Inflatable "space elevator"!

[RainDreamer]

interesting. i think that the people they put in charge of designing all these 'mechanisms' and putting them to practice is going to have a permanent headache after this project

As I said on the previous page, I really doubt their capability to do something at this scale, the company is a small start up designing satellites compartment and some mission services. This patent is probably a patent troll, or, now that I think about it, a publicity stunt, considering the kind of boast that their CEO made.

[Kerbart]

While I think the general idea is absurd, I wanted to run some back-of-the-envelope math on this. How much dV would you have to save to get a 30% mass reduction?

(...)

dV-dV' = 1154 m/s (So to get 30% mass savings, we only need to save 14% on the dV.)

You have a good point there; we don't need to save 30% on the DV budget; we need to save 30% on the fuel budget. With less fuel we can use a lighter rocket, even less fuel, etc.

Is this a rational number for a 20km higher launch? What is the gravity drag savings?

I just looked at a Shuttle ascent profile, and it hits 20km in about 75s. 9.81m/s*75s = 736m/s

There may be a flaw in your reasoning. Gravity drag is not induced by reaching an altitude of 20km; gravity drag is induced by thrust having a vertical component (which will then be negated by gravity). This is why you want to fly horizontally as quickly as feasible because all your thrust will go to increasing velocity instead of fighting gravity.

The gravity losses are incurred while taking off vertically and transitioning to (nearly) horizontal flight. That'll happen as much at 20km as it will when taking off at sea level. Granted, launching at an altitude of 20km will reduce “gravity losses between 0 and 20km altitude†to zero. But it will replace them with an equal amount of “gravity losses between 20km and 40km altitudeâ€Â.

Unless of course you launch horizontally and hope you have enough speed before you hit the surface 20km below -- but now you're more than doubling your atmostpheric losses. Because you're dropping 20km into the souposphere and then have to climb back out of it in a nearly horizontal trajectory, adding many more kilometers of heavy-drag travel through the lower portions of the atmosphere.

[Thunder_86]

I'm absolutely amazed by this forum! I never thought a bunch of gamers actually knew rocket science better than actual rocket scientists!

[Nibb31]

I'm absolutely amazed by this forum! I never thought a bunch of gamers actually knew rocket science better than actual rocket scientists!

There are more rocket scientists on this forum than at Thoth Technologies Inc.

[Thunder_86]

There are more rocket scientists on this forum than at Thoth Technologies Inc.

I somehow highly doubt that...

I'm not sayin they are right by the way. I'm just a little annoyed by the fact GAMERS treat them like idiots for trying to make scientific progresses...

My take on that inflatable thing: lauching from 20km high will help skip most of the athmosphere, reducing drag. A rocket fly almost straight up for many kilometers before turning so that it doesn't try to move horizontally through athmosphere. at 20km, the athmosphere is at 6kpa compared to 101kpa from sea level. I'm pretty sure they can save a ton of fuel by launching almost horizontally (or turning right after launch.

Contrarily to what kerbart said, I don't think they'd go completely horizontally and fall back in the thick athmosphere, that would be, I THINK, totally idiotic of them, and I agree with him it woul totally defeat the purpose. I think there may be an inbetween tho where they go horizontal enough to gain horizontal speed as fast as possible without dropping down...saving that long 10-20 km straight up ascend.

This is just my GAMER opinion tho. I won't go and try to act like I know better than actual scientists. Discussing is fine. Treating them like idiots for wanting to try new things out is... idiocy...

If you don't try new things you won't help advance science. If you try to block progress you are everything but a scientist...

Edited August 19, 2015 by Thunder_86

[Shpaget]

Even the space.com is overexcited about this.

http://www.space.com/30272-space-elevator-inflatable-concept-patent.html

To make the matters worse, the article includes an idiotic clickbait video link titled "Is a Space Elevator to the Moon Possible?". Well, no, says Betteridge's law.

[AngelLestat]

I somehow highly doubt that...

I'm not sayin they are right by the way. I'm just a little annoyed by the fact GAMERS treat them like idiots for trying to make scientific progresses...

My take on that inflatable thing: lauching from 20km high will help skip most of the athmosphere, reducing drag. A rocket fly almost straight up for many kilometers before turning so that it doesn't try to move horizontally through athmosphere. at 20km, the athmosphere is at 6kpa compared to 101kpa from sea level. I'm pretty sure they can save a ton of fuel by launching almost horizontally (or turning right after launch.

Contrarily to what kerbart said, I don't think they'd go completely horizontally and fall back in the thick athmosphere, that would be, I THINK, totally idiotic of them, and I agree with him it woul totally defeat the purpose. I think there may be an inbetween tho where they go horizontal enough to gain horizontal speed as fast as possible without dropping down...saving that long 10-20 km straight up ascend.

This is just my GAMER opinion tho. I won't go and try to act like I know better than actual scientists. Discussing is fine. Treating them like idiots for wanting to try new things out is... idiocy...

If you don't try new things you won't help advance science. If you try to block progress you are everything but a scientist...

it's just a patent... nothing more.. I would say that for every 200 patents, only one would be good enough to work and be viable.

For example why this tower would be better than a single airship (with variable buoyancy) who can in fact go to the equator to launch and gain extra deltav?

The airship would be 100 to 1000 times more cost efficient, and I am not sure if the airship real worth it.

[Thunder_86]

it's just a patent... nothing more.. I would say that for every 200 patents, only one would be good enough to work and be viable.

For example why this tower would be better than a single airship (with variable buoyancy) who can in fact go to the equator to launch and gain extra deltav?

The airship would be 100 to 1000 times more cost efficient, and I am not sure if the airship real worth it.

And I absolutely agree with you! This may or may not work. This may or may never be actually built. But yet again, I think its weird for gamers to treat actual scientists like idiots for trying to make a technological leap... Thats all I'm saying. I'm not saying anyone here is stupid for doubting the results of such a structure. I doubt it myself! I think there MAY be something to it. I might very well be wrong. I EXPECT to be wrong. I still want to see them trying it. What if it actually works! I don't beleive this is gonna be built withing the next 20 years either...

Simply building a 20km high structure is a HUGE feat on its own. Let alone taking off of it with SSTOs and rockets. BUT, I'm not gonna treat them like idiots for trying. What if it works? What if by trying this they make other technological advancements? A scientist cannot have a closed mind. Everybody blasting them for trying that clearly has a closed mind and are NOT scientists. Its easy to act like you are superior to everybody else, especially on the internet. But we are GAMERS playing a game so realistic that your astronaut can live for years and years on EVA in orbit around the Mun... Lets not get ahead of ourselves here...

[AngelLestat]

Why you label them as actual scientists without know them and you do the same with us "gamers" without know us?

You think they dont play games? And my prediction is that less than 25% of people who post in this science section play the game.

I dont, I like reality, and to get that I need to install many mods which my PC end up crashing, also I dont have much free time.

In science, each new idea or tech is open to criticism, some times we see something as a good idea, sometimes we dont, but we are not making a final judgment either, we are just making our opinion and depend on their inventors (or the people who agree with the idea) to prove that would be cost/efficient.

Mine was "there is another option which is many times more efficient, so why we should build that?"

PD: Maybe this tower idea is not good for rockets, but it may work as alternative to build tall towers for other purposes.

Edited August 19, 2015 by AngelLestat

[Thunder_86]

Why you label them as actual scientists without know them and you do the same with us "gamers" without know us?

You think they dont play games? And my prediction is that less than 25% of people who post in this science section play the game.

I dont, I like reality, and to get that I need to install many mods which my PC end up crashing, also I dont have much time free.

In science, each new idea or tech is open to criticism, some times we see something as a good idea, sometimes we dont, but we are not making a final judgment either, we are just making our opinion and depend on their inventors (or the people who agree with the idea) to prove that would be cost/efficient.

Mine was "there is another option which is many times more efficient, so why we should build that?"

PD: Maybe this tower idea is not good for rockets, but it may be a good idea to make tall towers for other purposes.

Fair enough about them. I don't know their people. All I know is that their leadership team includes a Space System Specialist. This is taken from their website. I'm simply assuming his team know what they are doing.

As for the people here, this is a VIDEO GAME forum. You may or may not play the game, but an actual scientist or engineer won't come here, to a VIDEO GAME forum, to actually discuss this. Come on... Its like minecrafters that think they are engineers for being able to use a hopper system... Do you think real engineers will go discuss stuff on a minecraft forum? of course they won't!! This isn't serious at all!

[Randazzo]

You may or may not play the game, but an actual scientist or engineer won't come here, to a VIDEO GAME forum, to actually discuss this!

You're wasting your time and playing with fire. Anywho...

This thing appears to be about as sound as Mars One.

[lajoswinkler]

I'm absolutely amazed by this forum! I never thought a bunch of gamers actually knew rocket science better than actual rocket scientists!

There is no such thing as rocket science. It's engineering, aerospace engineering.

The problem with this is not aerospace engineering. It's structural engineering. Such structure is impossible using today's materials. Everyone seems to focus on the launching and the fact the tower is not possible is ignored.

This comic describes it 100%.

[Thunder_86]

Well. The building itself is about the structural engineering. I stated in an earlier reply that the building itself can't be build with current technology.

as for the rocket science thing, you are right, its actually called aerospace engineering, not rocket science. But I'm okay with calling it rocket science as 1: I'm no aerospace engineer, so aren't 99.99999% of people posting here, and 2: its still about the science being rockets XD haha.

But it still need to be discussed tho as building the tower serves no purpose if aerospace engineering gets no advantage from it. I simply think we won't solve crap on a videogame forum, thats my point. The same discussion on an actual engineering forum would make so much more sense. Because the fact that this is on a video game forum basically removes all seriousness of this conversation. Imagine a study quoting a message on a video game forum as one of its sources... just... LAWL!

[Nibb31]

I somehow highly doubt that...

Given that Thoth Technologies Inc. seems to be constituted of 4 people, and there are actually folks from NASA, ESA, and various other space agencies who have acknowledged playing KSP, it's not much of a stretch.

I'm not sayin they are right by the way. I'm just a little annoyed by the fact GAMERS treat them like idiots for trying to make scientific progresses...

Gamers are people too. They have their experience, knowledge, skills, that don't all pertain to playing games. Surprisingly, many gamers actually have a families, jobs, hobbies, and various other interests and pastimes that might or might not be related to any single game. Gaming, for most people, is a side-distraction, a very small part of their lives.

On the other hand, there is no such thing as a "rocket scientist". There are physicists and engineers. There are professionals at various levels who are experts in propulsion, cryogenics, chemistry, materials, structures, aerodynamics, economics, marketing, telecommunication, computers, and so on. And within each of those fields, most of them only specialize in a specific area. There aren't many people who can claim to be an "expert in rocket science" with both width and depth of knowledge that covers everything "rocket science".

So even the smartest experts in a certain field sometimes step out of their league and make mistakes. Some people are also paid to work on something that they know perfectly well won't work because they have bills to pay. Some people have ideas that are good technically, but unworkable economically. Some people patent ideas that are unworkable, and some people put their ideas out in the public domain. Some people have great ideas but fail to execute them. And some people invest large amounts of money in obviously flawed ideas*.

So just because someone is a "rocket scientist" doesn't mean they are always right. Coming up with a silly idea doesn't make them idiots.

My take on that inflatable thing: lauching from 20km high will help skip most of the athmosphere, reducing drag. A rocket fly almost straight up for many kilometers before turning so that it doesn't try to move horizontally through athmosphere. at 20km, the athmosphere is at 6kpa compared to 101kpa from sea level. I'm pretty sure they can save a ton of fuel by launching almost horizontally (or turning right after launch.

The problem with that reasoning is that drag isn't a big deal. Gravity is. Rockets are thin and tall and pointy to overcome drag.

So when a rocket hits the 20km mark, it's already going damn fast with a velocity vector that is already countering the gravitational force. If you launch horizontally from a platform (or a balloon) you start with a speed of zero, meaning that you have to fight the full pull of gravity (ie. down). You have no other choice than to point your rocket in the opposite direction (ie. up).

You would be better off launching horizontally from an airplane (see Stratolaunch), which already has non-zero velocity vector, but even then it doesn't make sense economically of technically.

*Stratolaunch is another one of those bad ideas.

If you don't try new things you won't help advance science. If you try to block progress you are everything but a scientist...

Not every new idea is progress. If someone comes up with a bad idea, it's better to actually tell them it's bad and why it's bad instead of letting them fail.

Edited August 19, 2015 by Nibb31

[Thunder_86]

woah woah woah. Who told you that there are only 4 people??? thats their LEADERSHIP team that is contituted of 4 people. I'm pretty sure they DO have employees under them...

For the rest of your message, I totally agree. Of course gamers are people, and of course some of you have valid ideas! I'm not denying that! But that discussion on a gaming forum totally lack seriousness and this is not our place to treat them like idiots here. I wonder if someone will eventually understand that very simple principle... I'm pretty sure you guys are intelligent enough to understand this. If you actually have real knowledge about this, why don't you discuss this over to some actual engineering forums???

I'm out of here. You can keep discussing this with gamer kids if you want, but the real discussion happens with actual engineers!

[RainDreamer]

Actually before this whole thing, I don't think people has called the people with the idea idiots. They cast doubts on the idea itself, and suspect the motive of the announcement, but not much questioning the intelligence of people working on it.

And we should do more of that too, talking about the idea, why it wouldn't work, what could make it work, and what other alternative we can get, etc.

[Kerbart]

My take on that inflatable thing: lauching from 20km high will help skip most of the athmosphere, reducing drag. A rocket fly almost straight up for many kilometers before turning so that it doesn't try to move horizontally through athmosphere. at 20km, the athmosphere is at 6kpa compared to 101kpa from sea level. I'm pretty sure they can save a ton of fuel by launching almost horizontally (or turning right after launch.

Not if you run the numbers. Out of the roughly 10,000 m/s required to get into LEO, about 500 m/s is apparently needed to overcome atmospheric drag. The vast majority is required to simply get to the speed required for orbit. So instead of 10,000 you'll need 9,500 -- as pointed out before, due to the rocket equation your fuel savings will be more than that 5% but not that much more. Which makes most of us here wonder how they manage to come up with "30% fuel savings" -- not to mention the fact that fuel is the least of your cost for a launch.

[AngelLestat]

but an actual scientist or engineer won't come here, to a VIDEO GAME forum, to actually discuss this. Come on... Its like minecrafters that think they are engineers for being able to use a hopper system... Do you think real engineers will go discuss stuff on a minecraft forum? of course they won't!! This isn't serious at all!

You are underestimating this community, it may be because you are still new here.

first.. this is not minecraft. The only thing in common is that both games exploit player creativity.

Some times I go to the physics forum if I need to ask something very particular, but I may get also the same answer here, maybe better.

If I need to compare the Nasa forum with this... I dont find any difference.

And remember that you are in the science section, not just the "where is your Jebediah?" section.

[Thunder_86]

again, you got nothing from my point. This is a video game forum. I'm not saying people here are not knowledgeable. I'm saying any discussion here will be COMPLETELY overlook by anybody who's serious because no matter how knowledgeable people are, this is still a video game forum.

For example: I'm a programmer IRL. When I get questions or when I'm not so sure about something, I go see on development forums, stack overflow, etc. If I find a topic about programming on a VIDEO GAME forum, I WILL overlook it. I want Programmers to help. Not gamers. I would only expect this to be even more true with rocket science. If I was an aerospatial engineer I would absolutely laugh at you guys. say the same thing in an engineering forum, I would actually stop by and read through.

You SHOULD go and discuss that in a more serious place than here, because you guys DO know a lot about this... thats all I'm saying.

I'm not saying its not fine to discuss here. just it won't have any value in the end...

Anyways, I'm giving up. Forget about all I said, I don't care anymore.

Edited August 19, 2015 by Thunder_86

[Shpaget]

If I was an aerospatial engineer I would absolutely laugh at you guys. say the same thing in an engineering forum, I would actually stop by and read through.

That's a very bad way to live your life.

Judge the claims by their merits, not by the person making it. Especially when you don't know who the person is.

[Thunder_86]

That's a very bad way to live your life.

Judge the claims by their merits, not by the person making it. Especially when you don't know who the person is.

might be a professionnal deformation (is that how you say it in english?) as every answer I found in my branch on anything else than a serious programming forum was complete garbage...

[AngelLestat]

The technology may be usefull as ways to harvester energy, turism, or many other things mentioned in Gizmag.

But even if achieve to reduce the fuel by a 30%, is not a big deal.

To become really useful to reach orbit, it should have something as a magnetic cannon.

For example the problem with this method:

It´s that when the vehicle go out, it strikes against a wall of air, so acceleration and deceleration are not survivable for humans (maybe if they are within a liquid in their suits may be).

But if you make the same magnetic tube in the atmosphere, reaching 15 km height (where the atmosphere is a lot less dense) with a 30^o degree inclination, then the acceleration can be survivable and when it leaves the tube, it does at lower pressure.

Similar techniques as rotate tube sections to stabilize and point the cannon in the right direction and the right angle can be used.

Still the cost will be high enoght (but lower than an space elevator) to drop this idea to the trash, it will depend on how other uses can be exploited to improve its benefics.

Edited August 19, 2015 by AngelLestat

[RainDreamer]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/space-elevators-remain-a-lofty-idea-say-experts-1.3195157

Some apparent expert has chimed in about the patent:

A space elevator "is still rather an academic idea, rather than something we're going to start building next week," says Ted Semon, president emeritus of the California-based International Space Elevator Consortium.

I didn't know there is an International Space Elevator Consortium.

Also, the company apparently wanted to actually build a prototype, meaning they were at least somewhat serious with this, which is a surprising entry considering they were just working on satellites and UAV equipment before.

According to Caroline Roberts, president and CEO of Thoth Technology, the company hopes to build a 1.5-km-high prototype within five years.Brendan Quine, the inventor behind the patent, unveiled a seven-metre scale model in 2009 at Toronto's York University, where he is an associate professor.

Let's see how it will turn out.