←back to thread

Space Elevator

(neal.fun)
1773 points kaonwarb | 9 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
jvanderbot ◴[] No.45643427[source]
Very cool. One thing I wish was better shown: space is close, it's just hard to go up. Our liveable breathable atmosphere is razor thin compared to the size of earth.

In most cases, 100km is less than the distance between sizeable metropolitan areas. It's a day long bike ride. Air runs out less than a bus ride across town. A 15k jog/hike would put you in the stratosphere. Those jet aircraft that seem so high are closer than that. Closer than your friends house or the local stadium probably.

Look at a map or globe with that in mind and everything feels so thin!

replies(9): >>45643658 #>>45646207 #>>45646233 #>>45646338 #>>45646829 #>>45646910 #>>45647596 #>>45647668 #>>45648223 #
messe ◴[] No.45643658[source]
> it's just hard to go up

Going up is the comparatively easy part, it's not exactly rocket science. Going fast enough sideways so you stay up there is the tricky bit.

replies(6): >>45643965 #>>45644286 #>>45646224 #>>45649112 #>>45652691 #>>45654212 #
aDyslecticCrow ◴[] No.45643965[source]
> Going fast enough sideways so you stay up there is the tricky bit.

nah, thats the simple part. getting up there efficiently is the difficulty. once we're up, its just a matter of force over time to create a nice orbit.

The faster you go, the more friction you face, and the more heat and vibration your equipment must endure.

Going slower reduce friction and stress but use more energy just negating gravity. Slow rocket is inefficient rocket.

So we wanna leave the atmosphere as soon as possible, but not so fast that the rocket melts or engines collapse. Prefferably just below the sound barrier.

once we're up, its pretty chill... until you wanna go down again. Slow rocket is alive rocket.

replies(5): >>45644389 #>>45645766 #>>45646139 #>>45650495 #>>45652373 #
1. advisedwang ◴[] No.45646139{3}[source]
Energy for 1kg to reach LEO (800km * 1kg * 9.8m/s2) ~ 8MJ

Energy to reach LEO velocity ~ (1/2 * 1kg * (8km/s)^2) ~ 32MJ

replies(2): >>45646515 #>>45647929 #
2. nroets ◴[] No.45646515[source]
The rocket fuel needed to produce that 40 MJ weighs close to 1 kg, especially when you include the oxidiser. So the energy needed to accelerate 1kg of payload to LEO velocity is much more.
replies(1): >>45652022 #
3. aDyslecticCrow ◴[] No.45647929[source]
But the energy needed is not an indicator of what is difficult or dangerous. Leaving the atmosphere intact is the most difficult part of launching a rocket going by failure rate. Of those that reach space, those that still fail often took damage from the launch.

Once you're in space, force over distance until your fuel runs out.

replies(1): >>45651271 #
4. jojobas ◴[] No.45651271[source]
Failures rate is even less a suitable indicator. Going up 100km is achievable by a simple single stage solid fuel rocket. Going to orbit requires way way more complexity, including a giant first stage that can fail in atmosphere.
5. _carbyau_ ◴[] No.45652022[source]
That whole "tyranny of the rocket equation" thing is why I am surprised the actual first stage for launching a rocket is NOT a ground based reusable "up-chucker".

Basically, I would have thought that any momentum that can be imparted to the rocket before it has to rely on its self propulsion would be a huge help. Not talking about eliminating self propulsion, just an assist so the rocket could carry a larger payload or be smaller or whatever.

IE like a variation on Jules Verne's big gun for throwing the payload up there but engineered to be plausible and having the rocket still be self propelled. And safe.

But we don't seem to do this. So why?

Edit: First part of video [0]. Apparently it's not completely dumb. Just stupid-hard/impossible to do practically at the size required for big rockets and payloads. But small ones might work. Maybe.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWYn5hl4QWg

replies(3): >>45652332 #>>45652415 #>>45673690 #
6. btilly ◴[] No.45652332{3}[source]
The structural support needed to keep the rocket from crumpling under the throw is extra weight to carry the rest of the way.

This is why Starship is aiming for a catch rather than legs. Legs that work at 1g added too much weight.

7. LorenPechtel ◴[] No.45652415{3}[source]
Building your rocket to survive the upchucker costs more than the savings from being upchucked.

Chuckers are the optimal large scale solution for airless bodies, but they're horizontal. You spread the acceleration out over a very long distance so you don't need a super beefy spacecraft and your humans won't turn to goo. Basically, a maglev train except it has track above as well as below and it doesn't have a maximum speed. Wrap one around the lunar equator and it can eject anywhere from sundiver to interstellar escape with human-tolerable acceleration.

replies(1): >>45661014 #
8. jvanderbot ◴[] No.45661014{4}[source]
Except that you save maybe 30% of the cost to just launch from Earth. Once youre off planet you're over half way to anywhere, and you don't need to land on the Moon to go further
9. BizarroLand ◴[] No.45673690{3}[source]
I've also wondered about a balloon launch. Strap the rocket to an enormous blimp, it handles the initial 1-2m/s acceleration, saving an enormous first volley of rocket fuel needed to break objects at rest out of their state of rest.

After the rocket is clear, activate compressors inside of the blimp and return it to base for re-use.