Presentation Of New Launch Method

yavuzbasturk · 2005-06-14 04:10:52

Hi,
My name is Yavuz Basturk, i am software developer at Turkey.
I have a patent of idea which is alternative to rockets to carry kargo to the orbit.
It is more advantageous compared to classical rocket ships from the
point of view of cost and security.

Detailed three A4 description can be found on http://www.yablam.org/sum_eng.htm]http: … um_eng.htm

Yavuz BASTURK

i paste description of system from web page
------------------------------------------------------

THE PRESENTATION OF YABLAM

Yablam is a new method which was developed for carrying utility cargo to the orbit in a safe way with a little cost. It is more advantageous compared to classical rocket ships from the point of view of cost and security. Yablam stands for “Yavuz Baştürk Launch Method”.

Yablam, is composed of lengthening a hose to 185 km above the surface, carrying weight of the hose by sharing by intermediate stations and rising the utility cargo via the hose in lift cabins. System, briefly, aims to launch rocket ships, which carries cargo, in a horizontal way, not in a vertical way, to the space from a launcher which was made 185 kilometers above. Therefore there will not be the air friction problem, it can be reached to orbit speed with a very little fuel.

Elements of the system

· Fuel Hose

Rocket ships do not storage the whole of the fuel ,which will be consumed, in their own structure. Fuel continuously pumped to all of the rocket ships in the system from the tanks on the surface by pumps which run by electrical energy. The fuel hose will probably be produced from Carbon-Epoxy material which has got optimum values and is available easily and the cheapest material in the market. There are alternatives such as Kevlar/dyneema rope. Another function of the fuel hose is that it is also the lift rope. Lift cabins will rise up on the hose by electrical energy.

· Type of the fuel

It will be used hydrogen/oxygen as fuel. H-O can be stored tanks on the surface in huge quantities and pumped in liquid or gas form by the hose. For making the system more secure and making the hose lighter and more simple , there is also the alternative of pumping water only. Water appropriate to electrolyses (for example salty sea water) is stored in big pools on the earth. Electrolyses equipment in the stations simultaneously decomposes water into hydrogen and oxygen by using the high voltage line which exists along the hose and supplies to the rocket ships.

· Electrolyses equipment in the stations

If liquid water is preferred as fuel, Electrolyses equipment in the stations simultaneously decomposes water into hydrogen and oxygen and supplies to the rocket ships. Decomposing water in the stations by methods, which are out of electrolyses, is also a research matter.

· High voltage line

There is also a high voltage line on the 185 km hose in a vertical way. Fuel pumps, which exist on the earth and in the every intermediate station, will run by this electrical energy. Lift cabins, which will rise up, will also rise up by this electrical energy. If the type of fuel is preferred as water, electrolyses equipment which exists in intermediate stations will decomposes water into hydrogen and oxygen by real-time electrolyses by this electrical energy and transfers to rocket ship as fuel. Other electronic equipment on the hose and in the stations will also provide their power from this line. Electrical energy can be produced by any kind of method on the earth. Fuel oil generators, mini nuclear power stations or city electrical network can be used.

· Intermediate stations

It is difficult for the 185 km hose to carry its own weight and intermediate pumps by the materials which are in use today. Therefore weight of the hose will be carried by fixed stations which are on every 10 km. station can be imagined as a metallic disk at a diameter of 20-30 meters. The fuel hose passes through center of the disk and station is fixed on the hose. There are rocket ship, pump and electrolyses equipment in every station. Rocket ship in every station will be designed as that it can carry station equipment and the 10 km rope below and lift cabin in addition. It will be understood by the estimations which every kilometer the stations will be fixed on the hose. 10 km is an example value.

· Pump on the stations

It is impossible to raise the fuel 185 km up by just one pump. Therefore there is a pump on every intermediate station which runs by electricity. Every pump will pump the fuel which comes from the pump below to the pump above at an appropriate pressure.

· Navigation& Communication equipment on the stations

It is required to hold all of the stations and the hose on a virtual 90 degrees vertical line as a 185 km vertical structure. Therefore there will be GPS or a similar installation system on stations and the hose. Because the rocket ships have got exhaust outputs on XYZ, station will be moved by rocket power in required direction automatically. A special installation system for this system can be produced from zero by GPS transmitters located on the earth.

· Lift cabins

Lift cabin will carry satellite, human or any kind of material required to be reached to the orbit. Because every station in the system has the ability of carrying lift cabin, if there are 18 stations in the system, 18 lift cabins will simultaneously rise up on the hose by electricity. When the lift cabin reaches the top station at a height of 185 km, launch preparations at the horizontal direction are started. There are a rocket engine and an empty fuel tank in every lift cabin. The tank in the cabin is filled with fuel at the height of 185 km. Then the cabin is released into space and launched in horizontal direction. At this height, the cabin will reach orbital speed and utility cargo will enter the orbit. After it enters the orbit at the height of 185 km, if required, it can be reached the orbital height required with a little fuel. Lift cabin and the rocket in the cabin is disposable. When the satellite is reached to required height, cabin and rocket are fired by letting it fall into atmosphere.

First launch of the system

Before the Yablam is launched, 185 km fuel hose stands on the earth as coiled around a bobbin. The hose is full with fuel. The stations are fixed on the hose every 10 km. Electricity is produced in the line on the hose. Fuel pumping starts and the first station began to rise up by the rocket power. Because there is not escape speed& fuel storage problem for the rockets on the stations, they can rise up with a speed such 30 km/hr. the first station rises up 10 km by dragging the hose below and the rocket power is lessened and the rocket is suspended in the air in a fix point like a helicopter. Meanwhile, second station is prepared to launch on the earth and the second one simultaneously starts to rise up in a synchronic way. When all the stations rise in the same way, we will have a 185 km vertical structure. After all of the lift cabins are launched into the orbit, the yablam hose will go down into the earth in the same way which it is launched and the system is closed by packaging on the earth. Yablam will be 6-7 hours or a few days in air just when it will be used, it will come back to the earth when it completes its mission.

About the system’s weight

Fuel in the hose does not create a weight for the system. Because the fuel is continuously pumped by electricity which is produced on the earth and is continuously in movement, it does not create weight. But the fuel flow must not stop even just a second and the required quantity of fuel must continuously pumped. If fuel flow stops for a second, the fuel in the 185 hose will turn into weight and the system will collapse by its own weight. If the fuel is pumped more than required, excessive fuel will be released out. Every rocket in the system carries just itself, other equipment on the station and the empty hose piece which extends to the station below. Every hose piece carries just the hose piece which extends the station below too. If required distance between stations is estimated as 4 km instead of 10 km for this, the distance between stations will be designated as 4 km.

About economical value of the system

Lift cabins in the same number of stations will simultaneously rise up. A new utility cargo will be entered the orbit in every approximately 20-30 minutes depending on the cabin’s rising speed. Therefore space hotel, lunar hotel, commercial manufacturing facilities in areas without gravity, meteorite minor ships, inter planet passenger ships, transfer of pieces of inter stars passenger ships, assembling them in the space will be a reasonable aim for human being. 2-3 satellites at most can be launched by classic rockets and there is a explosion risk 1/33. Today, the cost of carrying one kg material to orbit is at a range of $10,000. Investment cost and freight cost per kg of carrying to orbit will be very less by the Yablam Method.

Comparing to space elevator project

Space elevator is designed as a rope from the earth to 100,000 km up. This rope is stretched by centrifugal force and gravity and can stand as a vertical structure. So lift cabins can rise up on this vertical structure. But it is impossible to produce space lift under present conditions. Because the only material which can lean against such a stress is Carbon nano tube. Production of sufficient quantity of carbon nano tube is not an arguable matter and it can not be guessed when it will be possible. Even if it can be produced in sufficient quantities, the cost of the space lift is guessed between 7-15 billion dollars. But the Yablam idea can be produced with the materials available by relatively very less investment cost. Because the space elevator is in vertical position, it must lean against conditions such as space garbage, meteor dust, negatively weather conditions. Either these are not such kind of risks in Yablam Project or very little.

Security evaluation of the system

Because standard rockets carry in huge quantity of fuel, it is nearly impossible the personnel to survive after an explosion. Because fuel is safely stored on the earth in yablam project, a big explosion risk is too little. There is not huge quantity of fuel in the rockets in fire. If assumed that a rocket explores, valves, which are fixed on the hose in periodical distant, will be closed automatically and the severity and effect of the explosion will be less.

During the explosion, security rockets in the lift cabins which are rising up, will be launched and the cabins will go away from the hose in a vertical position. Then they will reach the earth in a safe way by free falling and parachutes. The system can be launched from a vessel on the ocean or a desert against the risk of the 185 km hose filled with fuel on inhabited place. When a design is developed which will pump water to hose instead of H-O, the risk will be reasonable.

Other information

Other Info

Because the Yablam will stand for a certain time, the most appropriate weather conditions will be waited for. Despite possible jet streams are very strong winds, it is possible to overcome them by low air density at that height, small cross section of the hose and the low rising speed of the system. In south and north poles, jet streams are always zero. If jet streams will be a serious problem, the system can be built at polar points.

Because there is not high quantity of fuels in the rockets, it seems that there is no big explosion risk. Therefore risks for human being are less. All the fuel is stored in secure places on the earth.

If it is decided to pump water instead of H-O, breaking of the hose will be a high risk people living around. In that case, Yablam can be launched from a vessel on the ocean or desert.

Bobbin-like structure, which the hose is coiled, on the earth must round at the same speed with rockets’ rising speed. If we assume that rockets will rise up at the speed of 30km/hr, 8,3 meters/s rounding speed seems reasonable. As an alternative solution, 185 km hose and 10 cm diameter are assumed, it will cover185km*10cm = 185,000,000 cm2 of area, therefore an area of 300m*300m is considered enough. When all the hose is spread over the area there won't be any friction problem.

Conclusion

Yablam is now just at idea stage and just the patent was taken out. Any required estimations and researches aren’t carried out. Just 30-50 people have positively thoughts on this matter. If my opinion is considered appropriate, I would like it would be a scientific article or master thesis

The owner of the idea and patent right

Name : Yavuz BAŞTÜRK

Country : Turkey

Email: yavuzbasturk@yablam.org

Tel:+90 535 774 9890 (cell)

Tel:+90 262 332 5051 (home)

Msn : yavuzbasturk@hotmail.com (don’t send mail please)

Icq : 127012544

Fledi · 2005-06-14 07:02:23

You aren't much better off by launching from 185km altitude compared to ground level, if the launch point moves at the same speed as the earth rotates.
Atmospheric friction is really only a minor problem for rockets, the big one is to reach orbital speed.
You will have to hold the hose and the rocket while it is transported to the top and fueled up, which might take some time. If you are planning to do this with adding thrusters every 10km, then I'd like to know what the fuel consumption rate of these is, first guess is the total fuel spent will by far exceed the fuel you need to get a normal rocket into orbit.

yavuzbasturk · 2005-06-15 07:08:47

I created pictures of scenario.

Scenario parameters ;
- we have 6 payloads
- to make pictures easy we use 180km launch target instead of 185km high.
- to make pictures easy we use 4 station and 45km hose piece between stations.
- to make pictures easy we use 4 pumps total in system
- combining and separating hose and station at ground cost 3 minute time
- Filling fuel tank of lift cabin at 185km cost 5 minute of time
- Ascending speed of lift cabins is 90km/h
- Ascending and descending speed of stations is 135km/h
- Full scenario cost 05 hour and 20 minutes of time.
- text of changed objects in pictures is red color.

http://www.yablam.org/H-O_hose_cross_se … ection.GIF
this is picture of hose cross section if we use H-O as a fuel.

http://www.yablam.org/water_hose_cross_ … ection.GIF
this is picture of hose cross section if we use water as a fuel.

we start scenario ;

http://www.yablam.org/yablam_launch_00. … nch_00.GIF Step(00) Time = 00:00
Yablam is ready and waiting to be launched. All hose is full of fuel.
Electric plant ready to produce electric. stations are waiting at ground.
Payload cabins are waiting at ground too.

http://www.yablam.org/yablam_launch_01. … nch_01.GIF Step(01) Time = 00:03
Station #1 combined with hose and waiting to launch.
Payload #1 is combined to hose in 3 minutes.
Payload will ascend with station #1.

http://www.yablam.org/yablam_launch_02. … nch_02.GIF Step(02) Time = 00:23
Station #1 ascending with 135km/h. Reaching to 45km high takes 20 minute.
When station #1 ascend 45km high, it will stop ascending and it is fixed
at 45km as a helicopter.

http://www.yablam.org/yablam_launch_03. … nch_03.GIF Step(03) Time = 00:26
we combine Station #2 and payload #2 with hose in 3 minute.
now both station #1 and station #2 are ready to start ascend at same time with same speed.

http://www.yablam.org/yablam_launch_04. … nch_04.GIF Step(04) Time = 00:49
Station #1 and station #2 start ascending at same time. After 20 minute station #1 is
at 90km high and statiobn #2 is as 45km high. now stations stıp ascend and wait at fixed
point as a helicopter.

http://www.yablam.org/yablam_launch_05. … nch_05.GIF Step(05) Time = 01:12
we combined station #3 and payload #2 to hose and all 3 stations ascended 20 minute (45km).
first 3 station is waiting like helicopter.
now we combine station #4 and and payload #4 to hose.

http://www.yablam.org/yablam_launch_06. … nch_06.GIF Step(06) Time = 01:32
all stations ascended 20 minute (45km).
now first station ascended to target 180km high.
on next many hours stations will not ascend or descend.
while stations are carrying 185km hose, payload lifts will ascend with electric power.
now we are ready to fill fuel to payload #1 lift rocket.

http://www.yablam.org/yablam_launch_07. … nch_07.GIF Step(07) Time = 01:37
we filled payload #1's lift rocket with fuel in 5 minutes, fuel showed with red color.
we are ready to launch payload #1 at horizontal.

http://www.yablam.org/yablam_launch_08. … nch_08.GIF Step(08) Time = 01:37
payload #1's lift launched.

http://www.yablam.org/yablam_launch_09. … nch_09.GIF Step(09) Time = 01:40
all other payloads (#2,#3 and #4) ascending at same time.
After payload #4 ascended after station #1, we combine payload #5 to hose at gorund level.
we wait payload #4 to ascend after station #1 because, a station can carry maximum 1 lift at a time.
now all 4 payloads ascending at same time.

http://www.yablam.org/yablam_launch_10. … nch_10.GIF Step(10) Time = 02:00
after 20 minutes all payloads ascended 45km each.
now we are ready to launch payload #2 at horizontal.

http://www.yablam.org/yablam_launch_11. … nch_11.GIF Step(11) Time = 02:05
We fill fuel to payload #2's lift rocket in 5 minutes.
We launch payload #2 horizontal direction.

http://www.yablam.org/yablam_launch_12. … nch_12.GIF Step(12) Time = 02:08
we combined payload #6 with hose and all payloads are ascending with electric power.

http://www.yablam.org/yablam_launch_13. … nch_13.GIF Step(13) Time = 02:33
payload #3 is at 180km.
We fill fuel to rocket of payload #3
It is ready to lauch.

http://www.yablam.org/yablam_launch_14. … nch_14.GIF Step(14) Time = 02:33
payload #3 launched.
now station #4 burn low fuel beacuse it does not carry payload anymore.

http://www.yablam.org/yablam_launch_15. … nch_15.GIF Step(15) Time = 02:58
payload #4 launched.

http://www.yablam.org/yablam_launch_16. … nch_16.GIF Step(16) Time = 03:23
payload #5 launched.

http://www.yablam.org/yablam_launch_17. … nch_17.GIF Step(17) Time = 03:48
payload #6 launched.

http://www.yablam.org/yablam_launch_18. … nch_18.GIF Step(18) Time = 03:48
Mission completed.
We launched 6 payload successfully.
Now we descend full system back to the ground.
Descending method of stations is same as ascending method of stations.
All stations burn low fuel so they descend with 135km/h speed.

http://www.yablam.org/yablam_launch_19. … nch_19.GIF Step(19) Time = 04:08
Station #4 is ready to be separated from hose.

http://www.yablam.org/yablam_launch_20. … nch_20.GIF Step(20) Time = 04:31
Station #4 is seperated from hose.
Pump of station #4 is seperated from station #4 too.
Station #3 is ready to be separated from hose.

http://www.yablam.org/yablam_launch_21. … nch_21.GIF Step(21) Time = 04:54
Station #3 is seperated from hose.
Pump of station #3 is seperated from station #3 too.
Station #2 is ready to be separated from hose.

http://www.yablam.org/yablam_launch_22. … nch_22.GIF Step(22) Time = 05:17
Station #2 is seperated from hose.
Pump of station #2 is seperated from station #2 too.
Station #1 is ready to be separated from hose.

http://www.yablam.org/yablam_launch_23. … nch_23.GIF Step(23) Time = 05:20
Station #1 is seperated from hose.
Mission completed.
Yablam structure is ready to re-use for next launch mission.
we only destroyed small rockets on lift cabins.

RobS · 2005-06-15 10:27:56

How are you keeping the 185 kilometer hose up? You can't do it by firing rockets at the top constantly and you can't do it from inflation of the tube.

-- RobS

Fledi · 2005-06-15 13:50:30

If you add a pump each 10 km you will have to make each work against the pressure of that 10km high fluid column, that means about a 1000 bar. And this is without the friction losses in that 10km long pipe-part.

yavuzbasturk · 2005-06-15 14:24:54

i fire rockets constantly, but system will run 5-6 hours or few days only. after mission completedi system descend back to ground and ready to re-use.

How are you keeping the 185 kilometer hose up? You can't do it by firing rockets at the top constantly and you can't do it from inflation of the tube.
-- RobS

yavuzbasturk · 2005-06-15 14:27:24

If you add a pump each 10 km you will have to make each work against the pressure of that 10km high fluid column, that means about a 1000 bar. And this is without the friction losses in that 10km long pipe-part.

you are right.
but 10km is approximate value, after research it may be 4km or 15km, i dont know. i did not do any math and i can not do. this is only plain idea and i share with people maybe someone interest it and calculate necessary topics.

yavuzbasturk · 2005-06-15 14:36:10

You aren't much better off by launching from 185km altitude compared to ground level, if the launch point moves at the same speed as the earth rotates.
Atmospheric friction is really only a minor problem for rockets, the big one is to reach orbital speed.
You will have to hold the hose and the rocket while it is transported to the top and fueled up, which might take some time. If you are planning to do this with adding thrusters every 10km, then I'd like to know what the fuel consumption rate of these is, first guess is the total fuel spent will by far exceed the fuel you need to get a normal rocket into orbit.

a friend from other forum said ;

The main problem for a rocket are the 7.7 km/s needed to accelerate a payload into low earth orbit. Overcoming gravity usually takes about 1.5 km/s. In your design you are only overcoming the 1.5 km/s - you still need a rocket to accelerate the payload to 7.7 km/s. Using hydrogen and oxygen (exhaust velocity of 4500 m/s) you get a mass ratio of 0.183 => The empty mass of your rocket plus payload would have to be lighter than 18.3% of the launch mass).

this means ; at 185km horizontal launch --> 15 ton rocket is enough to accelerate to orbit for 1.2 ton of payload. (15 ton is total mass of rocket+fuel+payload)

if you vertical launch 1.2ton payload from ground level with a standart rocket, i think at least 100 ton total rocket mass is necessary. (it is a guess not calculated)

this ideas cost much much fuels but fuel is cheap. for example cost of Ariane V launch is 150 million euro but i think 130 milyon euro is for rocket structure & hardware and 20 million is for fuel only. this idea is re-usable, you dont destroy structure after mission completed.

Fledi · 2005-06-15 15:59:08

Let's look at Ariane 5 for example. It's start mass is more than 700 tons and it is able to get a payload of less than 20 tonnes into orbit. That's less than 3%. This is because the dry weight of the rocket (that is not reused) is about 10% of total mass. Now if you go to orbit from the ground with efficient H2/O2 engines, that is a delta v of about 9.5km/sec, so you get about 13% of total end mass compared to start mass. That leaves you with 3% of the payload. In your case it would be 8% instead of this, so almost 3 times as big. So if you still use expendable rockets you've cut costs to 1/3 if you only look at the rocket itself.
But you have to keep the whole thing up for hours (via rocket thrusters?), a weight exceeding the start weight of a ground to LEO rocket.
Let's look at the fuel consumption of these thrusters, which at maximum would have to carry the rocket and the hose.
Let's assume the exhaust velocity of the thrusters is also 4500m/sec, and you want to get 8 tons of payload into orbit. That means start mass of the rocket about 100 tons in your case (dry weight 10 tons).
For the whole thing to stay up your thrust has to equal the force from gravity, which is approximately G=m_rocket*g=1,000kN, not counting the weight of the hose, lift cabins, thrusters and pumps.
Required mass flow would then be dm=G/exhaust_velocity=222kg/sec. Liquid hydrogen (which would have to be cooled all the way up to the top) has a density of about 70kg/m^3. With a 10cm diameter tube the flow speed would then have to be 50meters/sec (1/8t of propellant flow mass; ok only 2/3rds of the fuel is LH2, but this is all just a very rough estimate).
Let's assume you need to run the engines at this rate for an hour, then you need to spend roughly 800 tons of fuel.
By the way, just the weight of that 185km high propellant column at this diameter is another 500 tons, not to speak about the hose structure which has to withstand these 1000bars at certain points.
So multiply all previously calculated values by at least a factor of 5. But then you have got unrealistically high fuel consumption.
Ok I won't continue this, have got other things to do but I guess you get the picture

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-15 18:39:37

Yeah, supporting such a structure with rocket engines certainly isn't going to be practical.

The best idea I've heard of that is anything similar to this is to use a very large balloon(s) to lift your rocket. This is problematic given hot much a rocket weighs however, and will probobly limit such a scheme to small rockets.

The rocket equation, which dictates that all rockets must be mostly fuel, is one of man's greatest challenges really.

Edit: There are only four basic strategies that I can think of off the top of my head that are practical to "beat the rocket equation:"
-Build a truely, honestly, totally reuseable spaceplane, preferably SSTO powerd by Scramjets

-Build a truely, honestly, totally reuseable verticle-launch/landing SSTO rocket like the DC-X, likly powerd by Hydrogen aerospike engines

-Build a magrail up the side of a moutain to accelerate payloads to a nontrivial fraction of orbital velocity

-Build a space elevator from Carbon Nanotube composites

Fledi · 2005-06-15 18:50:30

Yup, rocket equation sucks
It would be a lot easier if life had originally evolved at Mars instead of Earth. We could have colonized all the outer planets' moons already with todays tech from there.

United Space Alliance · 2005-06-17 22:28:37

"The rocket equation, which dictates that all rockets must be mostly fuel, is one of man's greatest challenges really. "

Propellant requirement on mass of the rocket will still be the problem to get around for the next 20 years I'm afriad.

Loughman · 2005-06-22 23:35:45

Your idea sounds similar to the space elevator. And one of the design requirements that comes to mind as I read your paper is that the moments that will be acting on the bottom half of this structure from both the rotation of the Earth and gravity gradient. They solved it with the space elevator by making the center of gravity at geosynchronous orbit. This makes it far enough above the atmosphere not to have that interference and of course the gravity is passing through the center of mass.

Just something to think about.

yavuzbasturk · 2005-06-27 04:43:05

i changed my idea.
i got new patent on new idea.
we are creating animation with 3dsmax with a friend, and we do some math on idea. after we finish animation of idea, i'll post to this forum details of idea.

we built a magnetic catapult with 90 degree angle inside a mountain. length of catapult will be 2km or 3km.
magnetic catapult will be in a vacuum tube so we can speed it up do 20km/s easily.
we also carry a vacum tube to 30-40km height with hundreds of ballons.(90 degree angle) ballons can carry high mass up to 42km, so we can use ballons to carry parts of vacum tube.
once all parts of tube is in air, with a mechanic system we clamp parts each other and we get 30-40km line of vacum tube. we clamp this tube to vacum tube of capatult which is inside a mountain, we vacuum air in tube and we
get air friction free launch tube !
there will be electric line on parts of vacum cubes. horizontal movement will be created with electric powered propollers. This is new idea and i patented this too.
with 3km catapult and 2500G kaunching we can send nuclear & chemical waste to splease in bullets safely with 12,135 km/s speed. Bullet will pass catapult in 0,494s and pass vacum tunel (40km) in 3,049s.
if we cretae long catapult with on a side of mountain, we can send satellites and human witj low G too. i am trying to calculate necessary catapult designs for human & satellites.

Loughman · 2005-06-27 06:43:24

Why not magrails? Well this sounds a little like a mass driver, although it sounds like you want to use a mechanical catapult.

Maybe you should do the math before you do the animation.

Launching humans is a bad idea. After you do the math, how many g's will people be subject to?

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-27 07:28:28

2,500G of acceleration is far, far too much for any payload except bulk materials. That kind of force would make solid steel girders bend like butter under a blow torch, much less hardening electronics or delicate equipment to survive it. Conventional rockets are built so they can handle only 25-50% more acceleration and strain then normal launch conditions cause, so they would be crushed like an eggshell being run over by a truck.

Using baloons to support the rest of the structure isn't impossible, but it would be very hard. The rail is so long and heavy, that baloons would have trouble supporting the entire weight. Plus, when the payload comes up the tube in a fraction of a second, the payload will put the structure off-balence at least some. Bad news for careful orbital aiming... and what of the weather?

A better idea is to forget reaching orbital velocity at all, and put a spaceplane on an open-air maglev track, and bring it up to Mach 1.0-1.5 where it can ignite a Ramjet engine.

yavuzbasturk · 2005-06-27 09:11:57

Why not magrails? Well this sounds a little like a mass driver, although it sounds like you want to use a mechanical catapult.
Maybe you should do the math before you do the animation.
Launching humans is a bad idea. After you do the math, how many g's will people be subject to?

i mean "mass driver" with word "magnetic catapult"

with 100km rail, we can accelerate human with 3G to 2,427 km/s speed. a diagram is this --> http://www.yablam.org/HumanCatapultDiag … iagram.GIF . (image is big and 1 pixel = 100m scaled)
i think 2,427km/s speed with 9.54 degree angle is enough to launch human to a 185km height, if not we can build longer mass drivers on earth in theory.
once we get 185km height, rockets will be fired to get orbital speed. (at 185km height 10x fuel is enough for x mass to get orbital speed). in this design we must carry 211km vacuum tunnel with ballons. vacuum tunnel is builded with only metal skeleton covered with kevlar fabric.

to launch satellite --> if we build a 9.8 km of mass driver on a side of mountain with a 45 degree angle. (height and base will be 7km) and assume that satellite can tolerate 100G (there is 40g tolerating missiles) ;

speed at the end of massdriver is 4,4 km/s.
length of vacuum tunnel to carry with ballons is 46km.
satellite pass massdriver in 4,4 second.
satellite pass vacuum tunnel in 10,5 second.

we did some basic calculations before we started creating animation. it seems to possible create and feasible design. hard part is gettin vacuum tunnel as a straight line up to 40km height. to reduce wind effect we can build this system to antartica (no jet streams and average wind is 20km/h all year)

yavuzbasturk · 2005-06-27 09:18:49

2,500G of acceleration is far, far too much for any payload except bulk materials. That kind of force would make solid steel girders bend like butter under a blow torch, much less hardening electronics or delicate equipment to survive it. Conventional rockets are built so they can handle only 25-50% more acceleration and strain then normal launch conditions cause, so they would be crushed like an eggshell being run over by a truck.
Using baloons to support the rest of the structure isn't impossible, but it would be very hard. The rail is so long and heavy, that baloons would have trouble supporting the entire weight. Plus, when the payload comes up the tube in a fraction of a second, the payload will put the structure off-balence at least some. Bad news for careful orbital aiming... and what of the weather?
A better idea is to forget reaching orbital velocity at all, and put a spaceplane on an open-air maglev track, and bring it up to Mach 1.0-1.5 where it can ignite a Ramjet engine.

i think you misunderstand idea.
balloons will not cary mass driver. mass driver builted inside of a mountain or on side of a mountain as a straight line.

balloons will carry only vacuum tunnel (metal skeleton covered with kevlar fabric). the weight of vacuum tunnel will be low as altitude ascended because kevlar and metal skeleton will carry less density/pressure of air.

air in massdriver and vacuum tunnel will be VAKUUMED/sucked by pumps. this means we launch bullet in air frictions free environment up to 40km height (as if we launch from moon where there is no atmosphere)

picture i gived on my first message is design to send nuclear/chemical waste in a bullet to space forever. for satellite (max 100G) and human launching (max 3G) other designs will be used. we are creating animation of full system, will finish in 2-3 days i hope.

Fledi · 2005-06-27 18:34:13

A similar approach has already been proposed for NASA some years back, though having the rocked go through a vacuum tube after acceleration seems to be a new idea, one worth taking a deeper look into, it could really be more feasible than lifting the magrails up.
Maybe you could add some propellers or light rocket engines to keep the tube positioned, it works quite well for the new Zeppelin NT for example.
Do some calculations, this one looks interesting.

Loughman · 2005-06-27 20:49:44

Very interesting. Any idea on the power requirements and cost?

I still think making a numerical model is more important than a visual model. Maybe I'm wrong though. I guess it depends on your immediate goals and audience.

I'll have to think more on it and do some more calculations on the feasibility.

Any idea which mountain? Arizona you say?

yavuzbasturk · 2005-06-28 02:29:57

A similar approach has already been proposed for NASA some years back, though having the rocked go through a vacuum tube after acceleration seems to be a new idea, one worth taking a deeper look into, it could really be more feasible than lifting the magrails up.
Maybe you could add some propellers or light rocket engines to keep the tube positioned, it works quite well for the new Zeppelin NT for example.
Do some calculations, this one looks interesting.

there is propellers in picture, you can check again
http://www.yablam.org/VakumTunel_A.gif] … unel_A.gif .
taking tube in 90.00 degree position needs many calculations. direction and power of hundreds propellers will be calculated & controlled by a special software.

can you give more info about other similar idea proposed to NASA ? a name could be enough to search on google. there may be useful info in documents of that idea for me.

on next days we will release animation (with talking girl) with some calculations, i wait my friend finishing animation.

yavuzbasturk · 2005-06-28 03:14:49

Very interesting. Any idea on the power requirements and cost?
I still think making a numerical model is more important than a visual model. Maybe I'm wrong though. I guess it depends on your immediate goals and audience.
I'll have to think more on it and do some more calculations on the feasibility.
Any idea which mountain? Arizona you say?

a friend calculated that with 3km rail, 2500G, 100kg waste bullet mass --> each bullet energy cost is less than $1000 and i dont know which formula he used. payload will pass rails in seconds so i dont think energy cost will be expensive.
if someone do some math please tell me formula and idea of calculations, i'll integrate it to a software that i created calculations of this idea. software now calculating speed, G , lentgh of rail, lentgh of vacuum tunnel,..

other important point is mass of vacuum tunnel. 1cm2 of tunnel surface must able to carry 350gr at 6km high mountain. i guess
carry this tunnel with balloons is possible but calculations needed. tunnel surface will me more thin/light at higher altitues because of air prressure becomes low.

i dont have idea about mountain that we choose. but jet streams are more weak if you near to poles. There is no jetstreams on poles as i know ;
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~mgb/Antbib … sspace.pdf
http://mclean.ch/climate/antarctic_temp … _temps.htm
http://www.srh.weather.gov/srh/jetstrea … al/jet.htm
http://earth.usc.edu/~geol150/weather/c … ation.html

we will choose mountain where jet streams mostly does not exists. no-jetstream interval of a few hours in a month is enough for this idea because we launch each payload in few seconds.
and at everest we have some wind-free intervals.

http://www.everestnews2004.com/everest2 … ...s23.htm
(That day the force of the wind won't exceed 20 Km/h and temperatures will be around -20 Celsius in average.) and remember 20km/h everest wind is equal to 7km/h wind at sea level. (airt pressure is low at everest)

and other criteria is if we build 45 degree angle massdrive, side of mountain must be correct geometric shape to optimal structure cost. NASA has topology map of all world, they can detect best mountains easily with a special software.

highest mountains of world
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001771. … 01771.html

highest mountains of USA
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001798. … 01798.html

highest mountains of Canada
http://www.bivouac.com/LsxPg.asp?LsxId= … LsxId=1010

highest mountains of Antarctica
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0874425. … 74425.html

highest mountains of Australian
http://www.ga.gov.au/education/facts/la … ghmtns.htm

yavuzbasturk · 2005-06-28 07:39:12

they estimate $1 cost per kg of bulk material payload launched from moon with mass driver.

http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/Author … ...SP.html

...
The 20-kilogram bucket with its cylindrically encapsulated payload of 20 kg. mass is accelerated to lunar escape velocity (2.4 km./sec.) at 1,000 meters per second2 (100 earth gravities) along a 2,880-meter section of guideway.
...
Assuming the mass driver installation, including its power plant, is transported from earth at present Shuttle payload costs, and assuming it operates at a mass launch rate of 600,000 tons/year for a ten-year amortization period, the launching cost is found to be about one dollar per kg.
...

http://www.ssi.org/body_research.html#m … ss-drivers
Mass-Driver III model works with 1800 G.

On moon 160m rail length is enough to get escape velocity. (2.378m/s)
On earth 4.000m rail length is enough to get escape velocity. (11.890 m/s)

yavuzbasturk · 2005-06-28 14:05:31

here is my calculate ;

our waste bullet is = mass = 100kg
result speed = 13.000m/s (bigger from earth escape velovity)

Energy = (mass * Velocity²) / 2
Energy = 100kg * (13.000 m/s * 13.000 m/s) / 2
Energy = 100kg * (169.000.000) / 2
Energy = 8.450.000.000 Joule
Energy = 8.450.000.000 (watt*second)

we assume efficient of magnetic catapult is %30, so ;
Energy Used = 28.166.000.000 Joule (rounded)

Joule means (watts*second), to find KWH of joule we divide Joule to 3.600.000 and
Energy = 28.166.000.000 Joule / 3.600.000 = 7.825 KWh (rounded)

if we spread this energy over the 3000m, each 1m segment has 2-3 KWh only and this wont be temperature problem i guess.

we assume cost of KWh of electric is 5 cent. our launching cost is $400 per 100kg, means $4 per kg.
this is thousand times cheaper than rocket method,
any mistake on this calculation ?

(we assume that air friction after 40km will descrease speed very small so bullets has escape velocity speed always.)

there will be additional cost of electric for hundreds of propellers working on vacuum tunnel but i did not counted it.

here is link for conversion of joule to KWH ;
http://www.answers.com/topic/joule]http … opic/joule
http://www.essex1.com/people/speer/unit … units.html

Fledi · 2005-06-28 18:27:21

Sorry, haven't found anything about that proposal on the net yet, but it was essentially what I described earlier a long tube with electromagnets.
The energy cost for the launching of masses is correct, question is how much operation of the system will cost.
You would need superconductors for a levitated maglevs to bring the energy to the parts which are in the air.
But if you accelerate before on the ground, then you can spread the system out along the magnets.
One problem is you will have to position the evacuated tube very precisely so that it matches the flight path of the bullet.
Overall a good idea, also for launching raw materials at a low price for in space refining.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-06-14 04:10:52

Re: Presentation Of New Launch Method

#2 2005-06-14 07:02:23

Re: Presentation Of New Launch Method

#3 2005-06-15 07:08:47

Re: Presentation Of New Launch Method

#4 2005-06-15 10:27:56

Re: Presentation Of New Launch Method

#5 2005-06-15 13:50:30

Re: Presentation Of New Launch Method

#6 2005-06-15 14:24:54

Re: Presentation Of New Launch Method

#7 2005-06-15 14:27:24

Re: Presentation Of New Launch Method

#8 2005-06-15 14:36:10

Re: Presentation Of New Launch Method

#9 2005-06-15 15:59:08

Re: Presentation Of New Launch Method

#10 2005-06-15 18:39:37

Re: Presentation Of New Launch Method

#11 2005-06-15 18:50:30

Re: Presentation Of New Launch Method

#12 2005-06-17 22:28:37

Re: Presentation Of New Launch Method

#13 2005-06-22 23:35:45

Re: Presentation Of New Launch Method

#14 2005-06-27 04:43:05

Re: Presentation Of New Launch Method

#15 2005-06-27 06:43:24

Re: Presentation Of New Launch Method

#16 2005-06-27 07:28:28

Re: Presentation Of New Launch Method

#17 2005-06-27 09:11:57

Re: Presentation Of New Launch Method

#18 2005-06-27 09:18:49

Re: Presentation Of New Launch Method

#19 2005-06-27 18:34:13

Re: Presentation Of New Launch Method

#20 2005-06-27 20:49:44

Re: Presentation Of New Launch Method

#21 2005-06-28 02:29:57

Re: Presentation Of New Launch Method

#22 2005-06-28 03:14:49

Re: Presentation Of New Launch Method

#23 2005-06-28 07:39:12

Re: Presentation Of New Launch Method

#24 2005-06-28 14:05:31

Re: Presentation Of New Launch Method

#25 2005-06-28 18:27:21

Re: Presentation Of New Launch Method

Board footer