Future Surface to Orbit travel?

[NSEP]

What do you people think would be the most common method of surface-orbit transportation on Earth, when space colonization becomes a thing?

Discuss!

[YNM]

Space Tethers.

 

Why would you call it "colonization" if it's still bloody expensive ??

[p1t1o]

Surface to Orbit? Whilst the advanced methods are getting refined, kerolox rockets just get cheaper and cheaper. 

If it aint broke...

And nuclear pulse for surface to orbit? Not likeley!

[tater]

Primary propulsion chemical, though if many people were going, I'd expect tethers in there at some level.

[Bill Phil]

Sign me up for mass drivers. I understand the inherent issues with using them on Earth, but there are ways around those issues. If there's enough cash behind the project, mass drivers (or some similar concept) could become a reality. And depending on how everything plays out, they could be quite competitive. Other methods will exist, though.

[tater]

4 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

Sign me up for mass drivers. I understand the inherent issues with using them on Earth, but there are ways around those issues. If there's enough cash behind the project, mass drivers (or some similar concept) could become a reality. And depending on how everything plays out, they could be quite competitive. Other methods will exist, though.

For people.

I suppose the poll should break out cargo vs people.

[kerbiloid]

Quote

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Arthur C. Clarke.

Levitation spell.

[Bill Phil]

2 minutes ago, tater said:

For people.

I suppose the poll should break out cargo vs people.

Yes. For people. You need a lot of length. Though only the last little bit or so needs to be elevated above the denser parts of the atmosphere, provided the entire tube is evacuated. We're talking far enough in the future that anything is possible. 

You'd have to use superconducting cables to elevate the track, and that's the real kicker...

Even if the first one costs well over a hundred billion USD, remember, so did the Shuttle program. And the Interstate Highway System has cost much more.  As a major piece of infrastructure, it'd probably need government support, like the first trans-continental railroad and other major pieces of infrastructure. 

[kerbiloid]

I'm not sure if it is really necessary to distinguish cargo vs people.

1. Colonization requires a lot of cargo.
Unlikely they will bother sending boats instead of buying place in a cargo ship.
In turn, cargo ships would not be overaccelerated, otherwise huge tanks for liquid cargo  will be too strong and heavy, while solid cargo in containers can untie and cause CoM shifting.
So, probably almost all Earth-to-Orbit-And-Back _{depends on luck} vehicles will be flying at humanistic accelerations.

2. Environmentalism and life safety will be the main way of the further technics development. I have no doubt.
Because to force somebody to buy a new car instead of a one-year-old one, you must explain him that he will kill the Earth with his old smoking Juggernaut, and it's his sacred duty to buy the new environment-friendly car.
The same with absolutely any good, including space transportation systems *. Environmental hype will be only growing.
So, human-friendly requirements will be applied to any space vessel.
E.g. if you can't tie the space company boss to his rocket, and he will stay alive, how can you be sure that it will not kill the whales?

*Except Protons.

Edited July 9, 2018 by kerbiloid

[wumpus]

4 minutes ago, tater said:

For people.

I suppose the poll should break out cargo vs people.

The cargo/people split is even more critical after you get to orbit, at that point you are likely to limit cargo to electric propulsion and gravity tricks (unless nuclear is available).

The whole point comes down to what is driving the cost of a launch.  Until now it has been the cost of the rocket (or cost to refurbish the Shuttle).  With a BFR (or possibly new Armstrong), things will look increasingly like the cost is to gas the thing up and preform the full countdown sequence.

The NFR (next falcon rocket) would then be designed around reducing the biggest cost they can reduce (note how long it has taken them to attempt fairing reuse: even though they claim it is like picking up multiple millions out of the water).  I'm guessing the professionals needed to run the overhaul/checks/gasup and especially countdown and launch will be the next big costs to reduce.  Don't expect anyone to look at fuel until launching is as cheap as an airplane flight.

Once launch prices start to approach fuel costs, I like SCRAMJETS (even if they only get 1/4 of the way there).  I also like the "laser thermal rocket"  (ISP ~800) idea, but the company pushing it was multiple decades too early to be taken seriously.  Of course, if anyone manufactures solid mercury all bets are off.

The point is that most of these exotic launch strategies have little to add except for highly reduced fuel costs: they are unlikely to be considered until launch companies are worried about the price of the fuel used (or other cost reductions simply fail and they need to reduce prices to keep things rolling).

[p1t1o]

40 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Levitation spell.

I would like to make a reservation

To spend some time in travellation

On your most space-speedy of transportation

Via your most ostentacious company, 

British Space Station

[kerbiloid]

So mote it be.

[Elthy]

It will propably come down to costs, and i cant see how anything can beat chemical rockets anytime soon. SpaceX BFR proposal shows a pure chemical mars colonization is possible, even if it needs some engineering its way easier than to get the other systems working/cheaper/safe etc...

[cubinator]

If we are correct about reusable chemical rockets costing similarly to airplanes, then I don't see any reason to shy away from them. Space tugs with electric propulsion wouldn't hurt either. I don't see space tethers becoming viable very soon, but something like BFR could be operational in ten years.

[StrandedonEarth]

No space elevator?

[kerbiloid]

Or a 50 km long magnetic railway to the top of a 7km high mountain.
Accelerate a ramjet craft to 1-1.5 km/s, take off, engage the ramjet engine.
Accelerate, collecting liquid oxygen from air, like in 1950s projects, and storing it for the rocket mode.
Enable rocket mode spending the stored oxygen.

Main fuel - hydrogen. No need in turbojets like in early projects.
A magnetic railway by definition means a powerful power plant full of power, so you can produce hydrogen out of water right before the start, no need in storages.

Hull - a lifting body. 
Tiny turbojets just to land, no need to start with them.

Edited July 9, 2018 by kerbiloid

[ment18]

Laser launch allows you to ignore many of the difficult parts of putting things in orbit.  It allows you to have nearly infinite power without much mass on you vehicle.  The huge infrastructure things like mass drivers and tethers are limited on where they can launch vehicles by inclination and distant targets need their own launchers.  Laser can be used for nearly everything, ex starshot.

[mikegarrison]

4 hours ago, YNM said:

Why would you call it "colonization" if it's still bloody expensive ??

Colonization has always been expensive. Generally only kings and queens (or later, government) were wealthy enough to sponsor colonies.

[kerbiloid]

3 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

Generally only kings and queens (or later, government) were wealthy enough to sponsor colonies.

That's why

Spoiler

 

[Scotius]

Reuseable chemical rockets, supplemented more and more by Skylon-style spaceplanes. And maybe one day nuclear engines (and members of the public) mature enough to be able to take over.

[DAL59]

Pulse is unrealistic due to radiation, but internal nuclear engines could be useful.  The Aldeberan would use nuclear turbojets to take off, and use internal nuclear pulse propulsion to get to space.  It could send 30,000 tons to LEO.  However, its so big, launching would come with some logistical difficulties.  It would create a small tsunami whenever it launched... 

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

Or a 50 km long magnetic railway to the top of a 7km high mountain.
Accelerate a ramjet craft to 1-1.5 km/s, take off, engage the ramjet engine.
Accelerate, collecting liquid oxygen from air, like in 1950s projects, and storing it for the rocket mode.
Enable rocket mode spending the stored oxygen.

Main fuel - hydrogen. No need in turbojets like in early projects.
A magnetic railway by definition means a powerful power plant full of power, so you can produce hydrogen out of water right before the start, no need in storages.

Hull - a lifting body. 
Tiny turbojets just to land, no need to start with them.

Problem with megastructures is that they are idiotic expensive to build, and launch systems don't have the benefit railroads and highways have in that you can start small and build up having benefit all the way. 
Now I see that various system from centrifuges to railguns will be nice for launching materials from Moon. 

[kerbiloid]

13 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Problem with megastructures

50 km magnetic railway along a mountain ridge is a megastructure?
Usually they are many times longer.

13 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Now I see that various system from centrifuges to railguns will be nice for launching materials from Moon. 

This is not about a gun to the space.
This is just about 1..1.5 km/s, a typical speed of a railgun shell, just bigger.
This is enough to engage a ramjet without having heavy turbojets on the craft. You do this with a ground facility which can be as heavy as needed, and spends only electricity.

So, you have a reusable ramjet+rocket, using only hydrogen + oxygen (collected during the flight).
It is not for docking or so, it just delivers payload to LEO, performs 1..2 orbit turns and lands.
No docking, no orbital engines, nothing.
Environment friendly.

For landing it uses remains of hydrogen in mini-turbojets if required.
RCS is peroxide-based, anyway it's only for return, no orbital maneuvers.

Edited July 9, 2018 by kerbiloid

[YNM]

1 hour ago, mikegarrison said:

Colonization has always been expensive.

Offset by a worthy return of stuff.

Otherwise it's "exploration". Exploration is always expensive, man or material wise.

[kerbiloid]

Only utilization is not just expensive, but also profitable.