Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

"Slingatron" To Hurl Payloads Into Orbit

Posted by samzenpus on from the throwing-it-out-there dept.

cylonlover writes "People have been shooting things into space since the 1940s, but in every case this has involved using rockets. This works, but it's incredibly expensive with the cheapest launch costs hovering around $2,000 per pound. This is in part because almost every bit of the rocket is either destroyed or rendered unusable once it has put the payload into orbit. Reusable launch vehicles like the SpaceX Grasshopper offer one way to bring costs down, but another approach is to dump the rockets altogether and hurl payloads into orbit. That's what HyperV Technologies Corp. of Chantilly, Virginia is hoping to achieve with a 'mechanical hypervelocity mass accelerator' called the slingatron."

11 of 438 comments (clear)

  1. HyperV? by mingot · · Score: 5, Funny

    Are they virtualizing this?

  2. My oh my by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 5, Funny

    Be careful if you build one on the moon, though. Those people will get uppity and use it as high ground to gain independence from the democratically-elected governments of Earth.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:My oh my by sweatyboatman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      TANSTAAFL

      --
      It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
    2. Re:My oh my by jamstar7 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yup. In the West, they vote with dollars. The voter with the most dollars elects their own government.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    3. Re:My oh my by organgtool · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just to clarify: it's not that the person with the most dollars gets his guy into office. The system currently allows someone to contribute money to all possible candidates and without those candidates knowing that you paid their opponents as well. Since you have paid all possible parties, your views are guaranteed to be represented regardless of who wins. And then a whole bunch of people will call the voters stupid for electing these guys when the fact of the matter is that all sides were bought because the system is corrupt. I hate to sound cynical, but at this point, it really doesn't matter who you vote for in federal elections.

  3. If it's cheaper it's still good by Firethorn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just because you can't put astronauts or unhardened electronic/mechanical bits up with it doesn't really reduce it's value.

    If it can reduce launch costs for the stuff it can launch to around $100/pound vs $2k, it changes the dynamics even if it's just launching oxygen, water, and such to the station.

    "One true solution" arguments (it doesn't replace every use so it's useless!) don't help solve problems.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
    1. Re:If it's cheaper it's still good by mmcxii · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "One true solution" arguments (it doesn't replace every use so it's useless!) don't help solve problems.

      True but pointing out how a solution doesn't solve every aspect of every problem is what gets a post modded up around here. This reinforcement of short-sightedness keeps rearing it's ugly head with nearly every article. Thus even people who know better are still prone to postings such as this just because they know it'll be modded up. The cycle continues and we help to breed a new generation of cynics who don't think that things getting a little better today is a worthwhile goal if it's not the future promised to them by the most optimistic sci-fi stories.

      Welcome to Slashdot.

  4. Re:Limited cargo use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the article:

    It’s questionable whether any rocket system could survive such stresses and there’s certainly no chance of a slingatron being used on a manned mission because it would turn an astronaut into astronaut pudding. Only the most solid state and hardened of satellites built along the lines of an electronic artillery shell fuse would have a chance of survival. The developers say that a larger slingatron would reduce the forces, but even with a reduction by a factor of 10,000, it would still be restricted to very robust cargoes. This makes it mainly attractive for raw materials, such as radiation shielding, fuel, water, and other raw materials.

  5. Re:Cargo is expensive by Jeremi · · Score: 5, Funny

    Unlimited pudding rations for all ISS crew members!

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  6. Re:Cargo is expensive by nojayuk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A surprisingly large amount of stuff sent into low earth orbit and even geosynchronous orbit consists of fuel and oxidiser. The Shuttle launched with over 14 tonnes of manoeuvering fuel and oxidiser on board for the OMS and RCS motors. That's 14 tonnes that couldn't be dedicated to payload, food, water etc. Similarly a geosynchrononous satellite weighing 6 tonnes will be carrying two or three tones of fuel and oxidiser so it can maneuver into its final orbit and allow it to maintain station for a decade or more. Some GEO birds have been decommissioned when they nearly ran out of fuel, not because they broke down or became obsolete.

    Using a slingshot or other brute-force technique to put tanks of fuel and oxidiser into orbit cheaply could well be worthwhile; robot tugs could collect them into a tank farm of some kind in a higher orbit and then deliver fuel and oxidiser to various vehicles as needed rather than them having to lift their entire fuel and oxidiser loads along with delicate electronics, structural components for Mars landers, fleshy meatbags etc.

  7. Re:Limited cargo use by tmosley · · Score: 5, Funny

    Stop anthropomorphizing space. It hates it when you do that.