Uhm...no, it's because practical implementations have limits (nvm general imperfections of the real world - the major thing for Otto are properties of fuel / octane number; for Diesel - materials of the engine). Cooling medium, efficient disposal of waste heat is required for the cycles to work!
The issue that you, for some reason, do not see is that your maglev tube would require everything a typical rocket and its launch already does. EVERYTHING! And MUCH more (plus - first demonstrate the viability of underlying concept in a monumentally more simple application, then...wait, not even then can you start promoting it as some wundersolution in quite different scenario!)
Also, real world does have practical limits and wishful thinking doesn't take them away. It didn't with the Shuttle, when we "really, really wanted it" (why do you think it's unlike the spaceplanes from works of fiction?! (on which its designers, also of early "specifications", were undoubtedly raised...) But even those, when thoroughly looked at by actual physicists and engineers - HOTOL, for example - turn out not really better, in best(!) case scenario, than a "dumb rocket" using comparable materials science... one which we don't even have, and which a spaceplane requires to be even barely doable)
The way physics, thermodynamics (a bitch...), Carnot cycle works - it won't give much. Might harm things (added weight, etc.). There's a reason that's a waste heat.
"Evacuated maglev rail tube of some sort"? "Vastly cheaper than rockets"? You... are not joking? Oh my...
Do you see anything comparable in operation?... (nvm large masses, high accelerations, huge energies involved if the maglev payload is a rocket, nvm "popping" the tube...)
The "tremendous improvement" they talk about is merely at the cost of quite possibly not practical, one of a kind megastructure. Forming with the rocket a potentially quite problematic, high-speed dynamic system during launch.
Vs. having the same gain for just somewhat enlarging the first stage (also via quite straightforward "multiplication" of it, what Delta IV Heavy sometimes does, what Angara will do to an even larger extent), continuing to use simple launch facilities and decently easy, at this point, procedures. On a static platform.
You provide great examples why "dumb rockets" do remain attractive (and remember, people similarly enthusiastic about their dreams - even people from the same institutions - gave us the Shuttle; it also had great advertising before the reality set in)
So? 11km is in the range of Pegasus launch (did you bother to check?) Even inclined track (not simple tower anymore!) is unlikely to surpass a jetliner at speed...
Yes, yes... and some fantasy, massively more complex system (say, a launch loop) is a solution to all those troubles. As was the Shuttle. Please...
BTW the main problem of N-1 was politically rushed schedule (gee, I wonder how "we must do this!"-driven megastructure would fare...) - its engines never even test fired as a group, before launch attempt.
But there's another outwardly quite complex rocket, few engines, many more nozzles, very "crude" timing of separation, the closest to mass production - it's also the most reliable... most frequently used (obviously) launch vehicle in the world
Of course, from your description of "requirement" to be asymmetrically loaded, to "allow" assymetrical thrust & mostly horizontal flight... it's clear you have no idea about the basics of rocketry, of physics (say, parts manifesting themselves in gravity turns, which dominate the dynamics of launch); just ideological derision of technology that "took away" the dreams described in works of fantasy, just puffy wishful thinking.
And why do you think 1) might be the case, hm? (do our airplanes resemble this wishful thinking?) You really don't see, "ahh, this is the way, it will be great!" analogies? Where are any actively suspended buildings?! (nvm of a scale of megastructures)
But it can be also the case, especially in hard conditions. The server with which aGPS communicates is practically guaranteed to have fabulous visibility of the sats, can correlate this with not sufficient or otherwise confusing signals in, say, urban (or whatever the type) canyons.
Few km of height is largely insignificant, else you would see spaceports on major highlands; a launcher works primarily horizontally, for speed - and tower could provide very little of that (remember there's a square in kinetic energy...)
In fact, we already have a launcher which does more than your fantasy could ever accomplish - Pegasus rocket (check it out). It is one the least cost efficient launchers around.
Of course "some can do that" - is it so hard to grasp why I wrote "some solutions" (other, those which can't... but are poised to become extremely popular), or what "related" could mean, in relation to grandparent poster, TFS and TFA?
Just because you don't understand how the world is not homogeneous, doesn't mean that every place has any useful GPS traffic or road hazard information. On an ubermain road with target town visible.
There's more to it, aGPS often offloads actual calculations onto its servers, gets precise time from cell network or downloads via gprs ephemeris data otherwise (slowly...) updated via signals from the sats.
AND, also, it has many elements which don't go away despite wishful thinking (BTW, realizing the conclusions of Michelson–Morley experiment or of some dualities getting into the way of elegant wave theory... not only brought new possibilities, also new barriers) - our science is, less and less over time, incomplete, not blatantly wrong (which would be required by many of the "alternatives" to rockets)
Why does Neal want to start with rockets, anyway? Surely calling for new era of ships' hulls which aren't constrained by Archimedes' principle (over two thousand years old! Should be trivial to ignore!) will give much quicker and profound effects - imagine the benefits for existing commerce everywhere!
There are differences in certainty each solution conveys or tries to convey... (isn't the whole theme of GPS in popular culture "get to any destination you want, effortlessly! Just pick it!"? And don't go into areas of promises from gods...;p )
The thing about preloading (or, specifically, lack of it) is how certain solutions which are generally great, and are bound to become massively popular & on which many people will certainly depend... seem to eschew fully offline capability, and for no good reason. Well, except for how it would get in the way of "location AdSense"...
It still isn't advertised much (hey, it would be bad advertising...) / such screens are apparently easy to ignore.
BTW, it's even more puzzling when people seem to rely on GPS, and in an unsafe way... when it isn't really needed. It's not a very rare sight to see a car with local plates, few to dozen km from its (small / impossible to get lost in) hometown, driving towards it on an ubermain road, in the night, with the display of GPS unit blasting at full brightness into the eyes of its driver...
Though that's also a deceit (effectively) by the GPS unit / their manufacturers don't tend to advertise their capabilities as "may be wrong" (and how can random people know up front?)
Related: some solutions could stop insisting on loading the needed data only at the start of a particular journey. Allowing to have recent and fairly good offline maps of large areas, also where there's no cellular signal, would really help with the whole concept of GPS...
Said article is based upon bunk proposal of somebody who wishes for current working systems to be replaced by his system. Do you expect us to grant every such wish (when looking closer at engineering, even at physics, tells us they can't work...)
From what I see, some people also tend to belittle all of current science and scientists mostly when too many of its aspects run counter to some "opinions" of said people... while the humanity is doing quite good (there is nothing wrong with "inertia" in such case). You can't know if we're not approaching relative stability of practically possible technology... what is indeed the normal state for our species (interspersed with very few short bursts of progress). At the least, logic dictates that wishful thinking has limits.
(medicine has social problems BTW - people, the patients care about their lives too much to simply trust evidence)
Check put Pegasus rocket - it does to a large degree what you want. And is one of the most expensive, per kg, launchers around.
The general problem is how "enthusiasts" forget about physics, about rocket equation, about how majority of the acceleration must happen outside the atmosphere, how there's a square attached to speed in kinetic energy (which comes from the energy of propellant). Read about HOTOL or Skylon, too. When rigorously looked at, ending not better (in best case scenario!) than a normal rocket using similar materials (which we don't have yet, and which are required for a spaceplane to even barely work - all those fancy, complicated flight sequences accomplishing... to lift structures... which are necessary for said sequences)
Slashdot Mirror
Uhm...no, it's because practical implementations have limits (nvm general imperfections of the real world - the major thing for Otto are properties of fuel / octane number; for Diesel - materials of the engine). Cooling medium, efficient disposal of waste heat is required for the cycles to work!
The issue that you, for some reason, do not see is that your maglev tube would require everything a typical rocket and its launch already does. EVERYTHING! And MUCH more (plus - first demonstrate the viability of underlying concept in a monumentally more simple application, then ...wait, not even then can you start promoting it as some wundersolution in quite different scenario!)
... one which we don't even have, and which a spaceplane requires to be even barely doable)
Also, real world does have practical limits and wishful thinking doesn't take them away. It didn't with the Shuttle, when we "really, really wanted it" (why do you think it's unlike the spaceplanes from works of fiction?! (on which its designers, also of early "specifications", were undoubtedly raised...) But even those, when thoroughly looked at by actual physicists and engineers - HOTOL, for example - turn out not really better, in best(!) case scenario, than a "dumb rocket" using comparable materials science
All steam engines are - the working medium is heated by external energy source.
The way physics, thermodynamics (a bitch...), Carnot cycle works - it won't give much. Might harm things (added weight, etc.). There's a reason that's a waste heat.
But who knows, steam itself might partly return...
"Evacuated maglev rail tube of some sort"? "Vastly cheaper than rockets"? You... are not joking? Oh my...
Do you see anything comparable in operation?... (nvm large masses, high accelerations, huge energies involved if the maglev payload is a rocket, nvm "popping" the tube...)
The "tremendous improvement" they talk about is merely at the cost of quite possibly not practical, one of a kind megastructure. Forming with the rocket a potentially quite problematic, high-speed dynamic system during launch.
Vs. having the same gain for just somewhat enlarging the first stage (also via quite straightforward "multiplication" of it, what Delta IV Heavy sometimes does, what Angara will do to an even larger extent), continuing to use simple launch facilities and decently easy, at this point, procedures. On a static platform.
You provide great examples why "dumb rockets" do remain attractive (and remember, people similarly enthusiastic about their dreams - even people from the same institutions - gave us the Shuttle; it also had great advertising before the reality set in)
So? 11km is in the range of Pegasus launch (did you bother to check?) Even inclined track (not simple tower anymore!) is unlikely to surpass a jetliner at speed...
Yes, yes ... and some fantasy, massively more complex system (say, a launch loop) is a solution to all those troubles. As was the Shuttle. Please...
... most frequently used (obviously) launch vehicle in the world
BTW the main problem of N-1 was politically rushed schedule (gee, I wonder how "we must do this!"-driven megastructure would fare...) - its engines never even test fired as a group, before launch attempt.
But there's another outwardly quite complex rocket, few engines, many more nozzles, very "crude" timing of separation, the closest to mass production - it's also the most reliable
Of course, from your description of "requirement" to be asymmetrically loaded, to "allow" assymetrical thrust & mostly horizontal flight... it's clear you have no idea about the basics of rocketry, of physics (say, parts manifesting themselves in gravity turns, which dominate the dynamics of launch); just ideological derision of technology that "took away" the dreams described in works of fantasy, just puffy wishful thinking.
And why do you think 1) might be the case, hm? (do our airplanes resemble this wishful thinking?) You really don't see, "ahh, this is the way, it will be great!" analogies? Where are any actively suspended buildings?! (nvm of a scale of megastructures)
But it can be also the case, especially in hard conditions. The server with which aGPS communicates is practically guaranteed to have fabulous visibility of the sats, can correlate this with not sufficient or otherwise confusing signals in, say, urban (or whatever the type) canyons.
Why isn't he pulling his hair out wondering about automobile manufacturers unwilling simply drop the wheel? Where is my flying car?
Few km of height is largely insignificant, else you would see spaceports on major highlands; a launcher works primarily horizontally, for speed - and tower could provide very little of that (remember there's a square in kinetic energy...)
In fact, we already have a launcher which does more than your fantasy could ever accomplish - Pegasus rocket (check it out). It is one the least cost efficient launchers around.
Please, drop the wishful thinking.
what's the best way to get into space
How can you know that?
Did the Shuttle deliver on even one of its main points, as advertised? How are we along with building megastructures?
Science fiction was riddled with spaceplanes. Rockets...not so much.
I'm not sure if reductio ad absurdum is a productive way in approaching road traffic (or generally societal) hiccups...
Of course "some can do that" - is it so hard to grasp why I wrote "some solutions" (other, those which can't... but are poised to become extremely popular), or what "related" could mean, in relation to grandparent poster, TFS and TFA?
Just because you don't understand how the world is not homogeneous, doesn't mean that every place has any useful GPS traffic or road hazard information. On an ubermain road with target town visible.
There's more to it, aGPS often offloads actual calculations onto its servers, gets precise time from cell network or downloads via gprs ephemeris data otherwise (slowly...) updated via signals from the sats.
As long as you aren't forced to divert from it in an area without data connection... (and I wonder, what happens if the phones reboots / etc.?)
AND, also, it has many elements which don't go away despite wishful thinking (BTW, realizing the conclusions of Michelson–Morley experiment or of some dualities getting into the way of elegant wave theory ... not only brought new possibilities, also new barriers) - our science is, less and less over time, incomplete, not blatantly wrong (which would be required by many of the "alternatives" to rockets)
Why does Neal want to start with rockets, anyway? Surely calling for new era of ships' hulls which aren't constrained by Archimedes' principle (over two thousand years old! Should be trivial to ignore!) will give much quicker and profound effects - imagine the benefits for existing commerce everywhere!
There are differences in certainty each solution conveys or tries to convey... (isn't the whole theme of GPS in popular culture "get to any destination you want, effortlessly! Just pick it!"? And don't go into areas of promises from gods... ;p )
... seem to eschew fully offline capability, and for no good reason. Well, except for how it would get in the way of "location AdSense"...
The thing about preloading (or, specifically, lack of it) is how certain solutions which are generally great, and are bound to become massively popular & on which many people will certainly depend
It still isn't advertised much (hey, it would be bad advertising...) / such screens are apparently easy to ignore.
... when it isn't really needed. It's not a very rare sight to see a car with local plates, few to dozen km from its (small / impossible to get lost in) hometown, driving towards it on an ubermain road, in the night, with the display of GPS unit blasting at full brightness into the eyes of its driver...
BTW, it's even more puzzling when people seem to rely on GPS, and in an unsafe way
Though that's also a deceit (effectively) by the GPS unit / their manufacturers don't tend to advertise their capabilities as "may be wrong" (and how can random people know up front?)
Related: some solutions could stop insisting on loading the needed data only at the start of a particular journey. Allowing to have recent and fairly good offline maps of large areas, also where there's no cellular signal, would really help with the whole concept of GPS...
Said article is based upon bunk proposal of somebody who wishes for current working systems to be replaced by his system. Do you expect us to grant every such wish (when looking closer at engineering, even at physics, tells us they can't work...)
... what is indeed the normal state for our species (interspersed with very few short bursts of progress). At the least, logic dictates that wishful thinking has limits.
From what I see, some people also tend to belittle all of current science and scientists mostly when too many of its aspects run counter to some "opinions" of said people... while the humanity is doing quite good (there is nothing wrong with "inertia" in such case). You can't know if we're not approaching relative stability of practically possible technology
(medicine has social problems BTW - people, the patients care about their lives too much to simply trust evidence)
Check put Pegasus rocket - it does to a large degree what you want. And is one of the most expensive, per kg, launchers around.
The general problem is how "enthusiasts" forget about physics, about rocket equation, about how majority of the acceleration must happen outside the atmosphere, how there's a square attached to speed in kinetic energy (which comes from the energy of propellant). Read about HOTOL or Skylon, too. When rigorously looked at, ending not better (in best case scenario!) than a normal rocket using similar materials (which we don't have yet, and which are required for a spaceplane to even barely work - all those fancy, complicated flight sequences accomplishing... to lift structures... which are necessary for said sequences)
say by returning a very rich asteroid to earth orbit
Say what?