Note on the photo.... by daemonenwind · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...the planned gardens around the disk-like space terminal will be exquisite, keeping dozens of local workers employed on a daily basis.

    (yeah, I know I'm going to hell for that one)

  13. Sounds like a scam by zymano · · Score: 1

    Is it achieving real space flight?

    Trying to get the russian share of billionaires wanting to go to space.

    1. Re:Sounds like a scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russian Billionaires (the non exiled ones) can presumably use Russian assets to get into space, what with the Russians being insanely good in that field.

  14. New Mexico Spaceport by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 1, Funny

    You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

    --
    "I only speak the truth"
    Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    1. Re:New Mexico Spaceport by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not much of a space port yet. Someone left the Millenium Falcon parked outside though.

    2. Re:New Mexico Spaceport by ashitaka · · Score: 1

      Sorry, redundant by just 13 minutes.

      Don't ya just hate that?

      --
      If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
  15. !Mexico by SKPhoton · · Score: 1

    Did anyone else read that as Mexico's New Space Terminal?

    I guess we're not sending chihuahuas and tacos into space quite yet.

    1. Re:!Mexico by danwat1234 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, until I looked at the pictures, I thought it was about a new terminal in space, not a terminal-to-space in Mexico. Pleh

    2. Re:!Mexico by polygamous+coward · · Score: 0

      Read the comments, most of them did.

    3. Re:!Mexico by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paris Hilton was never interested.

  16. In a related note... by raftpeople · · Score: 1

    the first ever lost space luggage arrived at the facility today.

  17. trade Yamak sauce for ticket by danwat1234 · · Score: 1

    I wonder if I can trade in some Cardassian Yamak sauce for a space flight, say 45 kilograms of it for a one way ticket to space? It's high in sugar content though. (I think they are coming out with the sugar-free version though. Perhaps that will be worth more.)

    1. Re:trade Yamak sauce for ticket by dr_dank · · Score: 1

      Don't be such a nerd.
      .
      .
      .
      .
      Um, do you suppose they'll have Klingon bloodwine in the duty-free shop?

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    2. Re:trade Yamak sauce for ticket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both of you losers, give me your lunch money now.

    3. Re:trade Yamak sauce for ticket by earlymon · · Score: 1

      Lunch money? Uhhhhh.... how 'bout some self-sealing stem bolts? (Been trying to get rid of those for a while now...)

      --
      Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
    4. Re:trade Yamak sauce for ticket by danwat1234 · · Score: 1

      How about a 100-pack of R-F modulators?

  18. actually not bad by TheSpengo · · Score: 0, Insightful

    That actually looks half decent. They got the 'ooo fancy' look down at any rate, we'll see about functionality. Still, it's more than NASA's done in the past 20 years. :P A lot of you are posting as if it were a small backwater project because it's based in new mexico, but if you think about it an isolated location is ideal for such an installment. If something goes wrong there is lots of big empty desert to crash into, no windows to break if for some reason you had to go supersonic speeds near the ground, and I imagine the noise level created as suborbital planes hit the boosters would not be appreciated in a densely populated area. Give this place half a chance and it might turn out pretty sweet!

    --
    Weaksauce as they say...
    1. Re:actually not bad by tompaulco · · Score: 5, Funny

      And in 30 years the success of he spaceport will have launched an industrious little town surrounding it, and then developers will come in and build houses right next to it, and people will move in, and complain about the noise, and get the spaceport successfully shut down.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    2. Re:actually not bad by chaoticzen · · Score: 1

      And in 30 years the success of he spaceport will have launched an industrious little town surrounding it, and then developers will come in and build houses right next to it, and people will move in, and complain about the noise, and get the spaceport successfully shut down. To be honest, about 70% of the land out here in New Mexico is owned by two entities, The Federal Government and Ted Turner. So I doubt there will be a lot of houses built near by, just like at White Sands the population is pushed out far enough away to not be a burden to the project. Personally, I fear if this project really gets going that somehow they are going to raise our state taxes and make us pay for it and support it. As corrupt as Bill Richardson and his appointed officials are (several have been accused and/or indicted on bribery and extortion charges) he'll find a way to appease the investors, take a load of cash under the table, and then land us into a binding tax hike to pay for it.
      --
      Reality is for people that can't handle drugs. So do your part, just say no to reality!
    3. Re:actually not bad by Teetoc · · Score: 1

      I believe that the only "extra" taxes for this project are being levied in Dona Ana county in the form of a bond to the tune of ~$50M. This makes sense in the context of additional jobs in Las Cruces and Mesilla Valley. As far as Bill Richardson goes, I'd just like to point out that the worst politicians actually got themselves elected -- specifically Manny Aragon who is innocent until proven guilty, but has been indicted for so many kickbacks he now owns MLS. I think he even has several unpaid STOP tickets. But the point is well taken. New Mexico has a hard time governing itself and this is a huge project.

  19. Wisconsin? by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Isn't farther south better? Equatorial ideal, for launching spacecraft?

    Of course if you don't plan on achieving orbit maybe it doesn't matter.

    IANARS

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:Wisconsin? by FleaPlus · · Score: 3, Informative

      Isn't farther south better? Equatorial ideal, for launching spacecraft?

      Of course if you don't plan on achieving orbit maybe it doesn't matter. Right. The Wisconsin spaceport is intended only for suborbital spacecraft:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceport_Sheboygan
  20. Golden, CO? by Compholio · · Score: 1

    GOLDEN, Colorado -- Architectural and engineering teams have begun shaping the look and feel of New Mexico's Spaceport America, taking the wraps off new images today that showcase the curb appeal of the sprawling main terminal and hangar at the futuristic facility.
    What does this have to do with Golden? Granted, the Colorado School of Mines has the Center for Space Resources - but the article doesn't reference them or say anything about their involvement in the project. Does anyone know?
    1. Re:Golden, CO? by DeepHurtn! · · Score: 1

      Bylines often reflect where the writer of the article was actually located, so it's probably telling us that Leonard David, author of TFA, wrote aforementioned FA in Golden.

  21. Re:Error by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Except stainless steel cockroaches from space. Talk about illegal aliens...

  22. Good bye, Steve... by clashdot · · Score: 1, Troll

    Yes! In fact, the station's own weaponry was tested last night, and amazed observers report that plasma bolts from the main ray gun reached deep into Nevada.

    The new spaceport will be a huge boon to Richard Branson's standing (and bragging rights) in billionaire circles, perhaps finally overshadowing the horrible and humiliating defeat he suffered in the "balloon around the world" race, at the hands of Steve Fossett.

    1. Re:Good bye, Steve... by witte · · Score: 1

      Word on the street is Branson recently acquired Fosset frozen in a Carbonite plate to adorn the departure hall.

      (Ok, bad taste, sorry.)

  23. What about looking up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At a spaceport you better damnwell have windows on the roof so I can see the launch. Looked all closed-in like a normal airport.

  24. As a person who loves New Mexico by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would like to ask a couple questions about the spaceport:

    1. Red or Green?

    2. You want an egg on that?

    Thank You

    1. Re:As a person who loves New Mexico by chaoticzen · · Score: 1

      I would like to ask a couple questions about the spaceport: 1. Red or Green? 2. You want an egg on that? Thank You Let's see:

      1. Make it Christmas

      2. Put the egg on the side

      ....and don't forget the basket of sopapias!!!
      --
      Reality is for people that can't handle drugs. So do your part, just say no to reality!
    2. Re:As a person who loves New Mexico by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that this is about the scope of the average job that is likely to develop in Southern New Mexico as a result of the spaceport, then I'd say you're pretty close to the mark. Most of the economic impact is going to be realized elsewhere. But, we'll serve them up some spicy enchiladas when they order 'em! They might let us pump the rocket fuel if we ask nicely. . .wash the windshields, air the tires, etc.

  25. design inspiration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I understand that design inspiration can come from a variety of places, often from memories not directly associated with the process. Perhaps the architects should stay away from hospitals...

    ...it looks like an overblown bedpan.

  26. Mexico? by Teetoc · · Score: 1

    Is one of our fifty missing? This is New Mexico.

  27. Wow yourself by Teetoc · · Score: 1

    What are you from Texas or something? New Mexico unemployment is at an all-time low. We have "issues" here but we also host a booming high-tech industry. Illiteracy seems to be much more of an issue where ever you are. Ever been here? Sheesh!

  28. jim burns painting by fearanddread · · Score: 1

    The interior shot of the spaceport reminds me of a Jim Burns painting.

    1. Re:jim burns painting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's beautiful. I need to look that guy up, I know nothing about him.

    2. Re:jim burns painting by rengav · · Score: 1

      Isn't that the cover art for a David Brin book? I know I've seen that shot somewhere as a book cover.

    3. Re:jim burns painting by fearanddread · · Score: 1

      I know it from the book Mechanismo by Harry Harrison. Could be it was also used as the cover for a book though.

  29. Lower Launch Costs - Using Available Tech! by StCredZero · · Score: 4, Informative
    There are several things we could be doing to dramatically lower launch costs.

    • Two Stage To Orbit - If done correctly, we can build one of these to operate like an airplane, instead of a munition. (See The Rocket Company for details. Single Stage To Orbit (SSTO) is right at the bleeding edge of our capabilities. But if we're willing to build big and build robustly, TSTO is doable with off-the shelf technology. (The fuel to get into space is not that much more expensive than the fuel to get a 747 over the Atlantic.)
    • Modular Laser Launch - You can develop a laser module to launch a small unmanned test vehicle, then scale it up to launch useful payloads (5000 lbs) by building and combining multiple modules. When economies of scale kick in, you get launch costs that start to rival those hypothetical beanstalks.
    • Rotovators that rendevous with a High Altitude Airplane - Again, it's hard to imagine a robust and reliable SSTO, but a Mach 12 high-altitude aircraft is much more reasonable. Also, a rotating tether that reaches only partly into the atmosphere and cancels only about half of orbital velocity can be built from materials that exist today! (Not unobtanium or carbon nanotubes.)
    • A Lofstrom Loop - would also enable cheap access to space, and could be built with materials we have today. This is an arc that reaches above the atmosphere, suspended by the momentum of electromagnetically accelerated iron links. Vehicles would be launched into orbit by "stealing" a bit of the loop's momentum.


    If we were really serious about lowering launch costs, we would be pouring money into researching these. But we're not. (Too easy to make money off the government doing what we're doing now.)
    1. Re:Lower Launch Costs - Using Available Tech! by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      Those are some awesome links.

      I'm reading a PDF about Modular Laser Launch and I'm realizing nobody will ever fund this. However! If you had a tracking system that could follow a pinpoint location on a launch vehicle, and a 100MW laser that could continuously fire, then you could take down an incoming ICBM. It seems like this is the way to get this project started. Tell the DOD that the same device that can launch things into space can also destroy them.

    2. Re:Lower Launch Costs - Using Available Tech! by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Too easy to make money off the government doing what we're doing now.

      Nice theory. Somewhat at odds with the facts however - that only about 20% or less of US launches are goverment sponsored. The remainder are commercial.
       
       

      If we were really serious about lowering launch costs, we would be pouring money into researching these.

      That's the rub - we don't need any new technologies to lower launch costs. We could cut them by half or more simply by using existing vehicles but mass producing them and using automated checkout systems. You make things cheap by lowering your fixed and direct costs as much as possible - and by amortizing your overhead across a bunch of units rather than a handful. You don't lower launch costs by spending billions up front on R&D in absence of a proven market.
       
      One of the most persistent, and harmful, myths in the alt.space community is the belief that space acess is somehow 'different' and the normal rules of engineering and accounting don't apply.
       
      Of course there is also the elephant in the room that the alt.space community really tries very hard to wish away - flight demand. To dramatically lower costs, by any method, requires a demand at least an order or two of magnitude above the current - and no amount of handwaving can disguise the fact that the demand simply doesn't exist. Which is ultimately why the big companies don't really do what can be done to reduce launch costs - after spending the money up front to reduce costs (which won't be cheap) there is very little probability of recouping it.
    3. Re:Lower Launch Costs - Using Available Tech! by StCredZero · · Score: 1

      The developers of launch technologies were (until recently) doing so almost solely at the behest of the government. And demand for space access is strongly shaped by the economics of the current launch vehicles. It's a classic chicken and egg problem.

      I think there's demand that's invisible simply because the capability isn't there. I think that if companies could launch 5,000 pound communications platforms for only 5 million dollars, you'd have things like ubiquitous and cheap LEO satellite broadband. There is definitely a market for that. I suspect that the ability to transport goods and passengers around the globe in just a few hours would greatly open up demand once it became available, simply because people would get used to the idea that it's possible to begin with. (Remember, they said similar things to the guy who started FedEx.)

      There has to be some up-front R&D investment. Otherwise, cultural inertia would stop all advance.

    4. Re:Lower Launch Costs - Using Available Tech! by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      The developers of launch technologies were (until recently) doing so almost solely at the behest of the government.

      Sure - if you define "until recently" as "until the early 1970's". What you repeat is a prevalent meme in the space fanboi community - the problem is, it isn't true. Now, it *is* true that development since then is strongly derived from what went before - but they weren't designed to goverment specifications per se.
       
       

      And demand for space access is strongly shaped by the economics of the current launch vehicles. It's a classic chicken and egg problem.

      Very true - and nothing more than a restatement of what I already said.
       
       

      I think that if companies could launch 5,000 pound communications platforms for only 5 million dollars, you'd have things like ubiquitous and cheap LEO satellite broadband.

      Why? The birds themselves will still cost in the tens (or hundreds) of millions of dollars each, and a couple of dozen at least will be required to provide 24/7 availability across the US. (Unless you go geosync - which is extraordinarily unlikely to happen.) Current birds aren't expensive because launch costs are expensive, they are expensive because they must function in an extreme enviroment for years at a time without maintenance. (And no, you can't just 'launch spares' - because a) they won't be cheap either and b) they are subject to the same enviroment.)
       
       

      I suspect that the ability to transport goods and passengers around the globe in just a few hours would greatly open up demand once it became available, simply because people would get used to the idea that it's possible to begin with. (Remember, they said similar things to the guy who started FedEx.)

      Educated and knowledgeable people didn't say that to the guy who started FedEx - because he was building on a long established market with well established demand. What educated and knowledgeable people said was that he was fool to go up against the established and well entrenched services and companies already in existence.
    5. Re:Lower Launch Costs - Using Available Tech! by StCredZero · · Score: 1

      What you are saying is that those birds cost that much precisely because it's so difficult to launch them. So you have to amortize the large launch cost over as long an operational period as possible in an extreme environment. If launch costs were much lower, then you could make satellites much cheaper. You could launch more of them to achieve redundancy. And you have a much more affordable fall-back position of just launching another one. Also, economies of scale will start to kick in.

      And I thought what they said to the FedEx founders, was that 1) there was already mail and 2) not enough people wanted to to overnight things badly enough. But if this is a misunderstanding, please correct me.

    6. Re:Lower Launch Costs - Using Available Tech! by StCredZero · · Score: 1

      And note that I said "launch technologies" not "launch vehicles." We may be flying newer improved birds, but we are still doing things like we did in the 1970s. And as you point out we are not even doing the best we can at it. The record shows that doing it the way we are doing it now is not going to catalyze growth in space. I suspect that it has to be a new way, otherwise the price point will remain too high for things to get started.

    7. Re:Lower Launch Costs - Using Available Tech! by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      And note that I said "launch technologies" not "launch vehicles." We may be flying newer improved birds, but we are still doing things like we did in the 1970s.

      Well, I'll simply repeat what I said earlier, possibly it will sink in this time: The problem isn't technology. Period. Full stop.
       
       

      The record shows that doing it the way we are doing it now is not going to catalyze growth in space.

      Correct. But the problem with what we are doing now has nothing to do with the technologies used. Period. Full Stop.
       
       

      I suspect that it has to be a new way, otherwise the price point will remain too high for things to get started.

      How, precisely, is spending billions of dollars upfront going to reduce the price point? Economics simply doesn't work that way.
    8. Re:Lower Launch Costs - Using Available Tech! by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      What you are saying is that those birds cost that much precisely because it's so difficult to launch them. So you have to amortize the large launch cost over as long an operational period as possible in an extreme environment. If launch costs were much lower, then you could make satellites much cheaper.

      Absolutely incorrect.
       
      Even if launch costs were zero, the costs (I.E. lost revenue) of losing a bird are still quite large and the enviroment still as harsh. I.E. high reliability is still an ironclad requirement, and once under that requirement prices come down slowly if at all. (In fact, the prices for components for undersea cables haven't varied noticeably precisely because of this effect.)
       
      With regards to the FedEx launch, the problem isn't precisely what was said but the incorrect context you used it in. No matter what was said, he could point to the existing and proven markets as proof of demand. With low cost space acess, there are no proven and existing markets. None.
    9. Re:Lower Launch Costs - Using Available Tech! by StCredZero · · Score: 1

      Uh, you're conflating two statements of mine. One was about 2 hour delivery around the world. If current delivery was proof of demand, then you have an analogous situation today. So by your own statement, there's proven demand there. My second statement was about the costs of the satellites. The reliability requirements are no longer ironclad. If you can have a cheap commodity backup already in place, then you do not need it! (Example: Google servers.)

      For your example of undersea cables, you need to show analogous factors. Namely, has the technology for laying (launching) undersea cables advanced? Is there demand to drive the price of the better cable laying technology? Has the price of the better cable laying technology reached a threshold where cheap redundant cables can be in place? And finally, are there other technologies that make cables less valuable, which would confound your analogy?

      Also, your logic is partly circular. Reliability requirements are ironclad, in part because those birds are expensive, and they are expensive in part because the reliability requirements are ironclad. What if reliability is not ironclad? What if you can have arrays of redundant independent satellites? Your logic does not hold then, unless the space environment is somehow insurmountably extreme. (Apparently the Chinese are looking at COTS components for space. Radiation hardness is a problem, but not one that seems insurmountable for economies of scale.

      What in particular about the space environment is *so* insurmountable that economies of scale can never apply to communications equipment? What in particular about the deep undersea environment makes cables inherently expensive? If your analogy really has merit, then the answer to these questions will be very interesting.

    10. Re:Lower Launch Costs - Using Available Tech! by StCredZero · · Score: 1

      "The problem isn't technology" only from the point of view of certain components we already have. However, a lot of engineering needs to be done to get entirely new types of launch up and running. We know that TSTO can work. Lots of engineering needs to be done to actually get it to work. Once we are there, people will become aware the economic rules for space launch they were playing by no longer apply.

      You're right that technology is really not "the problem." Economics is. But until the technological tools that can change the rules are proven, people will keep playing by the old economic rules. This is where some up-front R&D investment will pay off. If things didn't progress this way, then we'd still be using vacuum tubes, only incrementally better and cheaper ones. The new, rules-changing technology of transistors required some up-front R&D investment.

      Entirely new ways of launching (TSTO with "pop-up" launch profiles, for example) are very expensive to develop. So the large investment required is a particularly large barrier. But it is not insurmountably large. The price of it is falling as technology advances as well. It will fall sometime.

    11. Re:Lower Launch Costs - Using Available Tech! by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      "The problem isn't technology" only from the point of view of certain components we already have. However, a lot of engineering needs to be done to get entirely new types of launch up and running.

      We don't need new types of launch vehicles either. The current high costs are driven by managerial issues and inertia - not technology.
       
       

      But until the technological tools that can change the rules are proven, people will keep playing by the old economic rules.

      What minimal technology changes are needed are already in existence and long proven. (I.E. adapting existing vehicles to mass production and minimizing production and operations man hours.)
       
        We don't need new technologies. The idiotic insistence that we must have new shinies to lower cost of acess and that we have no need to pay attention to long established and well proven engineering, management, accounting, economic and logistics principles holds us back from progress more than any other factor. (Mostly because new shinies are sexy and the other stuff isn't.)
    12. Re:Lower Launch Costs - Using Available Tech! by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Uh, you're conflating two statements of mine. One was about 2 hour delivery around the world. If current delivery was proof of demand, then you have an analogous situation today. So by your own statement, there's proven demand there.

      Sure there's a proven demand - but space acess prices would have to shrink to a degree well beyond even those most fevered dreams of the average space advocate to become even remotely possible. Thus the FedEx precedent is irrelevant, because he used existing markets and existing technologies.

      My second statement was about the costs of the satellites. The reliability requirements are no longer ironclad. If you can have a cheap commodity backup already in place, then you do not need it! (Example: Google servers.)

      In some fantasy universe where cheap commodity backups have any chance of existing, sure. In the real world - it's not happening. There are too many diverse types of birds performing too many diverse tasks. (Hint: Google servers were only possible because they can tap a miniscule fraction of a huge existing stream of existing commercial products produced to meet other demands. A situation utterly unlike satellites, where there isn't such a stream to tap and is extraordinarily low chance of one ever existing.)

      For your example of undersea cables, you need to show analogous factors. Namely, has the technology for laying (launching) undersea cables advanced? Is there demand to drive the price of the better cable laying technology? Has the price of the better cable laying technology reached a threshold where cheap redundant cables can be in place? And finally, are there other technologies that make cables less valuable, which would confound your analogy?

      Yes, yes, no, no.

      Also, your logic is partly circular. Reliability requirements are ironclad, in part because those birds are expensive, and they are expensive in part because the reliability requirements are ironclad.

      Wrong. Reliability requirements are ironclad because the costs of loss of service are so high. (As I've said at least twice before.)

      What if reliability is not ironclad? What if you can have arrays of redundant independent satellites?

      Because nobody is going to build such an array. As I explained before (like so much else), you don't keep your spares in hazardous enviroments. (Not to mention the fact that launch costs in the medium-to-long term isn't going to drop anywhere near enough. The low hanging fruit will lower them considerably - but beyond that is a steep and expensive technology curve.) Not to mention the fact that in the real world, spare capacity doesn't stay spare very long. It tends to get placed into service.

      (Apparently the Chinese are looking at COTS components for space. Radiation hardness is a problem, but not one that seems insurmountable for economies of scale.

      First, learn the difference between an academic study (which this is) and a serious plan with the intent to attempt to implement something (which your link isn't). Second, folks have been trying to build various forms of 'hard' circuits since the first can transistors - and they have been doing so at the 'economies of scale' level. They've invariably been more expensive than their commercial counterparts - because the demand is not as high. Economy of scale isn't a magic wand, it won't automagically reduce costs and produce something cheaply absent a very significant demand. Simple real world economics.

      What in particular about the space environment is *so* insurmountable that economies of scale can never apply to communications equipment? What in particular about the deep undersea environment makes cables inheren

    13. Re:Lower Launch Costs - Using Available Tech! by StCredZero · · Score: 1

      So, if a service is being implemented as multiple redundant birds, why does *this* require ironclad reliability? Again, your logic is circular. If there are redundant multiple sats, then the loss of any one or two should *not* constitute a loss of service.

      About 'hard' circuits and economies of scale - again your logic is circular. The demand is not high. But once you have the capability of launching multiple cheap sats, it will be.

      (And you completely miss my point about Google. That was only an example to show that multiple commodity devices with low reliability can fill in for one expensive specialized machine with high reliability, not an analogy about the economic situation.)

      Good, so you admit that there are no insurmountable physical constraints that could not be met by economies of scale. You only assert that economies of scale aren't there because demand isn't there. You have also agreed that these economies of scale aren't there because there's no demand. Again, we're back to our vicious cycle. This cycle could be broken by some R&D investment. In fact, I say that it will be. Only a matter of time.

    14. Re:Lower Launch Costs - Using Available Tech! by StCredZero · · Score: 1

      New technologies enable new ways of doing things. TSTO enables us to think of launch vehicles as *vehicles* and not munitions.

      Also, I agree with you that we don't need new technologies. I have also seen proposals to simply use the current launch techniques, but with economies of scale and better management. Unfortunately, I don't think this gets us far enough. We also agree that the decrease in cost is currently not enough to spur anyone to pursue it. And again, we agree that the way we're doing things now is not working.

      I thought you were saying that there isn't enough demand to get us out of the current situation. Which side are you arguing again?

    15. Re:Lower Launch Costs - Using Available Tech! by DeadChobi · · Score: 1

      Space is a far harsher place than the air-conditioned, computer-controlled server room. There's radiation, heat, meteorites, et. al, to worry about let alone malfunctions within the equipment itself. If google has a heat problem, it cranks up the AC. If a satellite provider has a problem with heat, their equipment fries because they have no control over the environment. The equipment has to be built robustly because of the unpredictability of space. Otherwise companies would use the cheapest shit they could get their hands on and fling into orbit.

      --
      SRSLY.
  30. What makes New Mexico a backwater? by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

    I mean...quite a lot of the country lives pretty close to New Mexico, e.g. in Arizona, California, Colorado, and Texas.

    It's a bit of a haul from the East Coast, I guess. But if you're forking out $200,000 for a once in a lifetime ride I can't see the extra $500 airfare from the Sprawl making you blink.

  31. first image by Doctrinal+Enforcer · · Score: 1

    that plane has completely missed the runway.

    --
    VERITAS VOS LIBERABIT
  32. observation by dalpeh · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who noticed that this looks like a toliet seat or bed pan ?

    --
    forgivness is easier to get than permission
  33. Umm...sure by sabernet · · Score: 1

    Is the spaceport inside the giant steel vagina?

    1. Re:Umm...sure by superflippy · · Score: 1

      I suppose that's the architectural equivalent of a chastity belt, to keep hostile aliens from penetrating our planet's defenses.

      --
      Your fantasies contain the seeds of important concepts.
    2. Re:Umm...sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks more like a giant steel toilet seat cover

  34. If there is a God that has a sense of humor by Timogen · · Score: 1

    The New Mexico Spaceport will be called 'Mos Eisely'

    1. Re:If there is a God that has a sense of humor by eutychus_awakes · · Score: 1

      Actually, we already have that. When you drive over the top of San Augustine pass and look down on the White Sands Missile Range HQ area, it looks remarkably like Mos Eisely as seen in Episode IV. Maybe if I have time someday, I'll take a picture and post it along with a screen capture side-by-side on Google Earth.

      --
      This sig is a test. If this had been an actual sig, you would be reading something quite a bit wittier than this now.
  35. Docking Bay 94 by 40ozFreak · · Score: 2, Funny

    Finally I've got a place to park the Millenium Falcon when I need to run out to Toshii station and pick up power converters.

  36. Launch Tower by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

    What about 11km high launch towers with electromagnetic rails on the inside, powered by nuclear power plants?

    --
    What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
    1. Re:Launch Tower by StCredZero · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, 11km is far too short an acceleration distance for anything but unmanned cargoes. (Think of how far downrange the Shuttle gets, accelerating all the while. You'd need a structure with length on that scale!) Also, getting altitude is only a small part of the problem. It's getting up to orbital velocity which is the big sticking point.

      That reminds me of another one. Apparently, some NASA researcher has determined that we could create super-strong cylindrical columns using Boron balloon tanks filled with super-pressurized gas. (A latex balloon is pretty flabby, but if one inflates one of the long skinny ones, one finds that it makes a usable column.) Such a structure would be super strong and super light, to the extent that we could build 100km tall towers. These would be incredibly costly, but a series of these could support an accelerator above the atmosphere. This would give us the same access to space as a basic space elevator.

      A "Null Prize" if you can find that one.

    2. Re:Launch Tower by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, 11km is far too short an acceleration distance for anything but unmanned cargoes. (Think of how far downrange the Shuttle gets, accelerating all the while. You'd need a structure with length on that scale!) Also, getting altitude is only a small part of the problem. It's getting up to orbital velocity which is the big sticking point.

      I had this discussion with a few people before, apparently you can reach orbital velocity with reasonable Gs within such a structure, which would need no space age materials, but rather be more of a pylon-like arrangement (I haven't the figures handy now). Even if you need to add a rocket booster for post-launch orbital velocity, you still save orders of magnitude on fuel, making cargo and manned missions considerably cheaper per kilo.

      Fascinating about the boron balloons though, I didn't know that...

      --
      What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
    3. Re: Launch Tower by StCredZero · · Score: 1

      Well, if we use x = 1/2 at^2, and plug in 9*9.8 (m/s^2) (nine gravities) and 11,000 meters, we get t^2 = 249.43 (s^2). Take the square root, and you get 15.79 seconds. If you accelerate at 9 G's for that long, you only get to about 1393 (m/s). (Little over Mach 4.) Orbital velocity is something like 6900 meters per second. And 9 G's is pretty damn high for passengers. Most of them would black out, and you probably couldn't take elderly and infirm passengers without liability insurance problems.

      What do you think reasonable G's are? I think 4 G's is what general cargo and passenger service needs to aim for.

      I like the idea of towers, however. I don't think you need to avoid all of the atmosphere to get usable launch towers. And, as you point out, you don't need to accelerate all the way to orbital velocity. As I point out, TSTO is relatively easy, and replacing the first stage would be a great thing to do.

    4. Re: Launch Tower by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

      Ha, yes, I dug out me old post on it! Here is the tower launch archive, from a few years back, which I was pointed to by Carlton Meyer, the guy responsible for the skyramp website. He and I were thinking along the same lines - how hard would it be to build a mountain to reach space? Obviously not literally, but you get the idea. Once you are past the 11km mark, you jump out of the troposphere. I'll quote one of the responses to my long ago post here:

      I also went ahead and did some quick math. 1 m/s/s acceleration over 11 km is not enough:

      s = s(0) + v(0)*t + 0.5*a*t^2, where s(0)=0 and v(0) = 0 so:
      t = ((2*s)/a)^0.5 = 148 seconds to traverse the 11 km

      v = v(0) + a*t = 0 + 1 m/s/s * 148 s = 148 m/s = 331 mph
      Woefully short of escape velocity.

      So then I tried 1 G and got 1040 mph, which still doesn't cut it. Next I went for 5 G's, which is on the order of what astronauts experience during a launch, and that gave me 2,326 mph. It's still not escape velocity, but surprisingly enough, it is sufficient kinetic energy to loft an object to a height of 22,000 miles, or the altitude of a geosynchronous orbit. Unfortunately, when it gets there it doesn't have sufficient tangetial velocity to stay there, so it follows a funny elliptical path 22,000 miles to the hard ground. I ran out of scratch paper before I could quantify that, however. I did have one line left to note that a 1000 kg payload accellerating at 5 G's requires 2.4 MW of power, not accounting for losses, which is one capability we do easily have.

      Tack on some engines which engage after launch and you have a winner!

      As for Gs, nn important question is, how fast can we accelerate? Accelerations of short duration (under perhaps 200 milliseconds) do not involve significant fluid shifts within the body, nor do they involve the various reflex responses that can affect responses to longer duration acceleration. Depending on the time that is spend under high acceleration, people can withstand extreme g-foreces. Depending on the individual's "g-tolerance" the oxygen supply to the head stops completely at 5 to 6 g resulting in unconsciousness, G-LOC. 4 is probably okay for small time periods.

      The best part about it is the economy involved. Once you get past the engineering of making sure the whole thing doesn't fall down, you could probably put it all in place for around 4 to 5 billion, a quarter of NASAs annual budget.

      --
      What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
    5. Re: Launch Tower by StCredZero · · Score: 1

      That's too cool! If you built your launch tower to give significant lateral velocity, then so much the better. In fact, it may be possible to design the trajectory so that you can skim off the top of the atmosphere and aerobrake any excess velocity. (You'll need some thermal protection for the craft anyhow, as it will be blazing through the atmosphere at only 35,000 feet at Mach 3.) Then all you're left with is a small burn for circularizing your orbit.

      Unfortunately, you are probably leaving out a big chunk of energy for losses due to air friction. This is why rockets need something like 8600 m/s delta-v to get to LEO, while orbital velocity is actually a bit less than that. Still, a rocket firing as a velocity sustainer through the atmosphere is a lot easier than trying to get it going that fast from a standstill in one stage.

      If we can build such a tower for 4 to 5 billion, then a much longer ramp reaching 11km but at a 30 degree incline might be feasible for under 15 billion. (Especially if it were built suspension-bridge style.) If we did this instead of a moon-base or manned Mars exploration, it would make those two things a heck of a lot cheaper!

      The world's governments should get together and build this somewhere like Ecuador. I'm also hoping the Chinese will build something like this.

    6. Re: Launch Tower by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, you are probably leaving out a big chunk of energy for losses due to air friction. This is why rockets need something like 8600 m/s delta-v to get to LEO, while orbital velocity is actually a bit less than that. Still, a rocket firing as a velocity sustainer through the atmosphere is a lot easier than trying to get it going that fast from a standstill in one stage.

      Well friction can be somewhat mitigated by designing the vehicle to be as low friction as possible. Current designs need to carry vast amounts of fuel, and I wouldn't call them the most aerodynamic options. I would envision long, needle like craft with three to five wings (for gliding up the maglev rails of a possibly evacuated launch tube), perhaps with scramjets for the final push to orbit. Actually that scramjet option looks very exciting, to quote the article:

      Opponents of scramjet research claim that most of the theoretical advantages for scramjets only accrue if a single stage to orbit (SSTO) vehicle can be successfully produced.

      Indeed!

      If we can build such a tower for 4 to 5 billion, then a much longer ramp reaching 11km but at a 30 degree incline might be feasible for under 15 billion. (Especially if it were built suspension-bridge style.) If we did this instead of a moon-base or manned Mars exploration, it would make those two things a heck of a lot cheaper!

      Yes, a ramp rather than a tower. You can't build any curvature into the construction, the stresses are phenomenal, but a 30 degree angle to assist with the orbital velocity would be perfect. Hmm. I would see the first things to be constructed as being orbital refineries to process handy ore bearing asteroids, using the raw force of the sun in space. Set up a refinery and send robotic prospectors out, before the miners themselves go up, ship back the chopped up bits to the refinery, and build whatever needs building up there! Or just drop the refined ore to the earth for processing. There is the commercial reason for space exploration, if anyone needs it.

      --
      What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
  37. What about air? by p3d0 · · Score: 1

    Even if an 11km-high tower were feasible (given that it would be 20 times the tallest tower ever built) and sufficient (given that reaching escape velocity within 11km would require a steel-crushing, organ-liquefying 560 Gs of acceleration), there's still the fact that you'd end up traveling at orbital velocity at an altitude where the air still has fully 1/5 of its sea-level density. Result: fireball.

    --
    Patrick Doyle
    I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
    1. Re:What about air? by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

      First of all, think pylons, not towers as in skyscrapers. This I assure you is technically feasible. Second, 11km puts you above most of the drag of the lower atmosphere (although I'll grant you it is only a few %), and crucially, above high winds and storms. Thirdly you don't need to reach escape velocity, just orbital. From there you can do what you like.

      If you can make orbital velocity, even low orbit easy and cheap to reach, its orders of magnitude more easy to reach escape velocity from there. If you really needed to reach escape, you can pack rockets into the flyer as well to give it a post launch boost. This has the advantage that you can save on the enormous amounts of fuel required to get to escape velocity, leaving more room for whatever you like.

      Simple! :D

      --
      What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
    2. Re:What about air? by StCredZero · · Score: 1

      11 km towers are well established as feasible with conventional construction techniques. (It would be damned expensive, however!)

      If we can manage atmospheric friction during hypersonic re-entry, then we can manage it during launch as well. Since we are partially freed from the tyranny of the Rocket Equation, we could afford the additional mass to do something like carry along some water to evaporatively cool the launch vehicle while it was blazing through the remaining 1/5th of the atmosphere.

      Pratt & Whitney RL-10s! Linear electromagnetic accelerators. Lasers. We already have the tools to get into space. Let's go already!