Author Topic: Saharan propulsion - ASPS Mass driver  (Read 12401 times)

Offline SergioZ82

  • Member
  • Posts: 25
  • Italy
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 10
Saharan propulsion - ASPS Mass driver
« on: 03/21/2018 08:05 pm »
Hi,
this is the translation of a Laureti's article about an alernative launch system, in the eventuality that PNN law of inertia wouldn't allow a direct take off from Earth.

Please enjoy the reading  :)

Introduction:

What I'm going to say is obviously in general terms, as I haven't got  any engineering skills to execute and configure this next project in detail. The project in my opinion has feasible costs, although considerable.

The considerable costs are justified by the prospect of significant advantages, that is potentially autonomous extraterrestrial colonies.

But the considerable costs lead, in my opinion, to solutions not even remotely approachable by today's rocketry.  It's a turning point that originates from experimental facts, at this point historical, of rocket astronautics and its unavoidable wastes and failures besides its current stall and inability to set permanent outposts on Moon and Mars.

What I say has a specific objective: colonies on the Moon and Mars, that is, to bring there industries and humans to settle permanent activities WITH THE FINAL OBJECTIVE OF SELF-SUFFICIENCY and therefore the whole requires a titanic effort that nowadays rocketry is not able to sustain in terms of costs, time and quantity of materials that space stations in Earth, lunar or Martian orbit will have to handle. Space stations that will need to be much more populated, stocked and powerful than the ISS.
If we want to colonize the Moon and then Mars we can not think of doing it with toy trumpet systems [rockets E.N] departing from Earth, whose specific impulse on average is around 360 seconds.
Just to give an example if we use a Saturn V rocket to depart from Earth surface and reach the Moon the actual mass that leaves Earth orbit is equal to about 2% (about 61 tons) of the original mass on the launch pad (2970 tons)!
The payload on the Moon was even lower than the total mass on the launch pad: not even 7 tons of the 2970 at the start, or about 0.235% of the total!
It is obvious that with these numbers you can't afford an outpost on the Moon if you do not RADICALLY change the launch procedure to greatly increase the amount of useful mass to bring to destination, being the Earth, as Arcibald writes, ".. a massive rocky planet at the bottom of a deep gravity well, with a thick atmosphere on top of that.”

Why this hypothesis in relation to PNN:

If the violation of the III principle of dynamics doesn't involve a law of inertia that allows you to leave Earth with a spaceship then you have to do it the same way of rocketry (using the Newton's third) and ONLY AFTER you exploit the violation of III for long distances towards... I don't know ...  the Moon and Mars (for now). The experimental definition of PNN law of inertia is being tested for several years (only with the means and timing that ASPS can afford)... more details in To Mars and back- hypothesis for a PNN spacecraft.

Broad lines of the project:

the basis of the project is to insert payloads into LEO (at least) one after another and with very low costs through the launch into high stratosphere of a payload at a speed of at least 8 Km/s without the aid of rockets, that is having the payload lined up like a train  inside a long launch tube that, like a cannon, shoots the payload into space after a long travel (about 320 Km) with an acceleration a bit higher than 10g to reach the above mentioned speed. Today this speed is theoretically possible by using an electromagnetic rail (super-enhanced and similar to those used for high speed trains) that runs inside a 320 Km long (hypothesis!) pickup tube that is almost vacuum both in the horizontal section and in the tilted section. In the last few years, rail propulsion systems in a rarefied environment have been experimenting with magnets that eliminate frictions.




There's already who, before me, has thought about this kind of solutions  (Star Tram) even if with a bit different and less gigantic structures.


In figure: Star Tram concept

I presume (I haven't read the patent) that the differences between the projects lie in removing the hindrance of the cables, rising height through aerostatic systems like balloons and A DIFFERENT KIND OF blimps, lengthening the launch rail and above all in the alignment of the whole launch system to avoid payload derailments in the final section of the path, where it has to travel at about 8 Km/s along the magnetic rail. Even higher final speeds are possible but everything depends on the brutal acceleration to which the load is subjected along the electromagnetic rail: just over 10 g for about 80 seconds.
Let's not forget that with rocket propulsion, at the moment, something more than 92% of the mass of a rocket (the upper limit depends on which orbit you want to reach) is lost to gain the low orbit!


Figure 1: Cloud City and cross section of the main launch tube structures

Now since we have been talking for some time about sending astronauts to Moon and Mars we must not forget the past, that the Shuttle project was not only a failure but it also eliminated as many as 14 astronauts.
In order to prevent this from happening again in missions to Moon and Mars it is necessary to clarify that these expeditions must also have backup propulsion systems  capable of saving astronauts if something goes wrong .
But this can only be done by bringing much more payload into Earth orbit. Otherwise it is better to give up or better to let the rocket only do what it can do: bring satellites into orbit and play with robots on Mars (unfortunately!).
The Saharan propulsion above all is needed to not kill astronauts, given that if those of Columbia had had rescue systems, SHOULD READ MORE USEFUL PAYLOAD IN ORBIT, perhaps they would have had a chance to save themselves.

Musk wants to carry 200 passengers per launch...

in fact, the article says: “Under new plans released in the journal New Space, the billionaire said he hoped to build a ‘Mars Colonial Fleet’ of more than one thousand cargo ships which would depart ‘en masse’ could transport 200 passengers at a time, along with materials to build homes, industrial plants and shops”. A very high risk for the poor wretches who ventured into the colonization of the Moon and Mars with the failed toy trumpet astronautics that is unable to do at capacity what one would like it did.

Before giving some more details it is good to establish what the primary objective must be: to shoot a payload in the stratosphere at a speed of about 8 km/s to bring it in low orbit first and then to make it rise progressively at higher altitudes through other propulsion systems.


Figure 2: Side view of the whole system

The launch tube must be:

1) almost vacuum with its lateral diameter that necessarily increases as the  height increases from the ground. The orbital payload is in practice a vacuum electromagnetic rail train

2) about 80 km long in the inclined part, perhaps with a double structure as shown in fig 1, with larger intermediate stations placed at 16 km one from the other (example in Figure 2) to maintain the buoyancy and the attitude like Cloud City (represented in Figure 1 by the historical polar airship Italy). Naturally, the cloud cities can be arranged differently and in even greater number depending on the functionality and length of the launch tube, which in practice in the inclined part is a huge and very long skyscraper that sustains itself in the atmosphere for the principle of Archimedes. Its length depends on the speed at which you want to insert the payload into orbit and on the related ABLATIVE shield that is necessary if the friction with the atmosphere is still high despite the rarefaction of the air.
For example, at 30 km altitude air density is 1.2% of 1 atm and if the cannon is tilted 45 degrees it could be about 42 km long instead of 80 km in upward development. Remaining in the perspective of a length equal to 80 km and an inclination of 30 degrees the acceleration rail should be lengthened on the ground by a certain number of km: 240 in horizontal to be exact  (much longer than in the picture!) to give the payload a suitable time to reach the required speed at the exit of the rail in the stratosphere (the stratosphere develops from 15 to 50 km in height) and with an acceleration produced by the electromagnetic masses which is substantially brutal: on average very close to 10 g!
Furthermore in a 320 Km long launch tube, almost vacuum,  a payload with an average acceleration around 10 g would travel that length in about 80 sec with a speed of about 8 km/s at the shutter aperture in the high stratosphere. Tube that in practice hovers in the air like a very long airship and that progressively rises from the ground like a long snake in a straight line (or other a-la Musk's specifications like BFR) with an angle of 30 degrees up to an altitude (fig.2) of about 40 km, that is in an area of  Earth's atmosphere where the pressure is less than that on Mars (about 7/1000 of 1 atm). Note that balloons have been brought to over 50 km altitude.

3) The tube must be stabilized in wind through one (or more) upper "backbone" as in fig.1 and fig.2 and through the construction where needed of lifting stations, that can be also called "Cloud City," which can house controls, stabilizers (electric turbines), security systems, pressure control and management of the lifting stations and the tube etc.. In fig.1 the backbone is drawn above the launch tube but it can also be placed below for a matter of stability (density I presume) and thus lateral dimensions.

4) In Figure 1 I represented the cloud cities by using the picture of the polar airship "Italia" as I don't know what shape they must have and above all if they're actually required since the tubular structures of the launch conduit could maintain the attitude by themselves through suitable lateral engines and even lift themselves on their own always for the principle of Archimedes. In addition, as the height increase the  "cloud cities" should inevitably change shape becoming a simple balloon of increasing volume, perhaps remote controlled.

5) The structure and the energy type required by the system is of electric nature, both for inserting payloads into orbit and for the sustenance and maneuvering of the launch structure. The electric energy is generated through solar panels arrays in the Sahara desert (the use of other more irradiated deserts is possible) as it’s expected that Sahara can supply electric energy to half of the world at least (and by doing that one would also in part industrialize Africa)

6) If the tube has at its end a pressure of 7/1000 atm (at about 40Km altitude) OR EVEN LESS, it will open like a shutter to let the mass to be put into orbit pass at 8 Km/s; this can be made at unceasing pace through the use of solar energy without polluting the terrestrial atmosphere with the exhaust gas of rockets. The mass to be put into orbit is to be intended obviously as everything that is needed to build new and more powerful space stations around Earth as well as around the Moon and Mars, plus all the MASSIVE PAYLOAD needed to land on Moon and Mars and build permanent outposts with adequate supplies and survival equipment in case of accidents.

7) The launch tube can be also used to put into low orbit a payload and then to slowly increase its height through PNN or rocket thrust. The 80Km are approximate as well as the electromagnetic launch tube slope and its extension on the ground. Each nation on Earth can build a section according to its financial resources. The escape velocity at the end of the tube (determined on the circular plane by an Earth parallel) can be changed and lowered and the mass to be put into orbit can also exploit, after it leaves the shutter, a rocket system stage that allows it to reach the final speed and adds maneuvering capability.. always in the perspective to maximize the payload to put cheaply into orbit.

Preparation and launch:

I presume where it’s simpler, that is an uninhabited place that runs almost flat for 320Km. The whole can be prepared through the construction of a straight road and of a centralized command structure for the altitude and alignment control of the single parts that form the 80 Km tilted section. This tilted part of the launch tube will make Musk’s BFR look like a gnat.
If we’d like to make an easy joke the system would rise in the atmosphere like a progressive erection as the inner launch tube is gradually decompressed and a suitable light gas is pumped inside the outer shell that has to tilt. Moreover since the long structure has to endure different atmospheric pressures the outer tube section will progressively increase with increasing height. Besides, while the inner launch tube will have to run without interruptions for about 80 Km in the atmosphere the outer tube will have to be divided in n sections (400?) according to the internal pressure that each section must have in relation with its altitude. A complex technical problem but surely not impossible for modern technology. It is conceivable, as already said, that the launch tube can be shorter than 80 Km in the tilted part and with a greater extension on ground before the elevation in the stratosphere. It is also conceivable that the acceleration of the payload can vary along the different segments of the tube. In the final thrust phase it’s expected a certain stiffening of the rail structure with the aim of an adequate decrease of derailment risks.

The opening at the end of the launch tube will open like a camera shutter to let the payload pass, making the stiffened snake resemble an artillery piece with a long barrel (or another more notorious and jollier popular similitude)

Due to air compressibility under its own weight the atmospheric pressure decrease at sea level is not linear like in liquids, but it decrease exponentially (in a first approximation). Various factors like atmospheric conditions and latitude affect its value; NASA has filled out the mean values in all around the world. The following table provides approximate pressure value, in the percentage of 1 atmosphere, according to altitude.


Figure 3 - Variation of the atmospheric pressure in relation to height

The stratosphere begins at an height of about 15Km and ends at 50Km; balloons usually remain in this zone: scientific experiments on balloons can reach an altitude of 40Km, while the world record is 53 Km. Beyond the stratosphere there is the mesosphere, starting from 50 Km, so we can state that the balloon that set the record has reached mesosphere.

As I said, the 30 degrees tilted launch ramp should be about 80 Km long with a final distance from the ground equal to 40Km of altitude and an escape velocity at the shutter a little higher than ISS (the space station speed is 7,6 Km/s). The accelerations that a human body can stand also depend on the launch tube length and if not bearable they should be enough to allow the insertion into orbit of loads only, eventually retrievable once in orbit.

As I said, about energy supply there's the need to convert into electric energy the Saharan irradiation.
With intermediate control posts for the launch tube structure similar to those in sci-fi novels like Cloud City or maybe many cloud cities halfway as long as there is air to breathe before stratosphere and mesosphere.

Note about the main difficulties that in my opinion the Saharan Propulsion implies:

- Alignment of the 400 substructures of airships or balloons (shell in fig.1) in atmospheric turbulence. That is, to let the tube sway inside certain limits and to align the 400 lifting “balloons” only during the launch phase.

- To conveniently apply Archimedes principle up to 40 Km height by adapting the support structure as needed for a good attitude of the electromagnetic rail.

- Progressive acceleration (at least 10g if one doesn't want to further expand the horizontal section on the ground) and speeding up of the payload (various tons of weight) on the electromagnetic rail compared to the actual values.

Note on costs distribution and the possibility to create Cloud City astronautics:

By considering that the number of nations recognized by UNO is 196 and that the number of sections in which to divide the tube is hypothesizable to 400, and that many Earth countries could build far more than 2 or 3 200 meters long blimps all the project looks feasible even in the costs. The only variable is the will (also engineering speaking) to assemble and bring to convergence what according to the physical laws and the principle of Archimedes is feasible, even if it has never been done.

Conclusions:

The same launch procedure could be used to reach orbit altitude both from Moon (no atmosphere) and Mars (very rarefied). For the landings on any planet one could instead use, as I'll better illustrate next time, an adaptation of PNN since the approach to Earth's surface as well as those of the Moon and Mars can be done by slowly reducing the approach speed. In practice the only way in which rocketry would survive is as final stage at the exit of the electromagnetic launch tube shutter if we start from the Earth's surface... always assuming that the PNN inertia law can not radically solve the problem foundations.
« Last Edit: 03/21/2018 08:11 pm by SergioZ82 »

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
Re: Saharan propulsion - ASPS Mass driver
« Reply #1 on: 03/21/2018 08:13 pm »
Hi,
this is the translation of a Laureti's article about an alernative launch system, in the eventuality that PNN law of inertia wouldn't allow a direct take off from Earth.

Please enjoy the reading  :)

Introduction:

What I'm going to say is obviously in general terms, as I haven't got  any engineering skills to execute and configure this next project in detail. The project in my opinion has feasible costs, although considerable.

I saw no costings.
Taking, for example, both at face value, how do you get with any plausible capital cost for the infrastructure of the launcher, under $10/kg.

Several hundred kilometers of even conventional maglev railway is quite expensive indeed.
And it's proposed to make it have hundreds of times the power output in order to accellerate the payload, and suspend it?
This does not sound particularly inexpensive.

Offline E.Laureti

  • Member
  • Posts: 85
  • Roma - Italia
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Saharan propulsion - ASPS Mass driver
« Reply #2 on: 03/21/2018 08:30 pm »
I apologize for not being able to calculate the costs ...
But if I think today we are worse than about 50 years ago at lunar outposts
And that this type of Saharan driver mass could allow 100% of the load to go into Earth orbit .... an account someone could do it

Regards

Ps: original url: http://www.asps.it/cittadellenuvole.htm


Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
Re: Saharan propulsion - ASPS Mass driver
« Reply #3 on: 03/21/2018 09:19 pm »
I apologize for not being able to calculate the costs ...
But if I think today we are worse than about 50 years ago at lunar outposts
And that this type of Saharan driver mass could allow 100% of the load to go into Earth orbit .... an account someone could do it

Regards

Ps: original url: http://www.asps.it/cittadellenuvole.htm

'Allow 100% of the load to go into earth orbit' - has questionable meaning.
Why do you care?

What reason do you have to care that it takes 5000 tons of spacecraft (including fuel) to get 150 tons into orbit, if it ends up as plausibly $10/kg to orbit.

($10/kg is the implied cost of the statements about SpaceXs BFR, for the passenger service to work).

This is a trap that conventional rocketry has fallen into for fifty years - minimise launch weight! Shedding every last pound must be worth it!

May BFR be somewhat delayed - yes - but it is hard to see a place for catapult launchers especially for passenger ones that need enormous peak powers and very, very long tracks in a world where it is even plausibly available in the next 10 years.

Offline E.Laureti

  • Member
  • Posts: 85
  • Roma - Italia
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Saharan propulsion - ASPS Mass driver
« Reply #4 on: 03/21/2018 09:47 pm »

If the Asps massdriver airship worked at full capacity
the electric energy to go into orbit would be given by the solar panels of the sahara desert and you could make at least 100 launches of 100 tons per day and then bring thousands of tons into orbit at a cost lower than $ 1 / kg.
Only enormous quantities of materials brought to the Moon (and to Mars) would allow colonization in my opinion















Offline Stan-1967

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1128
  • Denver, Colorado
  • Liked: 1183
  • Likes Given: 614
Re: Saharan propulsion - ASPS Mass driver
« Reply #5 on: 03/21/2018 10:15 pm »

Introduction:

What I'm going to say is obviously in general terms, as I haven't got  any engineering skills to execute and configure this next project in detail.


I should have stopped at at that introduction.

I have unleashed at least 2 very dubious technical proposals into these NSF forums for discussion in the last year or so.  I smile when examples arise that make me look like a bad idea piker in comparison.   

This proposal is not a failure because of any underlying flaws in proposed "new physics" or "advanced concepts".  ( i.e EM Drives or FTL drives)  It is a failure because what it is proposing to do fails to be possible with existing physics. 

As an engineering idea, it reminds me of classical invocation of frictionless surfaces, unobtainium material properties, & perpetual motion machines.  There is a flat out ignorance of the difficult physical realities of actually putting something into orbit, & a lack of any self aware irony against the comparison to the supposedly inefficient nature of rockets.

It is not even good sci-fi, if graciously, it purported to be just that.



« Last Edit: 03/22/2018 12:37 am by Stan-1967 »

Offline E.Laureti

  • Member
  • Posts: 85
  • Roma - Italia
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Saharan propulsion - ASPS Mass driver
« Reply #6 on: 03/21/2018 10:26 pm »

>It is a failure because it is what it is proposing to do fails to be possible with existing physics

instead of being generic it tells me which physical principle violates mass airship driver?

Offline E.Laureti

  • Member
  • Posts: 85
  • Roma - Italia
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Saharan propulsion - ASPS Mass driver
« Reply #7 on: 03/23/2018 05:33 am »
Astronautics was born as a rocket science, but to permanently bring humans to the moon and to Mars it will not have to be.

It is in practice more than 70 years that it is assumed missile shipments to Mars

http://www.pianeta-marte.it/l'uomo_su_marte/spedizioni/spedizioni_su_marte_1.htm
(not counting that abortive of Musk)

now based on missile failures to not even have a permanent human outpost on the moon after nearly 50 years experience shows that using only the 3rd principle of Newton, or you can make a mass launcher of this type

https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/startram-maglev-creator-wants-fire-satellites-into-space-through-vertical-hyperloop-tube-1608038

or enhanced with other variants

https://neolegesmotus.wordpress.com/2018/03/21/saharan-propulsion-asps-mass-driver/

www.asps.it/cittadellenuvole.htm

or, through the missile, you will play forever with the robots on mars
and you will see Mars in photography

Offline E.Laureti

  • Member
  • Posts: 85
  • Roma - Italia
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Saharan propulsion - ASPS Mass driver
« Reply #8 on: 03/23/2018 05:43 am »
please correct 70 years  with 60    :)

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
Re: Saharan propulsion - ASPS Mass driver
« Reply #9 on: 03/23/2018 12:32 pm »

If the Asps massdriver airship worked at full capacity
the electric energy to go into orbit would be given by the solar panels of the sahara desert and you could make at least 100 launches of 100 tons per day and then bring thousands of tons into orbit at a cost lower than $ 1 / kg.
Only enormous quantities of materials brought to the Moon (and to Mars) would allow colonization in my opinion

Which is great and all.
But, explain in detail please why $1/kg enables anything that $10/kg (as is proposed for BFS launch) does not.
Note, for example that mobile homes, cars, and nearly all manufactured goods cost over $10/kg.

Offline E.Laureti

  • Member
  • Posts: 85
  • Roma - Italia
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Saharan propulsion - ASPS Mass driver
« Reply #10 on: 03/23/2018 01:44 pm »
So I said clearly at the beginning of this thread that I did not know how much it could cost a mass driver with the exit in the stratosphere at 40 km height that vehicles a load at orbital speed of about 8 km / sec with the details I gave panels solar energy in the sahara included and electric accumulators.
I continue to completely ignore this fact that what I said referred to the construction of the mass driver  AFTER.
And all this could theoretically be done and not violating any physical principle unlike what it says Stan-1967, the problem is mainly engineering.
In each launch, only electricity is consumed in practice and electricity is offered by solar panels located in the sahara desert
If there is a loss of magnetic mass or the ablative shield for acceleration and speed wear in the magnetic thrust generators they are not able to calculate it either.

When I say less than 1 $ / kg I refer only to the "steady" cost of a launch that in practice only consumes electricity. Now there will be maintenance to keep the mass driver always operational in thousands of continuous launches, but I see no other costs compared to the noteworthy goal of bringing almost 100% of the vehicle into orbit without losing more than 90% of what the missiles do with great risk.

And then allow me, the goal that justifies the enormous costs of the mass driver is not to plant a flag on Mars and then flee, but to remain, to establish continuous commercial connections with the Earth and to colonize.

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
Re: Saharan propulsion - ASPS Mass driver
« Reply #11 on: 03/23/2018 01:53 pm »
When I say less than 1 $ / kg I refer only to the "steady" cost of a launch that in practice only consumes electricity. Now there will be maintenance to keep the mass driver always operational in thousands of continuous launches, but I see no other costs compared to the noteworthy goal of bringing almost 100% of the vehicle into orbit without losing more than 90% of what the missiles do with great risk.

And then allow me, the goal that justifies the enormous costs of the mass driver is not to plant a flag on Mars and then flee, but to remain, to establish continuous commercial connections with the Earth and to colonize.

You miss the point.
BFR - by SpaceX - first launch due 2021 or so, is aimed at being a wholly reusable launcher, with an eventual cost for cargo of some $10kg to orbit.

Why, given that much hardware, even on earth costs more than $10/kg, is lowering below this figure actually useful at all.

Assuming for the moment that the EM launcher actually works and costs $1/kg to orbit (this would beat the price for electricity I pay), why does $1/kg make colonisation possible when $10/kg makes it impossible?




Offline E.Laureti

  • Member
  • Posts: 85
  • Roma - Italia
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Saharan propulsion - ASPS Mass driver
« Reply #12 on: 03/23/2018 04:11 pm »
>Assuming for the moment that the EM launcher actually works and costs $1/kg to orbit (this would beat
>the price for electricity I pay), why does $1/kg make colonisation possible when $10/kg makes it
>impossible?


Because the missile has never been able to operate at full capacity (Space Shuttle docet), because it is not able to bring in orbit a mass of redundant payload for every need but especially because its incidents are unavoidable as soon as the costs are lowered .
And then this thing is not encouraging

http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-doesnt-want-to-die-going-to-mars-2016-9?IR=T

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2141418-elon-musk-seems-to-have-ditched-red-dragon-lander-plan-for-mars/

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
Re: Saharan propulsion - ASPS Mass driver
« Reply #13 on: 03/23/2018 05:50 pm »
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2141418-elon-musk-seems-to-have-ditched-red-dragon-lander-plan-for-mars/

From that (old) article.
Quote
Musk said SpaceX is planning a new, smaller and less expensive spacecraft to replace the Red Dragon, which may be unveiled as soon as September.

This was somewhat inaccurate in July 2017, as he'd already presented at 2016 a basic concept which he went on to elaborate on in 2017 at next years IAC in September.



In short, it's designed to land on Mars after being refuelled on earth, and do passenger transport. The passenger transport costs claimed are low enough that they imply sub $10/kg price to launch something to orbit.
Also they imply loss rates of well under once per several thousand flights, or you couldn't do commercial flight with them.

Offline tchernik

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 274
  • Liked: 315
  • Likes Given: 641
Re: Saharan propulsion - ASPS Mass driver
« Reply #14 on: 03/23/2018 06:39 pm »
I see no immediate conflict between any controversial new propellentless thrusters and the existing technological approaches for space launch and travel.

Those propellentless thrusters are controversial and mostly poorly tested, providing a very small thrust or none at all, because their presumed thrust could be coming from experimental noise (that's the reason why their existence is controversial).

Rocket launchers uncontroversially work and have been working for more than half a century. In fact it's possible that new cheaper launchers help close the controversies of these presumed propellentless thrusters once and for all, by allowing the experiments go to the vacuum of space and let us see if eppur si muove applies to them.
« Last Edit: 03/23/2018 06:40 pm by tchernik »

Offline E.Laureti

  • Member
  • Posts: 85
  • Roma - Italia
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Saharan propulsion - ASPS Mass driver
« Reply #15 on: 03/23/2018 07:08 pm »

>speedevil

There are already 70 missing human missions to Mars
http://www.pianeta-marte.it/l'uomo_su_marte/spedizioni/spedizioni_su_marte_1.htm

I will believe it when (when?) a test flight to Mars with return to Earth will be organized by Musk.

Greetings

Offline Stan-1967

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1128
  • Denver, Colorado
  • Liked: 1183
  • Likes Given: 614
Re: Saharan propulsion - ASPS Mass driver
« Reply #16 on: 03/25/2018 04:34 am »

And all this could theoretically be done and not violating any physical principle unlike what it says Stan-1967, the problem is mainly engineering.

I have seen nothing in what has been posted that shows this can theoretically be done.  By theoretical, I mean with elements contained in the periodic table ( no unobtainium), and no frictionless surfaces with infinite tensile, compressive, & shear strengths, etc.. etc., etc.

The main problem is engineering and violation of existing physical laws.   Without any engineering, physics, mathematical, or logical background, the impossibility of this scheme may be difficult to accept if you just want to wish that this plan be feasible.

For a quick starter, what will this launcher be made of?  How strong is the material?  What is the weight of each kilometer of lifted launch tube structure?   Show me the weight budget for each meter of structure.
Electrical conductor material ? ( copper or superconductor) Tube wall thickness & material ? weight of the magnets?

Is there enough Helium reserves on planet earth to lift this monster?  If there is not enough Helium to buy in the world , will you switch to Hydrogen?   Is working with Hydrogen cheap?  Is your source of money greater than infinity?  How much hydrogen will leak out of a structure over 80km long, ( leakage makes it a consumable) and judging from the crude pictures, anywhere from 10 - 30 m in diameter?  Would that be enough Hydrogen to simply fuel a rocket? 

Yes these are just simple engineering problems, but at the end of the day existing physics demands that the buoyancy forces must be greater than the weight of the 80km long launcher tube & 100 ton payload.  See how engineering & physical laws are related? 

This proposal is not a serious idea for space launch in both the realm of engineering & physical laws.  It is simply mediocre sci-fi that has caught your fancy.



Offline E.Laureti

  • Member
  • Posts: 85
  • Roma - Italia
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Saharan propulsion - ASPS Mass driver
« Reply #17 on: 03/25/2018 06:52 am »

@Stan-1967
>The main problem is engineering and violation of existing physical laws.   Without any engineering, >physics, mathematical, or logical background, the impossibility of this scheme may be difficult to accept >if you just want to wish that this plan be feasible.

You ask me a set of questions that must be dealt with gradually and my competence is not engineering, however, I context that there is a violation of physical laws unless it is shown to me that an engineering difficulty becomes a physical law.

So I hope that little by little we can respond to everything step by step. Here are the first 2 questions:

1) Do you accept or not that trains of this type work uphill too? https://www.focus.it/tecnologia/innovazione/hyperloop-maglev-e-treni-superveloci

2) Even this mass launcher violates physical principles?
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/startram-maglev-creator-wants-fire-satellites-into-space-through-vertical-hyperloop-tube-1608038

With you I agree for one thing on one thing: a mass launcher with 40 km height in the stratosphere is a monster.


Offline meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3096
  • Liked: 3379
  • Likes Given: 777
Re: Saharan propulsion - ASPS Mass driver
« Reply #18 on: 03/26/2018 02:59 am »
2) Even this mass launcher violates physical principles?
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/startram-maglev-creator-wants-fire-satellites-into-space-through-vertical-hyperloop-tube-1608038
If you read the article, you find a description of a sci-fi force field that lets objects out but does not let air in. That alone puts this firmly in the category of "requires technology that does not currently exist." It may be significantly worse than that, depending on details of the building and maintenance of the gigantic support structure.

You ask me a set of questions that must be dealt with gradually and my competence is not engineering, however, I context that there is a violation of physical laws unless it is shown to me that an engineering difficulty becomes a physical law.

You have the burden of proof backwards here. You don't get to assert this is possible if you haven't done any of the work to show it. A variety of similar systems have been proposed over time, but none have been clearly shown to be practical. Also, some of you assertions have been clearly false, such as "100% of the load to go into Earth orbit" Since no system of this design can send things directly to orbit, they need rockets to circularize, or they come back down.
« Last Edit: 03/26/2018 05:56 am by meberbs »

Offline E.Laureti

  • Member
  • Posts: 85
  • Roma - Italia
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Saharan propulsion - ASPS Mass driver
« Reply #19 on: 03/26/2018 07:46 am »

@meberbs

> "requires technology that does not currently exist"

Ok but it does not violate any physical principle as claimed by Stan-1967. But I still do not understand why a space -tram based on https://www.focus.it/tecnologia/innovazione/hyperloop-maglev-e-treni-superveloci can not go uphill

> A variety of similar systems have been proposed over time, but none have been clearly shown to be practical.

I repeat that it is not feasible now is something that violates some physical principle is another thing

> Also, some of you have been clearly false, such as "100% of the load to go into Earth orbit"

I wrote that I anticipated the use of another thrust system to maneuver after the exit from the shutter and that does not necessarily have to be a rocket.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1