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."
Now, how is this going to work?
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Every step towards "Galaxy Express 999" is a step in the right direction.
If I'm going to fantasize about shit that will never be built, I'd rather dream of the sexbot. Oh perfect robotic woman---who is always horny, cooks and cleans, never wants diamonds, has no parents, never drones about about some bitch at work, never cheats, never complains about wanting a bigger house or nicer car---how I dream of thee.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
So will the spaceport will be built at Sodor?
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
All they need is a trillion $ and a bunch of technology that hasn't been invented yet. Easy Peasy.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
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.
I can't see anything impractical or horrifically energy-intensive about this system.
That's because the article doesn't fill you in on all the important facts:
- it would be built by British Rail.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
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
a rail gun you can ride?
Supplies!
The energy requirements to get into orbit are practically the same no matter what method you use. Yes there is some savings from air resistance if you do it at a slower speed but it's not that much.
The only savings will be from a safety standpoint or similar. The energy costs will still be enormous.
" there is a superconducting cable on the ground carrying 200 million amperes, and a superconducting cable in the launch tube carrying 20 million amperes, at an altitude of 20 km there will be a levitating force of about 4 tons per meter of cable length"
That works out to an energy density of (mgh)=1.5e9 J/m. Multiply that by 1600 km, and you get 2.5e15 J, or half a megaton, equivalent to the yield of a small hydrogen bomb. Anyone ever see a superconducting magnet quench?
The thing that makes this such a ridiculous engineering project is the requirement to carry humans, who can't be subjected to more than about 3 g's. The length of the track is inversely proportional to the acceleration, so if you're sending up steel I-beams that can withstand 3000 g's, you can shorten the track to 1 mile rather than 1000 miles. Tanks of water and rocket fuel can also be subjected to a lot more than 3 g's.
Find free books.
I was reading through it and initially thought it was just flinging the train from the ground up... but apparently it needs a TWELVE MILE HIGH RAMP!... that is not practical. If you used Mount Everest to get a head start it would help but it wouldn't get it near enough to that mark to matter. How the hell does anyone think building this would be possible?
the space elevator ideas are less crazy and they're kookoo for cocopuffs...
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Did I accidentally browse to "Popular Science Online"?
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
In the US at least, we can't even get funding for maglev trains ON THE GROUND. Until the economy is better (in, oh in another 500 years or so) nobody is going to fund something like this.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
To put $180 billion in perspective, that's about the same cost 400 shuttle launches.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
35756 Km of cable is going to weigh quite a bit no matter what you make it out of, multiply that by $10,000 per Kg and you've got one heck of a problem to solve right there when it comes to building a space elevator. Several non-rocket launch technologies, the star tram included, can be build from the ground, you could build the whole thing without a single rocket launch. The same can be said about space fountains and (my personal non-rocket launch technology) launch loops.
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.
Which direction do you think fuel costs are going to go over the next 20 years?
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
The trouble is that it is impossible for the US government to accomplish any project of large enough size to be political and which will take more than four years.
Well, unless it involves the military -- they've bamboozled the electorate into pretty consistently fellating them regardless of the wisdom of whatever it is they are doing.
We're talking about the difference between California money and real money.
$20 Billion is approximately NASA's yearly budget. Much more apt comparison.
There are many unsolved issues with regards to a Space Elevator, but lifting 36,000 km of cable isn't necessarily one of the most significant problems. Most projections or descriptions I've come across describe things such that we would manufacture and lower the cable from orbit. Now granted, this itself presents many problems since you would have to create all that infrastructure "up there" and then find/capture source material. But you also need to do that for the counterweight. You're certainly not going to lift THAT into space.
Free Google Books preview of that book by Nordenstrom: http://books.google.com/books/about/Biologically_closed_electric_circuits.html?id=zb-3YzIn4ZcC
There might well be something to it, but please also look into vitamin D and vegetables as a way to prevent or minimize cancer:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/cancer/
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/article24.aspx
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.