Startram — Maglev Train To Low Earth Orbit

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Startram — Maglev Train To Low Earth Orbit

Posted by Soulskill on Friday March 9, 2012 @06:04AM from the easy-to-build-just-add-unlimited-funding dept.

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."

33 of 356 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Fucking magnets by ColdWetDog · 2012-03-09 06:07 · Score: 5, Funny

Now, how is this going to work?

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
1. Re:Fucking magnets by busyqth · 2012-03-09 06:12 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  200 million amperes of current running down a 1000 km long superconducting cable. In other words: it's child;s play.
2. Re:Fucking magnets by camperdave · 2012-03-09 06:27 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Do I want to know what the induced magnetic field capable of levitating 4 tons at a distance of 20km is going to do to my hemoglobin, or to my laptop?
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
3. Re:Fucking magnets by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-09 06:42 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I'm guessing accelerate it at 3gs for a period of 5 minutes.
  If the craft is designed with any level of extraplanetary shielding in mind, it'll be able to reduce the EM bleedthrough to significantly below MRI levels, and 5 minutes in an MRI is generally not considered hazardous for a human. If they can't reasonably reduce the EM effect onboard low enough to be safe for electronics, you will probably have a secure faraday box to stow them in during launch.
4. Re:Fucking magnets by mcgrew · 2012-03-09 06:44 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I know that a sample of one is insignifigant, but my dad was a lineman working with voltages up to 90k. He could not wear a wristwatch unless it was completely made of non-ferrous material, because when he put it on after work, an hour later it stopped. Apparently his hemoglobin was magnetized. Yet he's now 80 and still in good health.
  I wouldn't worry about the magnetic fields. Apparently having your blood megnetized is harmless.
  Of course, the fact that his uncle started smoking cigarettes at age 12, quit at age 82 and lived ten more years illustrates that a sample of one is indeed insignifigant and perhaps meaningless. Me, I'd risk magnetic blood for a chance to go to outer space anyway, as I have half of dad's genes.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
5. Re:Fucking magnets by Entropius · 2012-03-09 06:52 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Wow. That's pretty damn impressive -- that despite the fluid nature of blood the spins retained magnetic order over macroscopic distances *after* bouncing around through his arteries.
6. Re:Fucking magnets by WillDraven · 2012-03-09 07:02 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I think he was maybe referring to the people on the ground in the area of the launch tube. I would imagine that you would have to build this thing on the ocean or in the Sahara desert to keep it from playing havoc with nearby electronics.
  
  --
  This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
7. Re:Fucking magnets by fahrbot-bot · 2012-03-09 07:18 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Apparently his hemoglobin was magnetized. Yet he's now 80 and still in good health.
  Another benefit is that when you're lost, you can just float your dad in a lake as a compass...
  
  --
  It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
8. Re:Fucking magnets by garyebickford · 2012-03-09 07:21 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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/
9. Re:Fucking magnets by Cyberax · 2012-03-09 08:09 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Absolutely nothing at all. Magnetic field drops off according to inverse _cube_ law. So the field will be barely detectable at that distance.
10. Re:Fucking magnets by Grishnakh · 2012-03-09 09:20 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  This is one of the big problems with our society as I see it, and a giant impediment to us actually making any real technological progress beyond building ourselves more handheld gadgets to entertain ourselves with, which aren't going to help us much with upcoming resource and energy shortages. We need to be building big superconducting structures, vacuum tubes, maglev tracks, etc. A space elevator or maglev train to orbit or undersea intercontinental vacuum tunnel or whatever is a monumental undertaking, yet the only experience we have with these technologies is very small-scale lab experiments, not any real-world production examples in the medium scale to refine our knowledge and techniques before we try building something really huge. And without any proven experience outside the lab, there's not going to be many investors willing to fund the megascale projects.
11. Re:Fucking magnets by jandrese · 2012-03-09 09:40 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  When someone proposes a gigantic megaproject like this and says that it would be technologically possible with todays materials, I always assume that they have oversimplified many parts of the design and that there are serious fundamental problems with the approach. This has been a pretty safe bet so far, and I don't think I'm going to be wrong here.
  
  Here's a question: When you are accelerating a multi-ton mass at 3G up to the top of a tube that is 24 times higher than the highest skyscraper in the world, how do you keep it from buckling under the force? Don't assume that the designers have thought about stuff like this, because most of the time they have not. They just worked out the basics on the back of a cocktail napkin and got all excited.
  
  Space elevator enthusiasts tend to be really bad about this. They're dreamers, not engineers.
  
  --
  
  I read the internet for the articles.
Train romance by Tangy · 2012-03-09 06:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

Every step towards "Galaxy Express 999" is a step in the right direction.
I can imagine quite a bit by elrous0 · 2012-03-09 06:10 · Score: 5, Funny

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.
1. Re:I can imagine quite a bit by Oswald+McWeany · 2012-03-09 06:15 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  A robot like that would never settle for a slash dotter.
  
  --
  "That's the way to do it" - Punch
2. Re:I can imagine quite a bit by idontgno · 2012-03-09 08:53 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  F that. I'd settle for understanding how magnets work.
  <deftly bringing the thread almost back on-topic.>
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Re:now it's just a minor matter of engineering by elrous0 · 2012-03-09 06:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
A better idea that a space elevator by ShooterNeo · 2012-03-09 06:17 · Score: 5, Informative

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.
1. Re:A better idea that a space elevator by RogueLeaderX · 2012-03-09 06:42 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
  The Gizmag author forgot to read these guys web-page apparently.
  Whitepaper
  FAQ
  The version the 'requires no materials we don't have today' is built into the side of a mountain and would kill any person you tried to launch using it. Basically a massive rail-gun for getting payloads to orbit. They're especially interested in space based solar power generation. (Because launching solar panels into space and beaming the power down to a receiving station near population centers is better than putting solar panels in the desert and running power to city centers via cables?)
Re:Need to mag-lev a megastructure to 20km by Oswald+McWeany · 2012-03-09 06:17 · Score: 4, Funny

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
Re:now it's just a minor matter of engineering by Thud457 · 2012-03-09 06:22 · Score: 3, Informative

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
Energy requirements are the same by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-09 06:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Energy requirements are the same by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-09 06:46 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Posting Anon to save my mods. Don't the savings come in not accelerating your fuel?
2. Re:Energy requirements are the same by i+kan+reed · 2012-03-09 06:48 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Yeah, that's true, except in as much that it's not. This system would save you all the fuel it takes to launch all your fuel. The air resistance is anything but negligible at 7 times the speed of sound. That's disregarding the propulsion inefficiency of rocket fuel compared to magnetic force. Not to mention the risk/preparation costs for a launch. All estimates I've seen of the differences are measured in orders of magnitude. While a space elevator is generally considered impossible at this time, it really would be worth the cost.
3. Re:Energy requirements are the same by Baloroth · 2012-03-09 07:11 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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
4. Re:Energy requirements are the same by gtbritishskull · 2012-03-09 07:28 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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.
Hmmm, 1600 km of superconductors... by hbar+squared · 2012-03-09 06:29 · Score: 5, Interesting

" 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?
cargo version much more practical by bcrowell · 2012-03-09 06:31 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.
How is this possible? by Karmashock · 2012-03-09 06:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
wtf? by jafac · 2012-03-09 06:38 · Score: 3, Funny

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.
Re:cost, $60 billion? by TheRaven64 · 2012-03-09 06:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

To put $180 billion in perspective, that's about the same cost 400 shuttle launches.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:cost, $60 billion? by subreality · 2012-03-09 06:57 · Score: 5, Informative

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.
Re:now it's just a minor matter of engineering by mosb1000 · 2012-03-09 07:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

$20 Billion is approximately NASA's yearly budget. Much more apt comparison.