/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11243476

For now we are indeed stuck with rockets. Unless some form of anti-gravity drive gets discovered or something like that.

Think about it, what other method can deliver things into orbit without inducing massive amounts of G-forces that could damage hardware/injure people?

Rockets are the wheels of space.

>>11243476
A "space gun" could probably be built but the forces would kill a human so it would just be for cargo.

>>11243476
On earth we are pretty much stuck with rockets. On the moon we have options like space elevators and mass drivers as well. Although those would still be incredibly large scale projects.

Space hook

Laser propulsion might work, at least for non-squishy payloads.

>>11243476
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyhook_(structure)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqwpQarrDwk

This will probably replace 'real rockets' once we have two orbits to transfer to and from.

>>11243541
wouldn't it burn up unless you build it on the moon or something?

>>11243476
hold your mama's hand and make her fart

>>11243648
If you had a big enough laser you could pulse it to slowly lift a sled to low orbit.
Its one version of a space fountain.

>>11244192
It would have to be a vacuum tube that goes high into the atmosphere

>>11243476
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Plumbbob#Propulsion_of_steel_plate_cap

>>11243476
Skyhooks, and space docks.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyhook_(structure)
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_dock

>>11244205
top kek

>>11243476

Yes.

>>11243648
Why can't we make the tube longer and then just fire (slowly push with air?) smaller machines, materials and people to space w/ it and make our space stuff in space instead?

Indeed there are.

Here is ~8 hours of in-depth explanation about all possible options and the pros / cons of each. I don't expect anyone to watch this start all at once but watching 1 per day for 3 weeks will make you one of the few people on /sci/ that understand the options.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLIIOUpOge0LsGJI_vni4xvfBQTuryTwlU

>>11243476
Oh there are many concepts of getting to space including a space elevator, mass drivers, skyhooks launch loops and a bunch more. If you are really interested i suggest checking out Isaac Arthur on YouTube. Specifically his upward bound series

>>11243476
giant fuckin catapults that use Newton's second law to send shit into orbit at escape velocity

>>11243476
wait what if we put an alcubierre drive at the end of some sort of space elevator and just had an epic rail system that cuts travel times

>>11245574
Based and Arthurpilled

>>11243476
There are many options but honestly I think we’ll designed rockets aren’t even that bad. I mean with the reusable falcon 9/heavy alone we are getting into price ranges that are only one order of magnitude worse than a space elevated could be and with upcoming rockets from blue origin and spacex like the bfr we might get to relatively cheap space flight in the next few decades or so

>>11245369
>Lets build a giant bridge from New York to Houston that's taller than 10 Mount Everest stacked up together

Big YIKES

>>11243648
That bend will turn you into a nice, red flavoured paste.

>>11246499
Yep, just needs sufficient development to ensure they are reliable enough and big enough that the mass fraction gives you cheap payloads.

>>11246760
>That bend will turn you into a nice, red flavoured paste.
That's why I said "non-squishy payloads".

there will be soon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon_(spacecraft)

>>11246824
Lel it's taken decades and they only have the intercooler working, starship will be flying daily by the time that joke is ready for a test flight.

>>11246827
They have been getting to done while operating on a shoestring budget, now BAE has brought them out I think in 30 years a hypersonic cruise missile will be declassified.

>>11246827
>starship will be flying daily
In 1980 NASA was promising that the space shuttle program would complete 1000 missions before the end of the decade. NASA managed to deliver only 3% of that amount despite spending more than 1000% more money than they had initially asked from. The next space telescope is now 16 years behind schedule and $11.5 billion dollars over the initial $0.5billion budget and it still doesn't have a proposed launch date.

>>11246844
>shuttle=starship

Lmao thunderf00t pls go.

>>11246824

Already price is being beat by starship. There is no point to this with reusable boosters.

>>11247010
>There is no point to this with reusable boosters.
well, apart from space travel, it could be used to replace "normal" aircraft

>>11246844
SpaceX spend 10% of what NASA would normally spend to do 10X what NASA could do on the same budget.

>>11245965
>into orbit at escape velocity
Pick one.

>>11247021
Supersonic aircraft will never replace regular aeroplanes, no one wants 24/7 sonic booms over flight paths.

>>11247488
Look into all the research NASA has done on reducing sonic booms, it is possible that we will make a discovery that leads to a sonic boom at cruising altitude being a non-issue.
Pic related is currently in development, the latest in a long line of NASA research planes.

>>11243476
Yes but they all represent multi-decade megaprojects that would eat deeply into resources the developed world is obsessed with lighting on fire in either military or welfare spending, or both simultaneously. Skyhooks are probably the least difficult, then space guns, then space elevators, and finally an elevator/orbital ring combo.

>>11245369
>and can be built with existing engineering materials

>>11246844
The Space Shuttle was fucked beyond recognition at every step.

>>11246844
>>11248652
So what's the practicality of a spaceplane right now anyway? It doesn't seem like there's much point to pumping so much money into them. I guess this sounds like kind of an oxymoron, but shouldn't figure out some way to get these planes cheaply out into space on their own, without the use of expendable rockets, and find more of a use for them out in space before we spend so much money on them?

>>11247915
Man, I can't wait for this. This shit is legitimately exciting as fuck. Gonna be great to be able to fly from the east coast of the US to Japan in just a few hours.

>>11249007

>>11245574
Ah a man of culture who watches Isaac Arthur

>>11245301
Something like really high tube with strong coils that activate from bottom to top and pull payload capsule up?

>>11249007
>Gonna be great to be able to fly from the east coast of the US to Japan in just a few hours.

They said the same thing about the concorde, this doesn't change the core problem of a tiny passenger compartment and fuck you expensive tickets.

>>11247915
>>11249008
This shit has rocket engine!? why do you even post?

>>11249061
Did you accidentally link >>11247915 because that is clearly a jet engine.

>>11245574
>https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLIIOUpOge0LsGJI_vni4xvfBQTuryTwlU
>chepeor and easior in the futuror
What a kind of accent is that?

>>11245374

>>>/x/
>>>/x/
>>>/x/

>>11245374
>>11245369
>>11245332
>>11243675
>>11243642

All these space elevator-like concepts still need cheap reusable rockets to be built and maintained, and you still need those rockets to go anywhere beyond Earth orbit. Rockets ain't going anywhere.

>>11250392
Once in space you are in vacuum and zero g. Just push in the general direction where you want to go and you'll drift there no need for ancient rockets that can kill you by randomly exploding.

>>11250415
t. brainlet

>>11249061
Nigga, the X-37 is boosted into space by either a Falcon 9 or an Atlas V.

Orbital Rings
Watch Isaac talk about them.

ggeznore