Bill Phil

I'm thankful for my family, my friends, and the internet, since it allows me to write this.

Well, there are more billionaires than astronauts, so it may be that...

There's a few more requirements than that. You need a degree, and experience. And probably more stuff that I forgot.

Of all the Mars mission studies, von Braun's 1948 study is my favorite. Something like 37 thousand tonnes launch mass. And this was proposed nearly 70 years ago! It's so insane, yet also realistic in some respects. It basically involved a fleet of giant "ships" to take a full blown expedition to Mars. Not a crew of four, but 70, in ten seperate vehicles. Now that is Kerbal.

-4428 + 1554 = -2874

That can happen if the images are not embedded properly... try again?

Rock and roll ain't noise pollution. RIP

I'd make the argument that what kills it is the cost of developing a new launch vehicle that is designed to take advantage of the system. Maglev cost per kilometer is already in the tens of millions (or hundreds of millions) of dollars. But to get a few hundred m/s, you wouldn't need much length. The real costs would be in the buildings for integrating payloads and the other buildings you'd need.

GI Joe The Movie?

True. However, the tyranny of the rocket equation begins to hit hard. Beyond reducing rocket size, it also improves payload mass fraction, whereas adding more fuel reduces it. If we can get the initial velocity high enough, then SSTOs become practical with relatively moderate mass ratios and decent payload mass fractions. Of course, dynamic pressure issues will be a signficant issue as well as an increase in atmospheric drag, but going up the side of a mountain may help with that. Rocket sleds have gone up to Mach 8.5. Nearly 3 km/s. Maglev would have almost no friction and electricity is pretty cheap. Maybe something could come of it in the future.

Every orbit is a conic section in the two body problem. This includes escape orbits. Conic sections include circles, ellipses, parabolas, and hyperbolas. This can be observed by starting with a velocity vector and integrating gravity over time. Gravity curves the trajectory, and it ends up looking like a conic section. This allows us to describe an orbit's shape with eccentricity. An eccentricity of zero is a circle, an eccentricity between 0 and 1 is an ellipse, an eccentricity of 1 is a parabola, and an eccentricity greater than 1 is a hyperbola. Or, rather, we can use Newton's laws. Things in motion tend to stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. In this case, the outside force is gravity, curving the otherwise straight line trajectory into a conic section. However, gravity has a finite value. This means that the higher the velocity, the less gravity curves the trajectory, meaning that as velocity increases, the trajectory converges to a straight line.

Dyson Speres aren't particularly practical... swarms may be, but by the time you can build one, you likely don't need one. Of course, if you can create an entirely automated way to build it using material in the solar system in question, then you could potentially gain energy while building one... Would still take a while though.

Rockets are stronger than you'd think. Many can take 3 or 4 gees. But even then... you could just use lower gee systems. The real issue is dynamic pressure. To get any useful increase, you'd basically get max Q just above the ground. The rocket would have a catastrophic failure. This is why a number of maglev train launch assist proposals are evacuated tubes that go up the side of a mountain. Starting faster and higher.

Not so much a catapult, but a rocket sled or a maglev track would help. The main issue would be the potentail heating and the dynamic pressure, beyond the setup cost. The rocket equation is exponential. If you wish to double your delta v by a specific factor assuming a constant exhaust velocity, you must raise your mass ratio to that factor. Double your delta v requirement, square your mass ratio. Half your delta v requirement, square root your mass ratio. But even so, if you can get a few hundred m/s... you could increase LEO payload significantly. Assuming that structural mass doesn't increase too much.

"In a final flash of glory/Nevermore to grace the night" I was just thinking of that...

I know exactly what it is... The Kraken's Bane. A creature that evolved to hunt Krakens.

Ever hear of All Quiet on the Martian Front?

Because they've already gotten some return on it. It wasn't really designed or intended to be the kind of station that you keep forever.

I wonder if she'd take after "White Death" from the Winter War...

A movie like Interstellar but more realistic might fit the bill here. You can skip all the boring parts and get to thr cool parts. 2001 and 2010 did it.

There is a good selection of historical documentaries, but I suspect that's not what you're looking for.

I wouldn't be surprised if concentrated solar energy was used out at Neptune. Just needs to be larger. And for a power station, that's not necessarily an issue. You get less power to mass, but that's only important if you're worrying about mass. If we get to a point where we need a power station at Neptune, then shaving off the grams likely wouldn't be a serious concern, since we'd probably have advanced propulsion tech that could actually put useful payloads there with high efficiency. Of course there are alternatives. What gets used would depend on the circumstances of the situation.

When I saw that, I felt like I was in the star-gate sequence of 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Or we build giant telescopes with advanced occulters to get the pictures... we should build them in space, too...

I'm still holding out for a desert planet around Tau Ceti.