Space Elevators and Mass Driver Runways

[GoldForest]

I just thought of this, but KSP 2 has no mention of Space Elevators or Mass Drivers of SSTOs. Both of these technologies are near to mid future, so they are in the scope of what is possible. 

I think we should get the option to build these as upgrades to the KSC.

The Space elevator would obviously have to go out in the ocean and it's reach would go all the way up to KEOstationary orbit, but I feel like a space elevator would be great for interstellar missions.

A mass driver, preferably like the ones we see in the Ace Combat series (Photo in the spoiler below), would be great for SSTOs. It would make them more viable if they could get a kick boost on take off. 

 

Spoiler

 

Edited September 8, 2019 by GoldForest

[SpaceFace545]

43 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

I just thought of this, but KSP 2 has no mention of Space Elevators or Mass Drivers of SSTOs. Both of these technologies are near to mid future, so they are in the scope of what is possible. 

I think we should get the option to build these as upgrades to the KSC.

The Space elevator would obviously have to go out in the ocean and it's reach would go all the way up to KEOstationary orbit, but I feel like a space elevator would be great for interstellar missions.

A mass driver, preferably like the ones we see in the Ace Combat series (Photo in the spoiler below), would be great for SSTOs. It would make them more viable if they could get a kick boost on take off. 

 

  Hide contents

 

or maybe mass drivers for bases

[GoldForest]

2 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

or maybe mass drivers for bases

Thanks, I forgot about that. 

Updated the poll to reflect KSC specific wants and Colony specific wants.

[Bill Phil]

A static space elevator may never be possible and the only alternative is dynamic space elevators - which are completely beyond current technology (though not current physics - it could happen someday). 

Of course that's just for Earth.

The problem with a space elevator is that it is probably not practical in the game.

That said, a mass driver would be interesting, but probably limited to space colonies on airless worlds.

[GoldForest]

25 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

A static space elevator may never be possible and the only alternative is dynamic space elevators - which are completely beyond current technology (though not current physics - it could happen someday). 

Of course that's just for Earth.

The problem with a space elevator is that it is probably not practical in the game.

That said, a mass driver would be interesting, but probably limited to space colonies on airless worlds.

A static space elevator on Earth is actually doable right now. 

A group of space elevator scientists calculated it would take, right now, $120 Billion Dollars to set up an elevator.

It would have two space stations, low earth orbit and high earth orbit, then there would be a weight in Geostationary orbit to keep the station from speeding up or slowing down. 

[Bill Phil]

2 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

A static space elevator on Earth is actually doable right now. 

A group of space elevator scientists calculated it would take, right now, $120 Billion Dollars to set up an elevator.

It would have two space stations, low earth orbit and high earth orbit, then there would be a weight in Geostationary orbit to keep the station from speeding up or slowing down. 

There is no way we'll be able to set up such a system for less than the cost of the Space Shuttle program.

Not anytime soon.

Not only that, but there are intrinsic issues with static elevators, I won't get it into them here, but they're not really that workable.

[GoldForest]

17 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

There is no way we'll be able to set up such a system for less than the cost of the Space Shuttle program.

Not anytime soon.

Not only that, but there are intrinsic issues with static elevators, I won't get it into them here, but they're not really that workable.

Well like I said, a group of scientist determined it would take ~ $50 Billion dollars, don't know why I tripled the original estimate, to setup a space elevator right here, right now. 

Rocket Launches: $6.2 Billion
Spacecraft Construction: $6.6 Billion
Carbon Nanotubes: $8.7 Billion
Ground Facilities: $5.2 Billion
Space Facilities: $19.7 Billion
Climber (elevators): $4 Billion.
Total: $50.4 Billion dollars

And I was also wrong about the stations. There would be 3 stations and one counter weight
~Counterweight at ~140,000km
~High Orbit Station at ~54,000km to ~57,000km
~Geostationary Station at ~36,000km
~Low Orbit Station at ~23,750km
~Earth Port(Space elevator) at 0km (Would be placed out at sea or ocean for obvious reasons)

Source: Aces at War: A history 2019, page 93, Bandai Namco Entertainment Inc. 

Edited September 8, 2019 by GoldForest

[ChrisSpace]

Ideally I'd like to see Orbital Rings being added, like what Isaac Arthur often mentions, although that may not be possible to implement in the game.

[Incarnation of Chaos]

Terrerstial Space Elevators are only possible with Carbon Nanotube tethers; which we currently struggle to manufacture on the microscopic scale without such major defects their strength becomes more similar to steel or titanium. Railguns would kill any human occupants if used to accelerate a manned vessel; unless the accelerator was the size of the earth. Lunar Space Elevator is possible with current tech; Railguns delivering crew is fantasy (Cargo is fine) and a terrestial space elevator is currently impossible.

No to both of these; Space Elevator is not even near-future tech and Railguns just splat anyone you put in them.

Also; please don't tell me your source is an Ace Combat Game....

[GoldForest]

16 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

Terrerstial Space Elevators are only possible with Carbon Nanotube tethers; which we currently struggle to manufacture on the microscopic scale without such major defects their strength becomes more similar to steel or titanium. Railguns would kill any human occupants if used to accelerate a manned vessel; unless the accelerator was the size of the earth. Lunar Space Elevator is possible with current tech; Railguns delivering crew is fantasy (Cargo is fine) and a terrestial space elevator is currently impossible.

No to both of these; Space Elevator is not even near-future tech and Railguns just splat anyone you put in them.

Also; please don't tell me your source is an Ace Combat Game....

Not railgun, mass driver. It accelerates using rail gun tech but slowly. Like a carrier's catapult.

Space elevator is near future to mid future.

And the source isnt from the game, but a book based on the game and in the book is an interview with a space elevator scientist.

[ezaroo]

27 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

Also; please don't tell me your source is an Ace Combat Game....

Be fair, it’s the art book that you can get with the game...

But yeah the statement that a space elevator is near future tech is not right, we’re talking easily over a hundred years and I wouldn’t blink if you said 300 for that. It’s scifi tech.

There is also no gameplay point to it! You will be able to construct stuff off kerbin including from space colonies, which means there is no practical reason for it.

[ChrisSpace]

9 minutes ago, ezaroo said:

But yeah the statement that a space elevator is near future tech is not right, we’re talking easily over a hundred years and I wouldn’t blink if you said 300 for that. It’s scifi tech.

There is also no gameplay point to it! You will be able to construct stuff off kerbin including from space colonies, which means there is no practical reason for it.

Even in real life, it isn't very logical from an economic perspective. Even the SpaceX Starship is going to launch payloads at a lower cost per kilogram than a space elevator would.

[Bill Phil]

2 hours ago, GoldForest said:

Well like I said, a group of scientist determined it would take ~ $50 Billion dollars, don't know why I tripled the original estimate, to setup a space elevator right here, right now. 

Rocket Launches: $6.2 Billion
Spacecraft Construction: $6.6 Billion
Carbon Nanotubes: $8.7 Billion
Ground Facilities: $5.2 Billion
Space Facilities: $19.7 Billion
Climber (elevators): $4 Billion.
Total: $50.4 Billion dollars

And I was also wrong about the stations. There would be 3 stations and one counter weight
~Counterweight at ~140,000km
~High Orbit Station at ~54,000km to ~57,000km
~Geostationary Station at ~36,000km
~Low Orbit Station at ~23,750km
~Earth Port(Space elevator) at 0km (Would be placed out at sea or ocean for obvious reasons)

Source: Aces at War: A history 2019, page 93, Bandai Namco Entertainment Inc. 

We are not in a position to estimate costs of a space elevator. We have never built in space on that scale before. Heck, one space station cost over 150 billion dollars. We have like 8 data points for stations and the numbers don’t look good.

Not only that but our nanotube industry is, well, nonexistent. We can not do it right now. We’d have to mature the industry. Which would cosb quite a lot. Not to mention mature our space manufacturing and launch industries.

But by that time we may already have low costs - and thus an elevator may be useless.

The tech base isn’t there.

1 hour ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

Terrerstial Space Elevators are only possible with Carbon Nanotube tethers; which we currently struggle to manufacture on the microscopic scale without such major defects their strength becomes more similar to steel or titanium. Railguns would kill any human occupants if used to accelerate a manned vessel; unless the accelerator was the size of the earth. Lunar Space Elevator is possible with current tech; Railguns delivering crew is fantasy (Cargo is fine) and a terrestial space elevator is currently impossible.

No to both of these; Space Elevator is not even near-future tech and Railguns just splat anyone you put in them.

A mass driver could accelerate a payload at 4g to orbital velocity in 816.3 km. We might be able to send people. Not that practical on Earth though... but possible.

Many manned rockets have reached very near to 4g accelerations. Though not for long periods of time...

[GoldForest]

6 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

We are not in a position to estimate costs of a space elevator. We have never built in space on that scale before. Heck, one space station cost over 150 billion dollars. We have like 8 data points for stations and the numbers don’t look good.

Not only that but our nanotube industry is, well, nonexistent. We can not do it right now. We’d have to mature the industry. Which would cosb quite a lot. Not to mention mature our space manufacturing and launch industries.

But by that time we may already have low costs - and thus an elevator may be useless.

The tech base isn’t there.

An elevator would be useful since sending people up by rocket would still be expensive. 
Even if Space X's starship cuts costs my 90%, A seat on an elevator would be around the same cost to even lower since the only thing needed would be electricity to power the elevator. 
 

 

7 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

A mass driver could accelerate a payload at 4g to orbital velocity in 816.3 km. We might be able to send people. Not that practical on Earth though... but possible.

Many manned rockets have reached very near to 4g accelerations. Though not for long periods of time...

We technically have a mass driver today, and pilots use it 24/7 in the Navy. 

Steam catapults launch aircraft all the time, and now we're upgrading to EM Rail Catapults. 

A mass driver runway would be around 3 miles long, at minimum. 

3 miles is a long time to accelerate, so the G forces would not be that bad. Especially if it was longer. 5 miles, 10 miles, 15 miles. The acceleration could be less and less, though less acceleration would be bad in the case of launching an orbital class shuttle. 

A 5 mile mass driver would allow for a comfortable...ish acceleration while maintaining the essential need for speed.

And if they need more speed, SRBs can be attached to the skid the shuttle sits on. 

[Incarnation of Chaos]

3 hours ago, GoldForest said:

Not railgun, mass driver. It accelerates using rail gun tech but slowly. Like a carrier's catapult.

Space elevator is near future to mid future.

And the source isnt from the game, but a book based on the game and in the book is an interview with a space elevator scientist.

I don't think you really understand the nature of my complaint ; slowing acceleration is achieved by lengthening the duration it occurs. Spreading it out over more time; therefore decreasing the peak forces experienced. Coilguns aren't less governed by these physical laws than any other method. And if you want to achieve orbital velocities with a EM launcher; you must also remember that unless you're on a body with no atmosphere that your speed must be HIGHER because you're going to constantly lose speed to drag forces, gravity losses etc. And mind you; once it escapes the atmosphere it still must circularize it's orbit. So you end up building a massive deathtrap of a facility that uses hilariously stupid amounts of power.....to just do the same thing you were going to do anyway except with more inefficiencies, more points of failure and more chances to explode violently.

Also no; i HIGHLY suggest you investigate carbon nanotube technology further. If we were anywhere close to the types of production needed for a SE tether then we would currently be in the Second industrial Revolution. These things are practically miracle materials and can be altered in numerous ways to bring out different properties; almost as much of a gamechanger as Fusion Power would be.

And regardless it still comes from a fictional work; so it shouldn't be cited as demonstrating anything.

2 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

We are not in a position to estimate costs of a space elevator. We have never built in space on that scale before. Heck, one space station cost over 150 billion dollars. We have like 8 data points for stations and the numbers don’t look good.

Not only that but our nanotube industry is, well, nonexistent. We can not do it right now. We’d have to mature the industry. Which would cosb quite a lot. Not to mention mature our space manufacturing and launch industries.

But by that time we may already have low costs - and thus an elevator may be useless.

The tech base isn’t there.

A mass driver could accelerate a payload at 4g to orbital velocity in 816.3 km. We might be able to send people. Not that practical on Earth though... but possible.

Many manned rockets have reached very near to 4g accelerations. Though not for long periods of time...

4G would be tolerable if whoever was inside was wearing a compression (G) suit and was trained; that's near the upper limit for sustained G though. You could actually place them lying down; many studies in the 50's onward showed humans are remarkably resistant to G forces when laying down. And it's not just industry; everyone who has a materials science department is scrambling to get Carbon-Nanotubes into a shippable product. Purity is a MAJOR issue as any lattice defects or bonding issues make the whole fiber useless and the fact you're working with something so small means introducing defects is rather easy. Which means Yields are horrendous; even after decades of work and billions in funding.

Edited September 8, 2019 by Incarnation of Chaos

[GoldForest]

19 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

I don't think you really understand the nature of my complaint ; slowing acceleration is achieved by lengthening the duration it occurs. Spreading it out over more time; therefore decreasing the peak forces experienced. Coilguns aren't less governed by these physical laws than any other method. And if you want to achieve orbital velocities with a EM launcher; you must also remember that unless you're on a body with no atmosphere that your speed must be HIGHER because you're going to constantly lose speed to drag forces, gravity losses etc. And mind you; once it escapes the atmosphere it still must circularize it's orbit. So you end up building a massive deathtrap of a facility that uses hilariously stupid amounts of power.....to just do the same thing you were going to do anyway except with more inefficiencies, more points of failure and more chances to explode violently.

Also no; i HIGHLY suggest you investigate carbon nanotube technology further. If we were anywhere close to the types of production needed for a SE tether then we would currently be in the Second industrial Revolution. These things are practically miracle materials and can be altered in numerous ways to bring out different properties; almost as much of a gamechanger as Fusion Power would be.

And regardless it still comes from a fictional work; so it shouldn't be cited as demonstrating anything.

4G would be tolerable if whoever was inside was wearing a compression (G) suit and was trained; that's near the upper limit for sustained G though. You could actually place them lying down; many studies in the 50's onward showed humans are remarkably resistant to G forces when laying down. And it's not just industry; everyone who has a materials science department is scrambling to get Carbon-Nanotubes into a shippable product. Purity is a MAJOR issue as any lattice defects or bonding issues make the whole fiber useless and the fact you're working with something so small means introducing defects is rather easy. Which means Yields are horrendous; even after decades of work and billions in funding.

Like I said in an earlier comment, the distances that mass drivers would stretch our vast. Upwards of 5 to 25 to possibly hundreds or even thousands of miles. The longer the stretch, the slower the acceleration could be, but it would severely hinder launch capability the slower you accelerate. 

Also, I don't think you understand that Mass Drivers are not meant to do all the work. Mass Drivers serve to HELP the spacecraft accelerate up to speeds able to break the atmosphere. The SSTO would still need to do a lot of work once it left the ramp, including maintaining escape velocity as well as the aforementioned circulation. Mass Drivers aren't there to put things into orbit, they're there to help things escape the atmosphere, that's it. The shuttle still has to do most of the work. 
 

I never mentioned anything about the mass driver putting things into orbit on its own.
 

3 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

A mass driver could accelerate a payload at 4g to orbital velocity in 816.3 km. We might be able to send people. Not that practical on Earth though... but possible.

Many manned rockets have reached very near to 4g accelerations. Though not for long periods of time...

I don't think your math is right. I did math for finding out G-forces and I came out with  ~652 miles (~1050 km) need for a 4.06 G acceleration curve. Of course, I may be doing my math wrong, I'm not a math expert by any means, and I might have converted numbers wrong or put them wrong into Excel, but that's what I got. I'm not even going to do the math for this one as I'm to lazy to do any further math, but the Space Shuttle experienced 3Gs of acceleration during liftoff. I would imagine that would require 1,000 to 1,500 miles of mass driver or more, and by that length you've basically built a bridge into space, of course, the 652 miles previously could put you into space as well if the mass driver slopes or angles far enough up. At that point you could just drive rockets and satellites into space. 

[Daniel Prates]

6 hours ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

Terrerstial Space Elevators are only possible with Carbon Nanotube tethers; which we currently struggle to manufacture on the microscopic scale without such major defects their strength becomes more similar to steel or titanium. Railguns would kill any human occupants if used to accelerate a manned vessel; unless the accelerator was the size of the earth. Lunar Space Elevator is possible with current tech; Railguns delivering crew is fantasy (Cargo is fine) and a terrestial space elevator is currently impossible.

No to both of these; Space Elevator is not even near-future tech and Railguns just splat anyone you put in them.

Also; please don't tell me your source is an Ace Combat Game....

I too find all those propositions ludicrous for the game, let alone even calling them "near" in real life!

Here we have a game to entertain us BUILDING FREAKING ROCKETS and the idea of rocketless travel creeps in - with semi-fantasy tech, no less. Why not a StarTrek-a-like teleporting station, for that matter?

Yes elevators are viable on paper but we are clearly waaaaaaay far from it beeing slightly viable. Centuries and centuries in my mind. Rail accelerators too, in whichever form and proposition. Its all more like well-informed specularion than actual, viable propositions.

[GoldForest]

13 minutes ago, Daniel Prates said:

I too find all those propositions ludicrous for the game, let alone even calling them "near" in real life!

Here we have a game to entertain us BUILDING FREAKING ROCKETS and the idea of rocketless travel creeps in - with semi-fantasy tech, no less. Why not a StarTrek-a-like teleporting station, for that matter?

Yes elevators are viable on paper but we are clearly waaaaaaay far from it beeing slightly viable. Centuries and centuries in my mind. Rail accelerators too, in whichever form and proposition. Its all more like well-informed specularion than actual, viable propositions.

Not rocketless travel, something to augment them. 

Space elevator could lead to an orbital launch platform for rockets and interstellar ships.

Mass Drivers were there to help SSTOs, and I can see them being used for small rockets as well. What took a medium rocket to launch a medium payload could be a small rocket launching the same medium payload. 

And nothing is fantasy about it. Both have research and data to back them up with scientific theories which are sound. Yes, it's still on paper, but everything was on paper at one point. Planes were works of fiction until Da Vinci came up with the idea scientifically then the Wright brothers took it off the papers. Rockets were the work of fiction until Van Braun came along. 

[Guest]

Mass drivers are a matter of scaling up an existing technology. There are already carriers out there using them for launching planes. They're not very practical on Earth, though. Drag loses would mean they would perform, at most, similar to subsonic air-launched rockets. The Moon and asteroids would be more suitable for that.

2 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

And nothing is fantasy about it. Both have research and data to back them up with scientific theories which are sound. Yes, it's still on paper, but everything was on paper at one point. Planes were works of fiction until Da Vinci came up with the idea scientifically then the Wright brothers took it off the papers. Rockets were the work of fiction until Van Braun came along. 

A space elevator is not possible with the current technology. An art book for a game is not a valid source of information. Space elevators, as it stands, are indeed pure fantasy.

Before you continue this discussion, do yourself a favor and do some real research (that is, not a friggin' video game artbook). Leonardo DaVinci did not "scientifically prove" aircraft could exist. In fact, Wright brothers based themselves on their work with large kites... which date back to ancient China. As for Von Braun... sorry, but that statement is outright idiotic. Have you heard the name "Goddard"? And I'm guessing you're not an American, because they have (solid) rockets in their national anthem! And the Brits who were launching them at the Americans in question got the idea from the Indian kingdom of Mysore and their war rockets. Which were only the latest versions of weapons used by Japanese Samurai and Chinese soldiers. Rocketry has a long history.

[GoldForest]

49 minutes ago, Dragon01 said:

Mass drivers are a matter of scaling up an existing technology. There are already carriers out there using them for launching planes. They're not very practical on Earth, though. Drag loses would mean they would perform, at most, similar to subsonic air-launched rockets. The Moon and asteroids would be more suitable for that.

A space elevator is not possible with the current technology. An art book for a game is not a valid source of information. Space elevators, as it stands, are indeed pure fantasy.

Before you continue this discussion, do yourself a favor and do some real research (that is, not a friggin' video game artbook). Leonardo DaVinci did not "scientifically prove" aircraft could exist. In fact, Wright brothers based themselves on their work with large kites... which date back to ancient China. As for Von Braun... sorry, but that statement is outright idiotic. Have you heard the name "Goddard"? And I'm guessing you're not an American, because they have (solid) rockets in their national anthem! And the Brits who were launching them at the Americans in question got the idea from the Indian kingdom of Mysore and their war rockets. Which were only the latest versions of weapons used by Japanese Samurai and Chinese soldiers. Rocketry has a long history.

No, but the people who did the interview inside the book are. It doesn't matter that the interview is in a book, it's still valid. So dont say "video game book" like its supposed to make the interview mean nothing.

Da Vinci set the idea of flight is what I'm saying. He also did have a little science to his work. He studied bird wings to make gliders. He was the first one to look into the way birds generate lift.

And I am American.

Weaponized rockets are not the same as space rockets. Rocketry does have a long history in weaponized rocketry, but I'm talking manned rocketry. The Saturn I and V were the first official space rockets. All other space worthy rockets were weapons. Atlas A, Titan, Redstone, all weapons. None were intended for space travel.

As for Goddard, I forgot about him to be honest. I was more in the frame of humans on rockets and not people learning how to get get to space or testing technology that would one day take us there.

Fantasy means it is very very unlikely to impossible to happen. Space Elevators are likely to happen though, so no, it's not pure fantasy. Science Fiction that will become science fact, maybe, but not fantasy. 

It's just a matter of time and maturing carbon nanotubes, the only thing holding us back are those tiny things. 

On an unrelated note, Carbon Nanotube CPUs were created by MIT. So... not that far off from space elevators after all. joking.

Edited September 8, 2019 by GoldForest

[Guest]

Quote

No, but the people who did the interview inside the book are. It doesn't matter that the interview is in a book, it's still valid. So dont say "video game book" like its supposed to make the interview mean nothing.

Who are those people? The interview does mean nothing if the scientists involved are not credible, or fictional altogether. It doesn't matter that the interview is in a video game book or a popular science newspaper, it's still invalid if people involved are not good scientists. The cost estimates they gave are sufficient to conclude that, to put it mildly, they don't know what they're talking about.

53 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

Weaponized rockets are not the same as space rockets.

Preceded by a list of weaponized rockets which were used as space rockets far more than they were ever used as weapons. Non sequitur. "Space rockets" are exactly the same as weaponized rockets in terms of physics. The only difference is what you put on top. Engineering eventually diverged, because "the best space rocket" and "the best ICBM" are different things, but connections still remain. The N1 was a weaponized rocket by your definition, because Korolev sold the idea to the Soviet leadership as a "super ICBM". Saturn I was a "pure Space Rocket" (which still used ICBM parts, BTW) only because Von Braun didn't have to bother with making up a military application thanks to Kennedy setting his sights on the Moon. On top of that, it wasn't even the first. Vanguard was the first "civilian space rocket", in fact the Stayputnik fiasco was because the US didn't want a military rocket to put their first satellite into orbit, despite Juno I being a much more mature design.

Manned space flight cannot be considered in isolation. For a long time it was deeply intertwined with ICBM programs, and those ultimately have their roots in those funny little things that provided the red glare over Fort McHenry, and their Asian ancestors. 

Quote

Fantasy means it is very very unlikely to impossible to happen. Space Elevators are likely to happen though, so no, it's not pure fantasy. Science Fiction that will become science fact, maybe, but not fantasy. 

Space elevators are very unlikely to happen. It's more than just nanotubes, nevermind that making nanotubes of arbitrary length is a huge challenge in itself. A space elevator may never be practical, in fact, due to reusable rockets getting cheaper all the time. Before we get to the point where we could make nanotubes of sufficient length, we might start building everything in space, and reusable orbital ships would be so cheap that passenger transport would not justify investing in an elevator.

Claiming that they are "near future" is utter malarkey. They're about as far a future as you can get. They also certainly don't compare to mass drivers, which are already used on a small scale (on the other hand, they aren't so hot of an idea, though they do have their uses).

[Xurkitree]

i think we're missing the point of the topic here - this is a discussion on whether we should have Space Elevators and Mass Drives ingame or not. Anything about the feasibility of a space elevator in real life can go to another thread. 

In my opinion, while a space elevator sounds rather tedious to maintain except for a very small body, a mass driver would be perfect for colonies! One could use it for quick and easier returns or launching resources to orbit with minimal fuel. Having them on kerbin is a terrible idea since the atmosphere would probably break them.

[Kerbart]

31 minutes ago, Xurkitree said:

i think we're missing the point of the topic here - this is a discussion on whether we should have Space Elevators and Mass Drives ingame or not. Anything about the feasibility of a space elevator in real life can go to another thread.

I disagree. The very first paragraph of the original post:

Quote

so they are in the scope of what is possible. 

I think we all agree that we don't want “magic” in the game—FTL drives, anti-gravity devices, Klingon cloaking technology, etc. In that context, the question whether a space elevator is feasible in real life is exceptionally relevant.

[DStaal]

Space elevators are physically possible in real life - but currently require unobtanium to build on Earth, though the material strength requirements is within what is known possible.  Mass drivers are current tech (at a smaller scale) - but not really useful on Earth.  They would be great on the Moon however.

My biggest problem with a space elevator on Kerbol in KSP is that the Mun would interfere - While KEO itself is within Mun's orbit, your counterweight would be getting very close to Mun's SOI, and I'm not sure such a device would be stable if we were using N-Body physics.  There's also the materials issues above.

Mass drivers for colonies make perfect sense, especially for smaller airless worlds.

[magnemoe]

Mass driver runways always brings up this for me. 

http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff900/fv00877.htm

And the last strip is most fun, an very academic question if they would use the same power as then launching shuttles or if they restrict him to mach 2. 
More fun in that Sam don't seems to realize its was an death threat although an funny one like I gone shoot you slowly with an axe.