• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Let's hear your cheap launch strategies

neutrino_cannon

Master Poster
neutrino_cannon
Joined
Dec 13, 2002
Messages
2,574
For the wide-eyed futurist, the costs of slinging things into space is one of the least promising things about space. Depending on how you decide to work out the numbers, launch costs typically work out to the tens of thousands of dollars per kilogram. There is the question of whether there's much economically worthwhile to do in space at all, but that's a question that will not get answered unless the launch costs come down.

So, if you were in charge of this sort of thing (tm), what strategies would you pursue to reduce launch costs? Dump the money into fullerene research to make a space elevator? Develop simpler disposable rockets? Look into piggybacking rockets onto aircraft?

Spell out your plans to herald the dawn of cheap space travel, and justify them. If you say a new, re-usable launch vehicle, I will laugh at you.
 
I'd rather put energy into developing moon based production and launch stuff from there. If we can't do that, there's no reason for us to be in space anyway.
 
Build a Ringworld, spin it up to speed, and just drop vessels off the side.


Enormous initial investment. Practically free space travel after that.
 
Currently piggybacking rockets onto aircraft (possibly lighter than air options e.g ATO) appears to be the most feasable method of reducing cost for small payloads. Being a wide eyed futurist I do like linear accelerators, space elevators, photonic power delivery and suchlike.
 
Orion.
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

Providing you get some nice clean nukes for the initial atmospheric launch phase - or that reimagined version (there was a video floating around the net) which used a couple of dozen Shuttle SRBs to get above the atmosphere - youtube video - youtube.com/watch?v=V1vKMTYa40A
 
Last edited:
Personally, I see the use of Linear Motor Propulsion as the way to go. (It is similar to the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) planned for Aircraft carriers.) By having a huge ramp loaded with the proper magnetic induction technology, it should be possible to accelerate a payload to orbital velocity with little difficulty. The initial cost would be high, but launch costs would be no more than fairing structure and energy to run the magnets.
 
I'd suggest resurrecting the Delta Clipper/DC-X rocket project from the early 1990s. It appeared to have quite a bit of promise, and was built with off-the-shelf technology available at that time.
 
genesplicer said:
Personally, I see the use of Linear Motor Propulsion as the way to go. (It is similar to the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) planned for Aircraft carriers.) By having a huge ramp loaded with the proper magnetic induction technology, it should be possible to accelerate a payload to orbital velocity with little difficulty. The initial cost would be high, but launch costs would be no more than fairing structure and energy to run the magnets.
Click to expand...

I like linear induction motors, too. That would work great from the moon or Mars. Not so good from the Earth's surface though. But it could be used as a first stage.
 
Last edited:
I favor the idea of constructing a linear mass accelerator on the Earth's equator. The 'business end' would face east to exploit the Earth's rotation.

Obstacles include, but aren't limited to, finding enough friendly real estate on the equator to construct a 20-kilometer long rail gun, funding it, and keeping it under the control of scientists and/or commercial interests without any government getting their hands on it and using it as a launch system for WMDs.
 
Fnord said:
I favor the idea of constructing a linear mass accelerator on the Earth's equator. The 'business end' would face east to exploit the Earth's rotation.

Obstacles include, but aren't limited to, finding enough friendly real estate on the equator to construct a 20-kilometer long rail gun, funding it, and keeping it under the control of scientists and/or commercial interests without any government getting their hands on it and using it as a launch system for WMDs.
Click to expand...

I like that one too. But also add to the problem list you need it placed so that a launch failure does not end up hitting a populated area. The launch location probably needs to be at the edge of an ocean or desert.
 
Something else I read a while back - the mass driver would require some form of superconducting material, and a nuclear power plant to drive it.

Nuclear Material + Mass Driver + (Pre-Emptive strike by the "good guys" OR a terrorist takeover by the "bad guys") == a lot of dead people and poisoned landscape.
 
Last edited:
Fnord said:
Something else I read a while back - the mass driver would require some form of superconducting material, and a nuclear power plant to drive it.
Click to expand...

Why on earth would the power plant need to be nuclear? That might be a good option, but unless you're planning on mounting the whole thing on a mobile platform, it won't matter.

Nuclear Material + Mass Driver + (Pre-Emptive strike by the "good guys" OR a terrorist takeover by the "bad guys") == a lot of dead people and poisoned landscape.
Click to expand...

A nuclear plant that's destroyed before it's fueled (ala Osirik) won't poison anything. A nuclear plant that's hit post-fueling will cause problems (but actually probably not a lot of dead people - you could kill more by blowing up chemical plants) regardless of what it's powering. And the kind of mass drivers envisioned for orbital launching would not be very ammenable for use as improvised weapons. They'd be VERY easy to disable should anyone try to commandeer them.
 
I think the article talked about a "dirty" load using spent fuel rods and other waste from the reactor, rather than the fuel itself.

I really wish I could cite the original article. 'Sorry, all.
 
Arthur C Clarkes space elevator. Need to move Sri Lanka to the equator and develop a very strong thread.
 
bjornart said:
Use existing launch technology. No reason to spend billions on pipe-dream launch strategies if you're only going to launch 20 times.
Click to expand...

And supposing that someone from Earth wants to get to the launch facilities so conveniently placed on their nearest natural satellite?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom