Slashdot Mirror
Startram — Maglev Train To Low Earth Orbit
Zothecula writes "Getting into space is one of the harder tasks to be taken on by humanity. The present cost of inserting a kilogram of cargo by rocket into Low Earth Orbit (LEO) is about US$10,000. A manned launch to LEO costs about $100,000 per kilogram of passenger. But who says we have to reach orbit by means of rocket propulsion alone? Instead, imagine sitting back in a comfortable magnetic levitation train and taking a train ride into orbit."
1. Requires no materials we don't already have
2. Would allow for continuous launches. This tube could be used every 15 minutes or so for another payload
3. Fairly massively spaceships could be launched this way
4. Once you get into LEO, getting around in space is relatively easy and cheap.
Downsides : the forces involved here are extreme. There's enormous magnetic fields, the whole structure is suspended in the air, it's over 1000 miles long, and depends on various complex pieces of tech to not rip itself apart. If the vacuum leaks or the plasma window fails or a magnet gets too much current, a chunk or even the whole damn launcher could spectacularly fail.
In addition, the estimated costs have got to be a factor of 10 too optimistic. 60 billion dollars? For something constructed of tens of thousands of miles of superconducting cable and a structure made to aerospace engineering tolerances that is 1000 miles long? Even 600 billion sounds optimistic for something that large.
There are two proposed configurations of Startram, Generation-1 and Generation-2. Gen-1 Startram is a cargo-only version which does not require levitated tubes (but instead is built up the flank of a tall mountain) and could be built within ten years at a cost of $20 Billion. Gen-2 Startram is a people-capable version which does require levitated tubes and could be built within twenty years at a cost of $60 Billion.
[citation]
ohmygod. I want some of whatever they're smoking. At those low, low prices, everybody can have one.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I'm skeptical of the cost. $60B 2010 dollars is the estimated cost for high speed rail from SF and Sacramento to LA and San Diego. You're telling me I can get a maglev to fucking space for that much? Please do it if it's true, but I don't believe it.
The actual energy requirements to get into orbit are pretty small, when you run the math. A couple hundred kg at standard kWh costs would be a couple hundred USD (don't remember the exact numbers and don't feel like doing them again. I actually ran the math to get from Earth surface to infinity: LEO would be much cheaper). You also need to accelerate to get orbital velocity, but again that actually doesn't take that much energy. The problem is, rockets are extremely inefficient. Hence why people want space elevators: technically, you could get to space, personally, for 50-60 dollars using that method. Now, this is pure physics: the actual energy cost is much higher, but even assuming only decent energy efficiency, it still wouldn't cost more than a thousand or so after you get the system set up.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
The blood system does carry an electrical current, so it makes sense that there would be a related magnetic field. And (speculating) if a large number of individual cells had become weakly magnetized (acquired some magnetic alignment in materials in the cell), then it stands to reason that they would continue to maintain some small level of orientation for a while, as each one tends to encourage the neighbors to stay aligned.
Look up "Biologically Closed Electrical Circuits, by Björn Nordenström a very well-regarded pathologist, who was allowed in the 1960s to perform studies and experiments on terminally ill patients. He proved that there is an electrical current that flows through your blood stream, and that any inflammation involves a current flow as well. There's like a little fountain of current through that owie on your hand. Also through cancers, etc. In his experiments (on patients who were terminally ill of at least two different diseases, a requirement required to allow him to do the work), he was also able to show that many such diseases - cancerous lesions among others - could be shrunk and actually cured by reversing the current flow.
The original book of that title is oriented toward researchers in that field, is very technical and very expensive - IIRC $700? - but it is often available at college libraries, and there are several other books that are oriented more toward non-technical readers. There is also an association that has been supporting ongoing research, some of which has shown very encouraging results with localized tumors.
Dr. Nordenström was quite familiar with negative reactions from his colleagues. As his accomplishments grew, he became Head of Diagnostic Radiology at Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. He also authored or co-authored more than 150 publications in radiology, electrobiology and pharmacology. He was a member of the Nobel Assembly from 1967 through 1986, and served as President of the Assembly in 1985. Even with these credentials, many of his ideas, such as needle biopsy and balloon catheterization were initially met with significant amounts of opposition by his peers.
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
The amount of energy required to get a kilogram into geosynchronous orbit is around 15kWh. Assuming 10c per kWh (a pessimistic number since I pay ~5c/kWh to my utility company for my house), it should cost ~$1.50/kg to get something into geosynchronous orbit. I am pretty sure the space shuttle uses a lot more than 15kWh/kg to launch, considering that gasoline has 36kWh/gal (US). So, you are wrong unless you have some evidence that "no matter what method you use" you will get ~0.015% efficiency.
Absolutely nothing at all. Magnetic field drops off according to inverse _cube_ law. So the field will be barely detectable at that distance.
These "handheld gadgets" gave us Li-Ion batteries, which made all-electric cars practical... That's pretty damn huge.
If we had had a bigger push for EVs earlier, more advanced batteries would have been researched and developed earlier, rather than waiting for handheld gadgets to drive the market.
Frankly, vocal proponents of maglevs are also preventing us from just developing traditional high-speed rail, which France has shown to be imminently practical, and still very fast.
You've got to be kidding. France is a tiny country, about the size of a few east coast states; there simply isn't much distance between any two points there. HSR may be practical there, but it hasn't shown itself to be very practical here in the US, aside from the Northeast Corridor. Things are just too far apart; there's too many people wanting to travel between FL and NY, NY and LA, LA and WA, etc. Besides, how can HSR travel ever get anywhere very fast when you're only allowed to travel 35mph anywhere near any populated area thanks to morons that try to "beat the train" at crossings? I have serious doubts HSR could ever work here even in limited deployments, because of too many legal issues; you'd need to either elevate the train well above the ground, or bury it in tunnels; the first is probably impractical and the latter too expensive.
A space elevator definitely sounds like a great idea, but again it needs more funding to develop the required materials and engineering knowledge, because right now it's pretty much just on the drawing board. No one's made a cable with the required strength and deployed it in the field for anything, they've just talked about how to make it. There's no telling what kind of issues will arise when trying to develop this stuff at a large scale.