Starship Asterisk*

rstevenson wrote:

BMAONE23 wrote:As you stated, the problem with a rail gun is "From the bottom of our atmosphere". The trick is to get the outlet of the Rail Gun system above 18,000' then, atmospheric thickness wise, it is already 1/2 way there.
The potential solution could be to bore through and insert the rail gun launch system into Mt Kilimanjaro. With the top at 19,000+ feet, you are already 1/2 way through the atmospheric thickness (drag) by the time you reach the outlet. The Mtn. is also conveniently located near the equator for directional launch to most any orbital plane.

You'd have to pump out most of the atmosphere from the tunnel, to keep air resistance to a minimum, and then flip the door open at the last second. (Interesting engineering problem. ) That's one of the issues with rail guns; they're so fast you need to worry about heat during launch. Not to mention protecting the fragile crew from becoming uncanned Spam due to the acceleration forces. But it would likely be practical for unmanned supply launches.

Rob

Greyhawk wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:I believe you are correct that the focus will necessarily shift away from manned space flight. I think that's a good thing, but everybody has their own opinion on that matter.

I just think thats the easy way out. As JFK said, we are going to the moon not because it is easy but because it is hard. 9 years later they were there. Political motivation or not thats still an astounding achievement. Which makes the Shuttle retirement even more poignant to me. It feels like the US is giving up. If ever we needed a global space agency, its now.

rstevenson wrote:You'd have to pump out most of the atmosphere from the tunnel, to keep air resistance to a minimum, and then flip the door open at the last second. (Interesting engineering problem. :mrgreen: ) That's one of the issues with rail guns; they're so fast you need to worry about heat during launch. Not to mention protecting the fragile crew from becoming uncanned Spam due to the acceleration forces. But it would likely be practical for unmanned supply launches.

BMAONE23 wrote:As you stated, the problem with a rail gun is "From the bottom of our atmosphere". The trick is to get the outlet of the Rail Gun system above 18,000' then, atmospheric thickness wise, it is already 1/2 way there.
The potential solution could be to bore through and insert the rail gun launch system into Mt Kilimanjaro. With the top at 19,000+ feet, you are already 1/2 way through the atmospheric thickness (drag) by the time you reach the outlet. The Mtn. is also conveniently located near the equator for directional launch to most any orbital plane.

Greyhawk wrote:
If ever we needed a global space agency, its now.

Chris Peterson wrote:

Greyhawk wrote:NASA as an organisation is still productive but its manned program seems to be either defunct or no longer a priority. Probes are good but its manned missions that we need to fire up the imagination. Thats the technical/biological/psychological/chemical challenge - at least to me.

I believe you are correct that the focus will necessarily shift away from manned space flight. I think that's a good thing, but everybody has their own opinion on that matter.

rstevenson wrote:

garry wrote:My points still stand; Archaic technology that is not cost effective. What other means of propulsion is NASA looking at? For the shuttles to go into retirement with nothing to replace them is a concern.

At the moment -- by which I mean at our current state of technology and our current societal state of fear of anything nuclear -- we're stuck with chemical rockets. They've been refined to a fine level and are quite efficient -- for a chemical rocket, that is.

A nice space elevator would be an extarodinary asset for the planet but we're not ready for that yet. A rail gun will work well off the moon but not from the bottom of our atmosphere.

As for shuttle replacements, they're being developed (not necessarily in a shuttle format, of course) by both NASA and private industry. Yeah, it's frustrating waiting, but we'll get there.

Rob

garry wrote: What other means of propulsion is NASA looking at?

garry wrote:My points still stand; Archaic technology that is not cost effective. What other means of propulsion is NASA looking at? For the shuttles to go into retirement with nothing to replace them is a concern.

islader2 wrote:How can an unregistered contributor--such as "garry"--get on this site? Let us clean up this mess. This is a science site, posters such as "garry" are often just looking for innane controversy. Thanx.

Greyhawk wrote:NASA as an organisation is still productive but its manned program seems to be either defunct or no longer a priority. Probes are good but its manned missions that we need to fire up the imagination. Thats the technical/biological/psychological/chemical challenge - at least to me.

alnortham wrote:If this is the last launch of the STS vehicle system, what is going to happen to the massive equipment infrastructure? There are the assembly buildings, the shuttle transporter, a railroad system, a purpose-built barge and canal system as well as specialized rolling stock. It all cannot be "museumised". Has another use/tasking been worked out? Is it the big pink slip for the skilled and special employees such as transporter operators, the assembly technicians etc???

Greyhawk wrote:Hopefully NASA will bounce back from being the whipping boy of the US spending cuts. Or maybe NASA should direct all its effort into pushing for a global space agency...with the resources of the the entire planet to draw on surely we can finally get things done!

BMAONE23 wrote:It is a proven technology, ... Just think of the money NASA could make by retrofitting the cargo bay with passenger seats.
If they placed 100 seats in the cargo bay and charged $10M per seat, they could net $550M per launch for a 3 hour tour around the world. (twice around and down) The ultimate thrill ride....