Announcement

**Omni Rex Draconis** · October 9, 2007, 22:29

I was going to mention the problem with the gun theory, but Blake got around to it first. Magnetic rail guns have the benefit of keeping both fuel and engine off the launch vehicle itself. Too bad you burn up when you hit the atmosphere. Even if you built the tube to a height of 10 km and evacuated it, you have only reduced air pressure to half.

I am still dreaming of a Space Fountain, a la A.C. Clarke. It does not require any science we don't already possess. Infrastructure support, lifting capacity, and energy transmission from space to earth - all wrapped up in one awesome package.

It just takes global approval to build, an immense construction effort, and massive amounts of energy to run. That's all.

I guess I'll have to wait...

**DanS** · October 9, 2007, 23:36

Originally posted by BlackCat
Optimizing for cost may not have been that high, but optimizing for payload has certainly. If it's possible to reduce thev launching units weight by say 15 % that can be put into payload (probably less, but still an enhancement).

Optimizing for payload isn't cost-efficient, I'm afraid.

I don't really understand your point about that the material should be used for other purposes before space industry would take it up - usually it's the other way.

When you're optimizing for costs -- as has begun to happen recently in some efforts -- you worry about ease of manufacture and ready supply. That doesn't happen with new or otherwise exotic materials.

**BlackCat** · October 10, 2007, 17:24

Originally posted by DanS

Optimizing for payload isn't cost-efficient, I'm afraid.

When you're optimizing for costs -- as has begun to happen recently in some efforts -- you worry about ease of manufacture and ready supply. That doesn't happen with new or otherwise exotic materials.

Depends wetherc you are trying to reduce overall budget or becoming more efficient as in getting more up without paying more.

This new material is of course exotic in the way that it's new and not tested in any considerable way, but according to the article it should be possible to mass produce without redoing the Manhattan project.

**Seeker** · October 11, 2007, 01:14

Didn't Canadian engineer Gerald Bull try inventing a giant artillery piece that could theoretically launch to orbit? (obviously not anything delicate, but a cheap way to launch raw materials/fuels)

**Asmodean** · October 11, 2007, 08:55

This is all wrong. You can't use plastic to build space ships!!

What happens when we meet the Drengins or the Klingons and they discover we are using plastics to build our hulls

We need to focus our research on strengthened hulls, shield technology and cloaking devices

Asmodean

**DanS** · October 11, 2007, 10:22

Originally posted by BlackCat
or becoming more efficient as in getting more up without paying more.

This sounds good, but it never has worked. Not a single time.

**BlackCat** · October 11, 2007, 10:35

Originally posted by Seeker
Didn't Canadian engineer Gerald Bull try inventing a giant artillery piece that could theoretically launch to orbit? (obviously not anything delicate, but a cheap way to launch raw materials/fuels)

Nope. It was Jules Verne