If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Kickstarter)   The Slingatron: not a bikini, nor a beverage maker, but a cheap way to space   (kickstarter.com) divider line 62
    More: Interesting, orbits, Slingatron, New Old, radiation protection, rocket launchers, robotic spacecraft, hypervelocity, Freeman Dyson  
•       •       •

3589 clicks; posted to Geek » on 30 Jul 2013 at 10:26 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



62 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-30 04:30:58 PM

Mikey1969: give me doughnuts: Not with the silly "ski-jump" at the end. They know that a projectile traveling at orbital speeds is going to blast right through that curve instead of changing vectors.

Yes they have. Robert Heinlein envisioned his built up the side of Pike's Peak because he knew that you needed an escape angle, not just speed.


It was also straight.
Reread "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress." All you had to do was aim it above the horizon. No "ski-jump"!
 
2013-07-30 04:45:01 PM

give me doughnuts: Mikey1969: give me doughnuts: Not with the silly "ski-jump" at the end. They know that a projectile traveling at orbital speeds is going to blast right through that curve instead of changing vectors.

Yes they have. Robert Heinlein envisioned his built up the side of Pike's Peak because he knew that you needed an escape angle, not just speed.

It was also straight.
Reread "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress." All you had to do was aim it above the horizon. No "ski-jump"!


That's the one on the Moon. The Earth's catapult went up the side of Pike's Peak, as I mentioned earlier. The mechanics of doing anything on the moon are vastly different from doing it in space, hence not needing a ramp to launch from the moon.
 
2013-07-30 04:48:48 PM

Mikey1969: give me doughnuts: Not with the silly "ski-jump" at the end. They know that a projectile traveling at orbital speeds is going to blast right through that curve instead of changing vectors.

Yes they have. Robert Heinlein envisioned his built up the side of Pike's Peak because he knew that you needed an escape angle, not just speed.


I was about to say why not go full Heinlein and do a linear accelerator gradually curving up on a mountain.  Hey people have tried to launch satellites with large guns (ever hear of HARP), and lets face it the air-launched V-1 gave use not only cruise missiles but also the X-15 and later Pegasus rocket and eventually Spaceship One and subsequent developments.  The idea of launching into orbit without carrying all that fuel to get you those first few miles is well known and keeps being looked at by many clever folks, I am just think these are not the right clever folks given their demos and the design and low cost of their launcher.
 
2013-07-30 04:49:36 PM

ikanreed: I'm pretty sure "slosh" won't be in the picture for liquid fuels, because they will fill containers completely. It contrasts our day to day feeling about containers of liquid, but when there's no space for liquids to flow, they are fairly physically stable.


OK.

Get two eggs.  One raw, one hardboiled.  Spin them on the countertop. Then come back here and tell us what happened.
 
2013-07-30 04:56:37 PM

interstellar_tedium: Mikey1969: give me doughnuts: Not with the silly "ski-jump" at the end. They know that a projectile traveling at orbital speeds is going to blast right through that curve instead of changing vectors.

Yes they have. Robert Heinlein envisioned his built up the side of Pike's Peak because he knew that you needed an escape angle, not just speed.

I was about to say why not go full Heinlein and do a linear accelerator gradually curving up on a mountain.  Hey people have tried to launch satellites with large guns (ever hear of HARP), and lets face it the air-launched V-1 gave use not only cruise missiles but also the X-15 and later Pegasus rocket and eventually Spaceship One and subsequent developments.  The idea of launching into orbit without carrying all that fuel to get you those first few miles is well known and keeps being looked at by many clever folks, I am just think these are not the right clever folks given their demos and the design and low cost of their launcher.


Yeah, I think the whole "light a controlled explosion under it while pointing it at the sky" thing is inefficient, and adding on to that the whole fuel vs. weight question, this seems like a no brainer.

I also think it would be an excellent way to dispose of waste, throw it into orbit then put it into a decaying orbit around the sun. It's also one of the pluses I list when talking about moon bases. They could even drop back stuff mined from the moon that way.
 
2013-07-30 05:11:52 PM
I'm just not sure how many people in this thread realize that this device doesn't rotate.

It just gyrates like a hula hoop dancer, and it accelerates the payload the same as how swirling your drink makes the drink and its ice cubes rotate without requiring the glass to rotate.

Why is the ski-jump so difficult to believe? At each moment in the loop of the slingatron the projectile is ALREADY being forced by the structure of the slingatron to change its velocity vector, and the slingatron is already strong enough to impart that motion on it. (The inventors say the friction itself is minimal as the projectile is floating on a "plasma bearing" film.)
 
2013-07-30 05:15:33 PM

RoyBatty: I'm just not sure how many people in this thread realize that this device doesn't rotate.

It just gyrates like a hula hoop dancer, and it accelerates the payload the same as how swirling your drink makes the drink and its ice cubes rotate without requiring the glass to rotate.

Why is the ski-jump so difficult to believe? At each moment in the loop of the slingatron the projectile is ALREADY being forced by the structure of the slingatron to change its velocity vector, and the slingatron is already strong enough to impart that motion on it. (The inventors say the friction itself is minimal as the projectile is floating on a "plasma bearing" film.)


RoyBatty: I'm just not sure how many people in this thread realize that this device doesn't rotate.

It just gyrates like a hula hoop dancer, and it accelerates the payload the same as how swirling your drink makes the drink and its ice cubes rotate without requiring the glass to rotate.

Why is the ski-jump so difficult to believe? At each moment in the loop of the slingatron the projectile is ALREADY being forced by the structure of the slingatron to change its velocity vector, and the slingatron is already strong enough to impart that motion on it. (The inventors say the friction itself is minimal as the projectile is floating on a "plasma bearing" film.)


Steel (and other metals that you'd use for this kind of thing) has a high tensile strength.  Not so good on compressive strength, though.
 
2013-07-30 07:14:16 PM

zarberg: I came here looking for bikinis. Leaving disappointed.


Its not a bikini, but I hope this will suffice:

www.cappadocia-hotels-tour.com

I'd let her launch me into low orbit.
 
2013-07-31 01:11:42 AM
Seriously, someone get Buzz to eyeball this thing and then pronounce judgement.

I don't have a clue how he'd react.
 
2013-07-31 01:33:14 AM
clearly not a ripoff
 
2013-07-31 12:10:52 PM
They are total and utter idiots.

It's an interesting approach to the power density issue for boosting a spacecraft with a ground-based launcher as the launch energy can be supplied over time spinning the device up.  You can accept quite a bit of inefficiency and still make it worthwhile as current launch costs are hundreds of times what the electricity would cost to lift the payload.

I don't even mind the ski jump--this is only for payloads that can take extreme acceleration.  Think of gun-hardened stuff.  (Amazingly, in WWII they managed to put a vacuum tube in a shell!)

The device very well might even work on an airless body.  It can never work on any planet with a substantial atmosphere, though, unless it's scaled up to insane size.  In the sufficiently high speed realm drag scales with speed and you end up with the situation where you go basically the same distance no matter how fast you start out.  Displacing a mass equal to the mass of the object will be enough to basically dissipate an object's energy.

There has been an example of an object launched from the surface of the Earth at well above escape velocity.  The exact velocity is unknown as it appeared in only one frame on the film--this sets a minimum velocity but not a maximum.  The manhole cover was never found but the general opinion is that that is because it was vaporized rather than becoming the first man-made object in space.
 
2013-07-31 04:23:02 PM
reminded me of this guy
stefanbc.files.wordpress.com
 
Displayed 12 of 62 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report