[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 2.10 MB, 1050x840, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12677286 No.12677286 [Reply] [Original]

>could be built for the cost of 2 (two) aircraft carriers or just 1/10th of the F-35 program
>probably hundreds of private companies willing to invest along with thousands of private investors
>would grant the nation that builds it unquestionable superiority in space
>would cut the cost of transporting material to space by several orders of magnitude
>suitable for military, scientific and commercial missions
>could be built with current tech
Why hasn't anyone built a magnetic launcher yet?

>> No.12677302
File: 27 KB, 600x600, st,small,507x507-pad,600x600,f8f8f8.u1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12677302

Too much work

>> No.12677307

>>12677286
It can't be built for the cost of 2 aircraft carriers.

>> No.12677317

>>12677307
>The designers estimate a construction cost for Generation 1 of $19 billion, becoming $67 billion for passenger-capable Generation 2.[1]

>CVN-78 Gerald R Ford that is located in the United States has a cost of around $13.5 billion

>> No.12677324

>>12677317
>The designers estimate
That's not the same as actually being able to build it for that price. Surely you have at least a scale prototype to demonstrate how much the actual cost would be.

>> No.12677340

>>12677317
>estimate
>at least 67b to carry passengers
..so not for the price of two ac lmao

>> No.12677348

Ran the numbers and it seems like it would take 60km to accelerate to orbital velocity at a rate that humans can handle.

Honestly that seems doable. Kinda surprised.

>> No.12677396

>>12677348
>>12677340
Tbh at first you wouldn't need to build something that humans can handle. A system that's able to get payload into orbit for USD50/kg would already revolutionize space travel. You could reliably launch the construction materials for a station/ship into orbit and then get the crew there with a conventional rocket later.

>> No.12677437

>>12677396
~5.5km @ 50g

Am I missing something that makes it infeasible?

>Building a 5km maglev tunnel
>Developing a heat shield and cheap modular SRB-based orbital insertion/deorbit system for the launch sled

This can't be that hard right? This strikes me as being not much harder than developing an orbital class rocket. There's no way it would cost billions.

>> No.12677878

>mfw Americans can't even build a high speed passenger rail system
>but maybe if we take 1/100 of the Israeli defense budget we can shoot a train into space

>> No.12677889
File: 407 KB, 4500x4334, 1554164766572.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12677889

>>12677878

>> No.12678428

>>12677317
It's too expensive. Musk is planning $2 million dollar launch for 150ton to orbit. You can launch 33000 starship for price of single. Magneto launch vehicle

>> No.12678434

>>12678428
>Musk is planning $2 million dollar launch for 150ton to orbit
Yeah well that's not gonna happen.

>> No.12678468

>>12678434
The opposite

>> No.12678529
File: 309 KB, 402x617, das rite.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12678529

>>12677286
sheeeit white boi finna kill all us black + brown folks takin all dat money fo dem programs

>> No.12678533

>>12678434
Compared to a hypothetical magnetic launcher, Starship development is coming along just fine. I'd give them 1-2 more tries before they can land successfully and then orbit later this year.

>> No.12678539

>>12678434
More likely than le super maglev railgun for only $19bil

>> No.12678558
File: 130 KB, 1600x900, spinlaunchinline_JONATHAN-R3-SpinLauncher_9-3-2019.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12678558

>>12677286
your pic related is only useful if scramjets work. At the current time scramjets are not very mature. Sure you could build a mass driver to launch stuff into orbit, but the issue is that it needs to be thousands of km long in order to launch people into space. However, Spinlaunch has potential for launching G-hardened stuff into orbit. The whole setup is much smaller than a maglev track.

>> No.12678561

>>12678468
He's going to launch 2 tons for 150 million dollars?

>> No.12678575

>>12678561
She isn't planning on 2 ton for $150 million dollars

>> No.12678589

>>12677317
Estimates are often wrong, especially for new tech. Being off by an order of magnitude is quite possible. Also the Ford was the first of its class, mean the R&D costs were a major part of the cost. Other ships of that class will be less expensive. If you plan to build magnetic launchers around the world, then you can amortize the cost of development over all of those units, but the expensive of building the first one will still be immense.

>> No.12678598

>>12677878
The US has no reason to build a high speed train network.

>> No.12678620

>>12678598
You're right, that would help free us from our dependence on middle eastern oil. And without a reason to be in the middle east, our poor defense contractors and our greatest ally will starve :(

>> No.12678622

>>12678558

Spinlaunch is the latest Yaney family scheme to extract money from Google. Look into Jonathan Yaney's brother and his solar drone company that went nowhere.

A Mach 6 launch velocity is completely fucking stupid by the way. You're completely missing the point of impulsive launch and would be better off with a small rocket like Electron.

>>12678598
This, How many people are commuting between say NY to Chicago regularly enough to justify not just taking a plane? Or just driving two damn days, to say nothing of the fact that building through the Mountain Zone states would be near impossible

>> No.12678636

>>12678598
Technically wrong. US has no reason to build a high speed train network at current prices. If someone were to offer to build a high speed network for only 2 million dollar a mile, everyone would jump at the chance. But if they were asking to do it at $2 billion per mile, that's out of the question. Its all about cost per mile, which is extremely expensive here in the states.

>> No.12678687

>>12677317
the price estimate for the f-35 programs, and two aircrast carriers was most likely sever times cheaper also lmao (the f35 price estimate was orders of magnitude cheaper)

>> No.12680355

>>12678622
> to say nothing of the fact that building through the Mountain Zone states would be near impossible
1) euro fags have already and are still doing this
2) transnational rail lines have existed for over a century
3) high speed rail doesnt mean it travels at the speed of fucking light

>> No.12680359

>>12678598
>The US has no reason to build a high speed train network.
Conceivably the stupidest thing anyone has ever said. On the same level of stupid as saying cars arent a meaningful upgrade over horses. The US cant currently justify the cost to build extensive networks, and even that is arguable because public works projects in the states are a fucking disaster since no one understands taxation.

>> No.12680369

>>12678622
Military's funding because it could allegedly be used as super long range artillery

>> No.12681586

>>12678620
Independence from ME oil involves a lot more than that. For instance, the keystone pipeline was one big step in being independent. But, gotta save the environment right? Now we're just trucking/shipping the oil in from less savory places who care less about the environment.

>> No.12681663

>>12680355

You've clearly never driven cross-country
>1) euro fags have already and are still doing this
Yes because their entire continent has the same size and population density as the US Eastern seaboard, which has rail lines running all up and down it
>2) transnational rail lines have existed for over a century
Yes at the cost of the lives of hundreds of good white working men, billions of dollars adjusted for inflation, for things abandoned in 50 years because yeah cars and planes are better.

No what the US needs to do is stop admitting nearly a million people every year who settle down in mostly overcrowded urban areas anyway, creating the illusion of congested transit. What we actually need to stop doing is playing the neoliberal Modern Monetary Theory game, but civilization will literally die before we do that.

>>12680369
Never will be, for the footprint and reload time you're better off just bringing a truck full of missiles. Even regular artillery shells out of an M777 can hit Mach 5 if they've got a ramjet cowling

>> No.12681668

>>12680359

Yeah they can't justify the cost because it's a fucking stupid idea
Also your analogy is retarded, cars were a replacement for both horses and trains.

>> No.12681699

>>12677286
>could be built for the cost of 2 (two) aircraft carriers or just 1/10th of the F-35 program
Any cost estimate put out by the creators is definitely gonna be too low to make it more appealing. Definitely doesn't include accurate costs for personnel
>probably hundreds of private companies willing to invest along with thousands of private investors
Anyone who thinks this fundamentally misunderstands the business of space launch. There are very very few payloads launched into space, not to mention mot satellites are custom designed for the specific rocket a company uses. A communications or weather observation service is not going to redesign their satellite just because a cheaper option is available. It might be cheaper for them to just keep using rockets even.
>suitable for military, scientific and commercial missions
Not for the military, a 60 km track that needs to stay perfectly aligned each millimeter is a pretty good target.