Home arrow Forum arrow General Topics arrow News & Commentary arrow Space Access '09 and SE
0 && mosCountModules('left') > 0) { echo '
'; } elseif (mosCountModules('right') > 0) { echo '
'; } elseif (mosCountModules('left') > 0) { echo '
'; } else { echo '
'; }; ?> Space Access '09 and SE
March 11, 2010, 06:31:13 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Space Access '09 and SE  (Read 3813 times)
Frank
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 266


View Profile
« on: April 08, 2009, 02:22:31 PM »

At Space Access '09 this last weekend the topic of space elevator was brought up by H. Keith Hanson when he was explaining his laser launch ideas.  Basically he said that any laser launch business plan would need to contain the warning that the whole business plan fails the moment the material to build the SE ribbon with becomes available.

I am not sure that I agree.  It is true that, according to his projections, the SE will be able to get stuff to orbit at a lower cost. It is just that the speed that is available with laser launch would be preferred by most people even if they did have to pay 2-3 times more to get there.  The SE would take all non time critical payloads away from laser launch which, depending on how long after laser launch began, could impact their business plan.  On the other hand, the laser launch price is projected to be so much lower than rockets that the starter ribbon could be much bigger or maybe not even needed and that payload would be short term extra revenue for laser launch.  The reality of laser launch would decrease the risk for the SE project.
Logged
A_M_Swallow
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 823


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: April 09, 2009, 10:14:55 PM »

We can fly across the Atlantic (and Pacific) in less than a day but we still send cargoes by ship.

It will take about 2 weeks to get to GEO using the space elevator.
Getting to LEO orbit using the space elevator is also very slow.  The climber has to get to a height of about 25,000 km before release and then perform a circulization burn.
Logged

Andrew Swallow
Stephen
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 115


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: May 07, 2009, 09:25:33 PM »

Remember the bolo SE will not have these slow speeds. Its main problem will be high G forces if we use a short cable.
Logged
neil
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 960


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: May 16, 2009, 02:36:57 PM »

A bolo less than about 4000 kilometers long also means attachment must occur at about 50 kilometers altitude and at several times the speed of sound to avoid extreme air friction heating of the portion in Earth's upper atmosphere. High G forces mean the bolo must be very thick and heavy or made from CNT = carbon nanotubes with great specs. Radius 3822 kilometers times 6.28 = 24,000 kilometers circumference. The center of rotation is 178 kilometers from the counterweight. Altitude of center of rotation is 3872 kilometers. If the bolo completes two rotations per day = 48000 kilometers per day divide by 24 = 2000 kilometers per hour add 1600 kilometers per hour for speed of Earth's rotation and subtract from 17000 kilometers per hour = orbital speed at 3872 kilometers; the connecting tip moves 13,400 kilometers per hour with respect to Earth's surface. G is low. Release of cargo speed is 2000 kilometer faster than orbital speed adjustable by release before or after highest altitude. Faster rotation of the bolo produces more G, but less air resistance and easier attachment of the pay load. I have made some simplifications: The tether will assume a lazy S shape due to air resistance, It will stretch and slow in earth's upper atmosphere and stretch and slow more after the payload is attached. Somewhat later, there will be a jerk when the stretching stops, and the pay load and tip begin catching up the speed lost. Stretch transients will travel on the tether for hours following each attachment and release. These transients may be useful in optimising the release and pick up of pay loads. The bolo can be in semi polar orbit so that it provides occasional service to most of the countries of Earth. The air friction losses need to be made up or the bolo rotation speed will slow and the altitude of the center of gravity will move lower (higher?) and/or become less circular. A tip motor is likely desirable to fine tune the attachment, release of the pay load, modify transients, reduce the jerk (which could break the tether) and make up for air friction losses. Most of the payloads may be fuel for the tip motor. An Edwards type climber needs to travel the tether to repair damage caused by space trash, atomic oxygen, and micrometeors. The climber can also be helpful in providing telemetry, keeping track of transients and managing transients by changing speed and direction. The climber can also deliver fuel to the counter weight which may have a winch to reel in and out some tether to help manage transients.   Neil
« Last Edit: May 16, 2009, 03:26:18 PM by neil » Logged
Stephen
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 115


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: June 09, 2009, 05:50:15 AM »

Thanks Neil for doing some of the required calculations.

I agree it makes sense to have the lowest point above the atmosphere ie around 50km above the Earth surface.
As the speed does not need to be so high for the transfer craft something like Vigins Spaceship 1 could be used.

The G forces are not very high ( 10G ) and as the cable is so short compared with the SE , I think it will be achievable with todays technology. Advanced CNT would obviously help.

The docking is seen as the showstopper and I think this is possible as you say with tip guidance as well as accurately calculating the position for the ground transfer craft. It would be a pain if you missed the transfer as the next pick up point will be half way round the world.

I think this could also be used for quick Earth travel. Imagine NY to  Sydney in a few minutes.

On an airless body such as the moon, it could even be used from the ground. It would be like having a teleporter.

I think LEO satellites are probably getting to be past their best years as UAV replace them for ground imaging and communications are avoiding them because of lag.
For TV GEO satelites still make sense as lag is not really such a problem.

This means the other problem of the bolo , is that it will wipe out a large volume of LEO space is becoming less of a problem.
The bolo would make sense for large projects in space such as building a manned spacecraft to explore the planets. Once the spacecraft isbuilt the bolo could be de-orbited (fairy easily as it skims the atmosphere anyway) to free up LEO space again.
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.7 | SMF © 2006, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!

Login Form

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 11, 2010, 06:31:13 PM
Username: Password:
Login with username, password and session length

Forgot your password?