[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;19663352]Space Elevators are stupid and impractical. Not to mention extremely dangerous.[/QUOTE]
No they're not, no they're not, and no they're not.
Space elevators are awesome, they'd GREATLY reduce the cost (and danger) of putting anything into orbit, or taking it down to Earth from orbit. Launching spacecraft from a space elevator would be incredibly more easy and a lot cheaper than doing it from Earth. Do you really think major space agencies would put so much time and effort into working out the mathematics and developing the materials if it was impractical? Plus, if it ever 'falls' it would weigh so little that it would essentially fall as lightly as a feather. Sure, it'd be one hell of a mess to clean up, but it wouldn't do too much damage.
The material required to build it would weigh about 1 kilogram per kilometre. That's as much as a bag of sugar spread over a kilometre, and because the wires are like 'ribbons' they have a flat side. Same thing that makes a feather fall lightly. Large surface area to weight ratio.
[QUOTE=sltungle;19663437]No they're not, no they're not, and no they're not.
Space elevators are awesome, they'd GREATLY reduce the cost (and danger) of putting anything into orbit, or taking it down to Earth from orbit. Launching spacecraft from a space elevator would be incredibly more easy and a lot cheaper than doing it from Earth. Do you really think major space agencies would put so much time and effort into working out the mathematics and developing the materials if it was impractical? Plus, if it ever 'falls' it would weigh so little that it would essentially fall as lightly as a feather. Sure, it'd be one hell of a mess to clean up, but it wouldn't do too much damage.
The material required to build it would weigh about 1 kilogram per kilometre. That's as much as a bag of sugar spread over a kilometre, and because the wires are like 'ribbons' they have a flat side. Same thing that makes a feather fall lightly. Large surface area to weight ratio.[/QUOTE]
Sounds like a silly pipe dream to me. This seems a lot more plausible than a space elevator.
[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;19663766]Sounds like a silly pipe dream to me. This seems a lot more plausible than a space elevator.[/QUOTE]
Then go do some research and run the fucking math on it instead of just assuming "lol, that's crazy".
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;19663796]Then go do some research and run the fucking math on it instead of just assuming "lol, that's crazy".[/QUOTE]
Didn't say it was crazy. Settle down. I said it was a pipe dream, and this cannon has much more promise and practicality than a space elevator that needs materials that we don't have.
[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;19663890]Didn't say it was crazy. Settle down. I said it was a pipe dream, and this cannon has much more promise and practicality than a space elevator that needs materials that we don't have.[/QUOTE]
Actually...
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_nanotube#Synthesis[/url]
Something's bound to go wrong with this, you need incredibly complicated mathematics to figure out the trajectory of an object going from this and even on variable can fuck something up. All we know is we might accidentally shoot Putin in head with coca cola cans.
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;19649545]This is also a lot cheaper than a space elevator.[/QUOTE]
I wonder how much time would it take for an elevator to reach a space station.
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;19664162]Actually...
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_nanotube#Synthesis[/url][/QUOTE]
[quote=Wikipedia]However, the space elevator will require further efforts in refining carbon nanotube technology, as the practical tensile strength of carbon nanotubes can still be greatly improved.[/quote]
Like I said, materials we don't have.
Yeah ok. We have Carbon Nanotubes, that part is true, but in their current state they're fucking useless for the application you are suggesting.
uh nvm this post
[QUOTE=ThePuska;19664379]Land is generally higher than the sea level so I would assume you'd have to build it on land to get the most out of Earth's rotation[/QUOTE]
No. It just needs to be placed on the equator.
v = ωr
a(normal) = v^2/r = ω^2r
The point on Earth that's got the longest component that's on the equatorial plane (measured from Earth's core) is the one that gives you the biggest boost from rotation. And it'll also have a relatively small gravity.
Fuck I snipped my last post because I didn't want to think physicssssssss
[editline]07:55PM[/editline]
So I'd suggest a mountain somewhere around the equator instead of the ocean
[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;19664432]No. It just needs to be placed on the equator.[/QUOTE]
I do have to back you up on this, positioning it at the equator is far more benificial than going for higher altitude. They set up a Soyuz launch tower at the ESA's spaceport in Kourou because launching from there allows 40% more payload to GEO than launching from Baikonur.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;19664841]I do have to back you up on this, positioning it at the equator is far more benificial than going for higher altitude. They set up a Soyuz launch tower at the ESA's spaceport in Kourou because launching from there allows 40% more payload to GEO than launching from Baikonur.[/QUOTE]
Placing it on the equator [i]is[/i] going for higher altitude. Radius is greater around the equator.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;19663382]A rail gun would be a smarter way to do this, though more expensive to build. A miles-long, curving track would allow a smoother acceleration that wouldn't demolish the payload the way this gun would.
Also, as I mentioned before, you still have to design a vehicle that can survive that force and still be able to adjust the orbit in space. There are too many variables to expect to be able to fire a tank of water and have it drift up within a few feet of the ISS. If you're just a couple of feet off your target when the launch is done, that can translate to ten miles once you've caught up to the station. You need that ability to make adjustments after launch, and I can't imagine how all you could build all the propulsion and avionics gear capable of withstanding 5,000 Gs.[/QUOTE]
Specifically hardened satellites would apparently be able to withstand the acceleration. It's 5,000 G's, but over a very small time scale.
A railgun would be good for more delicate goods, but as it stands chemical rockets will do for now. The infrastructure and the technology is there.
The things that are needed most in space is water, food, air and fuel. All these could be transported using this gun. Rockets would still be needed for new scientific equipment, station modules or crew but they aren't amenities.
[editline]07:05PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=ThePuska;19664593]v = ωr
a(normal) = v^2/r = ω^2r
So I'd suggest a mountain somewhere around the equator instead of the ocean[/QUOTE]
The rotation thing is only one reason for being in the ocean I think. The barrel is supported by the water. If it was built on a mountain you'd need some mega strengthening and alot of support struts for that 3000 ft barrel.
Or, you would have to build it into the mountain, so the ground is like the ocean, but then it's fixed and you can't adjust the trajectory.
[QUOTE=smurfy;19649009]How do you catch it in space?
They should build this even if they decide it won't work, I really wanna see this in action.[/QUOTE]
The rocket deploys a parachute and simply slows down. Haven't you seen the cartoons?
does this mean they are going to have a giant net in space to catch the stuff?
[QUOTE=Tyler72493;19663398]Very cool.
But could you use it to shoot other stuff?[/QUOTE]
Spitballs :psyboom:
[QUOTE=Nitrowing;19657248]Admittedly building it inland would require a lot of land to be moved. But building it on the ocean has it's own problems: Rust, pirates, hurricanes, physical errors that must be manually fixed, big waves, ships, you name it. The ocean isn't exactly an ideal place for a giant floating cannon which needs to be precisely aimed; that is unless you want your space mail to go into the sun instead of up to the ISS.[/QUOTE]
I somehow doubt they will stick this onto the coast of Somalia.
And somehow I would imagine them making wave breakers all around the cannon.
Besides, I would imagine its easier to actually aim in water where you can TURN THE CANNON. Ground tends to be a bit hard for that.
[QUOTE=Veribigbos;19667688]Besides, I would imagine its easier to actually aim in water where you can TURN THE CANNON. Ground tends to be a bit hard for that.[/QUOTE]
if they built it bigger they wouldn't even have to aim. just simply firing it will incinerate anything within a 20km radius.
Pandora...
:shobon:
Here I come.
[QUOTE=ThePuska;19664887]Placing it on the equator [i]is[/i] going for higher altitude. Radius is greater around the equator.[/QUOTE]
True, though I was referring to altitude above the surface. Rotational velocity is greatest at the equator, that's the main reason for launching there.
[editline]04:24PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=petieng;19665861]Specifically hardened satellites would apparently be able to withstand the acceleration. It's 5,000 G's, but over a very small time scale.
A railgun would be good for more delicate goods, but as it stands chemical rockets will do for now. The infrastructure and the technology is there.
The things that are needed most in space is water, food, air and fuel. All these could be transported using this gun. Rockets would still be needed for new scientific equipment, station modules or crew but they aren't amenities.
[/QUOTE]
All true. Even if it's usefulness was strictly limited to propellant, air, and water, that would take a tremendous load off of chemical rocket launches. A lot more science could be done if 90% of launch weight was reserved for experiments and such instead of basic consumables for the station crew.
[QUOTE=sltungle;19663437]No they're not, no they're not, and no they're not.
Space elevators are awesome, they'd GREATLY reduce the cost (and danger) of putting anything into orbit, or taking it down to Earth from orbit. Launching spacecraft from a space elevator would be incredibly more easy and a lot cheaper than doing it from Earth. Do you really think major space agencies would put so much time and effort into working out the mathematics and developing the materials if it was impractical? [B]Plus, if it ever 'falls' it would weigh so little that it would essentially fall as lightly as a feather.[/B] Sure, it'd be one hell of a mess to clean up, but it wouldn't do too much damage.
The material required to build it would weigh about 1 kilogram per kilometre. That's as much as a bag of sugar spread over a kilometre, and because the wires are like 'ribbons' they have a flat side. Same thing that makes a feather fall lightly. Large surface area to weight ratio.[/QUOTE]
It would actually cause a lot of damage. Imagine a wire reaching to space breaking, going 20 000 km/h at its endpoint.
[B]Reload page to view the animation again.[/B]
[IMG]http://gassend.net/spaceelevator/breaks/break75.gif[/IMG]
[QUOTE=farmatyr;19673099]It would actually cause a lot of damage. Imagine a wire reaching to space breaking, going 20 000 km/h at its endpoint.
[B]Reload page to view the animation again.[/B]
[IMG]http://gassend.net/spaceelevator/breaks/break75.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE]
At that speed it would vaporize.
[QUOTE=farmatyr;19673099]It would actually cause a lot of damage. Imagine a wire reaching to space breaking, going 20 000 km/h at its endpoint.
[B]Reload page to view the animation again.[/B]
[IMG]http://gassend.net/spaceelevator/breaks/break75.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE]
And once again it falls MORE LIGHTLY than a feather. Sure, at first the top would be accelerating downwards FAST (no wind resistance in space) but once it hits the atmosphere it would slow down considerably (hell, it might even burn up). You know when you drop a bowling ball how it drops 5 or 6 times faster than dropping a feather? Well the space elevator would drop like 5 or 6 time slower than THAT.
You know, sometimes I wish that the people on Facepunch become the future's scientists and engineers.
We would have an array of space elevators on the equator, five cannons like this one, nine mass drivers, FTL travel, CERN would've disappeared in a resonance cascade, crazy-fast fiber internet, Simusex, and fembots that can feel love :buddy:
I want one, oh and yeah - Agreed ^
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;19673525]You know, sometimes I wish that the people on Facepunch become the future's scientists and engineers.
We would have an array of space elevators on the equator, five cannons like this one, nine mass drivers, FTL travel, CERN would've disappeared in a resonance cascade, crazy-fast fiber internet, Simusex, and fembots that can feel love :buddy:[/QUOTE]
I'm on it!
[QUOTE=Tac Error;19649391]Gerald Bull did this same concept waaaay back in the 1960's with Project HARP. Too bad it got canceled due to the Vietnam War.
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/52/Project_Harp.jpg[/IMG]
Iraq tried to do it with their Project Babylon superguns, but then Desert Storm came and the UN destroyed the program.[/QUOTE]
Now THATS A FIREBALL I LIKE TO SEE!
[QUOTE=D-Roy;19648974]I have this gut feeling that somehow, it's gonna get turned into a weapon in some future war.[/QUOTE]
Using the rapid expansion of gas in a long tube to expel some kind of projectile.....ingenius.
Tie my name to some of the supplies and kick the gun as it fires...
I'll live forever.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.