Craziest idea yet

[grooble]

Ok, i know a lot of you may feel despondent because you didn't think of this first. But hey, don't worry about it, it is to the benefit of us all.<br /><br />Why not build a road straight into space?<br /><br />Well, just to the official edge of space, around 60 miles up. The road could be at a 25 degrees angle, and around 170 miles long. At the top could be a runway and spaceplanes could take off and go straight into orbit.<br /><br />It would be built in some desert, so if the unfortunate happened and it collapsed, no one would be hurt. <br /><br />How difficult would it be? Is it impossible? Or just impracticle ?<br /><br />What would be the advantage for space launches taking place from 60 miles high on a solid runway?

 

[vogon13]

'spensive. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

I think cabon fiber might be strong/light enough.

 

[grooble]

Also it'd be held up by columns, the whole thing wouldn't be some solid mass. <br /><br />The road would only be upto 200 miles long, they've built much more on earth.<br /><br />The only problem that sticks out for me is the columns to hold it up.<br /><br />Could solar powered turbines create lift on road segments to offset some of the weight?<br /><br />The turbines could also be powered from the massive winds further up, convert the wind power into energy to power jet engine type things.

 

[odysseus145]

Even then, the spaceplane would still need to accelerate to ~17,000(?) mph. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[grooble]

It'd be easier starting from 60 miles up though wouldn't it? With a fully fueled space plane. You could have one of those aircraft carrier things, get it upto a few hundred miles per hour just to get it going, then once its free of the ramp, start the rocket engines.

 

[riflemannl]

if you want that 'thing' to be stable then, you need to build a strong contruction. you'll need a base of the height in ². so that's 200² = 40000 square miles!! get that in kilometers and you'll fall of your chair. The thing will get too big to get it build. ALL materials in the world would be needed for it and well... we can't afford that <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />.<br /><br />Possible? Maybe Affordable? No

 

[ve7rkt]

You can't get more energy out of something than you put in. If you have a big wind generator in mid-air, it'd be impossible for it to run a turbine with enough oomph to keep itself from being blown downwind, let alone keep itself afloat, so having it hold up any kind of payload (the track) is out of the question. It's not a matter of "well we just haven't built a good enough generator yet," even if the system magically ran at 100% efficiency it'd still only break even against the wind.<br /><br />If you manage to get around the law of thermodynamics, though, forget floating roads to space, you've solved the energy crisis: build fridge-sized units in which a fan blows on a generator that powers the fan, and produces surplus power for a house.<br /><br />An aircraft carrier throws an F-18 off its deck at 165 mph, which is just under 75 m/sec. Compared to the ~7700 m/sec you need for LEO, that doesn't mean much. <br /><br />As for what advantage launching from 60mi up would give, I have no idea... I guess the advantage would mostly be that you don't have to fight the air anymore. Perhaps you should read up on how much of a rocket's energy is spent overcoming air drag, and that would tell you if your ramp could be useful, ignoring for the moment the question of whether or not it's possible...

 

[annodomini2]

Another thing to consider is location, as the earth is not a perfect sphere, its wider at the equator. therefore launching at the equator you are actually rotating faster and therefore require less energy to achieve orbital velocity. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[hracctsold]

If you are serious about this, all you need to do is find Flash Gordon and Dr. Zarkov and ask them to find out how they made those cities float in the air there on Mongo. That would probably give you enough clues about how to construct your road to the stars. <br />But don't forget about all those lights to keep the airliners from crashing into them in flight. I'm told this is how many a great idea was started. Keep up the good work.

 

[grooble]

Maybe all these ideas are a waste of time. Perhaps we should just stick to rockets and make better, lighter ones.

 

[gunsandrockets]

"It'd be easier starting from 60 miles up though wouldn't it? With a fully fueled space plane. You could have one of those aircraft carrier things, get it upto a few hundred miles per hour just to get it going, then once its free of the ramp, start the rocket engines. "<br /><br /><br />How about this, try a miniture version of what you are suggesting. Build your catapult launcher up the side of a tall mountain. As far as a rocket is concernced, once you get above 20,000 feet ASL there isn't much more benefit launching from an altitude of 60 miles.<br /><br />I even know a great location to build your launcher. Ecuador! The capitol city Quito is located in a valley in the Andean Mountain range at an elevation of about 10,000 feet. Nearby is a mountain peak with an elevation of 20,000 feet. There is access to Quito via an airport and also rail lines which go down to two different coastal cities. And best of all Ecuador is located on the equator so you get the full benefit of the Earth's rotation added to your liftoff Delta v.

 

[bushuser]

Well, the Chinese could assemble their rocket sled up the side of Everest. Make it a magnetic sled, save on fuel and not ignite engines until you are above 30,000 feet. At that point you've avoided a lot of aerodynamic drag.<br /><br />And while I'm not serious about Mt. Everest, using a significant mountain [such as the ANDES] as the terminus for a rocket sled could be useful. AND its as close to "building a road into space" as you are going to get.

 

[Peter the Dane]

generating the magnetic power for the sledge, will take a lot of energy.<br /><br />if you are to use a mountain and launch a rocket, I would use the rocket engines and the mountian as a fuel depot.<br />that way you would not have to lift the structure keeping the rocket, you would not have to construct a new powerplant(you meigth have to annyhow, they do need a better infrastructure.)<br /><br />the only real problem will be how to stop the sledge from flying of the top? or du we just attach it to a parachute.<br /><br />my solution would be using ethanol as fuel for the main stage, and as the only thing provided from the sledge/mountain, that will be more simple than providing LOX.<br /><br />wenn the rocket are close to the top, it will switch to its own fuel supply and the sledge will eigther have to be stopped before the top or have to fly off the top and be salvaged.<br /><br />now the only real problem will be how to persvade the eco-freaks to place a spaceport in that area.<br />oooh and how to construct the hole thing....<br /><br />

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">the only real problem will be how to stop the sledge from flying of the top? or du we just attach it to a parachute.</font><br /><br />Use a parachute, or a droge then parachute as this would reduce the impules. Either that or have a fly back sled <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[gunsandrockets]

"the only real problem will be how to stop the sledge from flying of the top? or du we just attach it to a parachute."<br /><br />The sled should slow and separate from the rocketship before the end of the track was reached. If you used large airbreathing turbofan engines to propel the sled, thrust reversers on the turbofans could slow the sled down to the point where more conventional means of braking the sled could be used (elevation and brake pads). The biggest problem would be from the low slung turbofans ingesting foreign matter on the long trip up the track. <br />

 

[Peter the Dane]

looking at the construction cost, how expencive would it be to cover the hole mountainside with some sort of plating?<br />how manny turbofans would be needed? <br />can turbofans give the same speed as the rocket engines?<br /><br />how high is the best mountain?<br />and more importantly long can we make the run?<br />how high an angel do a launch need to have?<br />it would be nice building a 5 - 10km "runway" at a lower angel an gain the highest possibel speed?(how high can we get the speed at a 5 km "runway" and at 10 km "runway"?)<br />and lift off in lets say 5 km above sealevel, angel 45 or more.....<br />or are a short strait up boost the best? 1 - 2km to the top?<br />(I am not sure we can have the runway and then a fast change of angel at the end to launch strait up, I think the g-force would rip it apart?)<br /><br /><br />to prevent birds, grass, wood and stones ect. into the turbofans, i surgest that we cover the entire mountainside with plates.<br />at least 100m to each side, I think we need more but I am not sure?<br />if we use the very long "runway" we cover the track as wide as we can, and then we place sveral layers of nets around it... <br />can we build a track and a sledge that will stand the speed and mass in the case of a "runway"<br />cargo mass: 5 - 40t<br /><br />

 

[tomnackid]

Getting 60 miles up is no big deal, the V2 rocket was doing that back in the 40s. The problem with space flight is VELOCITY, not altitude. To get into a low earth orbit you need to be traveling around 18,000 mile per hour. You can't "Take off straight into orbit" even if you are starting on a runway that is 60 miles high, you still need to accelerate to that 18,000 mph orbital velocity. Now, if you start already above most of the earth's atmosphere that gives a little bit of an advantage, but not really to much more than if you take off straight up and get above the atmosphere quickly.

 

[poodown]

this idea is crazy! yet i reckon in future years with more technology it will be possible maybe not probable but slightly possible. would you just want to walk up it though? i would. =)

 

[frodo1008]

Actually those of us wjo worked on the Apollo project thought it might be possible (even back in the 1960's) to just pile up all the paperwork (government and company) into a giant pile and let the moon bound astronauts climb up to the moon!!<br /><br />I wonder if this might still owrk....