Did anyone else spot this

Doc Ruby · 04-05-2012 04:57PM #1

The Star Tram claims to be able to reduce costs to orbit from $10,000 a kilo to $40 a kilo...

Getting into space is one of the harder tasks to be taken on by humanity. The present cost of inserting a kilogram (2.2 lb) of cargo by rocket into Low Earth Orbit (LEO) is about US$10,000. A manned launch to LEO costs about $100,000 per kilogram of passenger. But who says we have to reach orbit by means of rocket propulsion alone? Instead, imagine sitting back in a comfortable magnetic levitation (maglev) train and taking a train ride into orbit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CKva8MlCs8

This is a major game changer if they can get it off the ground, no pun intended. I had a look over the technical documentation and credits on the main website and it appears to be bona fide, they even have a discussion forum of some sort for it over here with a bit more information. Its very exciting if true, there's any amount of things we could do at that price level.

Cork boy 55 · 05-05-2012 05:47PM

This is a spoof? :rolleyes:

Doc Ruby · 05-05-2012 06:30PM

Dr. James Powell and his colleague, Dr. Gordon Danby are the recipients of the 2000 Benjamin Franklin Medal in Engineering for their invention of superconducting Maglev. The Franklin Institute awards medals annually in recognition of the recipients genius and civic spirit and in memory of the institutes namesake, Benjamin Franklin, who exhibited those same qualities. Some noted past recipients of the Franklin Institute medals include Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, Neils Bohr, Max Planck, Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking.

NASA says

What is it?:
Startram is a ground-based orbital launch system based on magnetic levitation. It aims to drastically reduce the cost to launch a kilogram of payload into orbit. It is only a research concept but could theoretically serve as an alternative to chemical propellant based launch systems. Startram would require a 10-year international effort and $20 billion for a first generation system suitable for launching non-living payloads and 20 years and $60 billion for a second generation system capable of launching people into orbit. After this initial investment, payloads can be delivered into orbit for $40 per kg, down from ~$10,000 per kg currently.

How does it work?:
Startram operates on the same principal as the maglev trains currently operating in Japan. Vehicles are levitated in air using a combination of superconducting magnets and an elctromagnet created via an induced current. Propulsion comes from phase lock coils that generate forces on the launch vehicles electromagnets. Japanese maglev trains can travel up to 360 mph and are primarily limited by atmospheric drag. Startram is designed using an air-evacuated tube to eliminate drag until the launch vehicle exits the tube. Gen 1 will release the launch vehicle at 20,000 ft, experience 10-20 g of deceleration forces, and thus be unsuitable for human transport. Gen 2 will suspend a tube up to 70,000 ft, where deceleration forces are reduced to 1-2 g.

Key Features:
Gen 1 – 100km acceleration tunnel to achieve 8km/sec

Gen 1 – 30 g acceleration, 10 g aerodynamic deceleration

Gen 1 – 10-20 years, $20B

Gen 2 – 1000km acceleration tunnel to achieve 8km/sec

Gen 2 – 2-3 g acceleration, 1-2 g aerodynamic deceleration

Gen 2 – 20-30 years, $60B

Gen 1 cargo only, Gen 2 cargo and personnel

Who uses it?:
Startram is proposed as an international infrastructure project to benefit all nations with a space agenda. Ultimately, the Gen 1 system is designed to launch up to 150,000 payload tons into low Earth orbit annually. This level of access to space enables much larger scale human exploration of space and encourages all of humanity to participate in the race to the stars.

So my guess is probably not a spoof. Especially after Sandia National Labs (Lockheed Martin) gave it the thumbs up.

jumpjack · 07-05-2012 06:55AM

Ridiculous.
I absolutely don'ts see how in the world such a structure could be kept in place.

Ellis Dee · 07-05-2012 07:01AM

To paraphrase the great Arthur C. Clarke, I suppose this idea will be put into practice fifty or so years after everyone stops laughing at it.

Doc Ruby · 07-05-2012 07:52AM

jumpjack wrote: »

Ridiculous.
I absolutely don'ts see how in the world such a structure could be kept in place.

Magnets, man!

But yeah magnets. Sandia National Laboratories put the idea through a "murder board", where they vigorously try to tear apart the plan from every angle, and it passed with a clean bill of health.

the_syco · 07-05-2012 08:21AM

Crazy Japanese. Anyone else think "Orbital Elevators" when they read the bit about train to space?

shedweller · 07-05-2012 08:29AM

Gets my vote! 80bn is small compared to the trillions i'm used to hearing lately.
I will say this though, we'd want to watch what we send up and not add to the growing cloud of space junk. Given how cheap startram promises to be there could be any amount of stuff going up.

Doc Ruby · 07-05-2012 08:45AM

shedweller wrote: »

Gets my vote! 80bn is small compared to the trillions i'm used to hearing lately.
I will say this though, we'd want to watch what we send up and not add to the growing cloud of space junk. Given how cheap startram promises to be there could be any amount of stuff going up.

160,000 tons a year from the generation 1 stram, apparently, which means anything we can build on the ground we can build in space. Space junk is a serious problem but we'll have to deal with it one way or the other, so better sooner than later I guess.

jumpjack · 07-05-2012 08:51AM

Ellis Dee wrote: »

To paraphrase the great Arthur C. Clarke, I suppose this idea will be put into practice fifty or so years after everyone stops laughing at it.

A space elevator fixed to ground and orbiting station is much more feasible than a ridiculous spacetram whose binaries are fixed to ground by... by... by...

Magic? Prayers?

Doc Ruby · 07-05-2012 08:56AM

jumpjack wrote: »

A space elevator fixed to ground and orbiting station is much more feasible than a ridiculous spacetram whose binaries are fixed to ground by... by... by... Magic? Prayers?

Generation one is a $20 billion 100km long cargo pod launcher, stretched up a mountainside, so fixed to the ground by a mountain. Generation two is the people carrier, although there's some talk of adopting gen1 for the same purpose, and it uses superconducting magnets to levitate the last stretch of track.

I dunno, maybe you know more than Sandia National Labs.

the_syco · 07-05-2012 10:35AM

If you timed it right, you could probably send rubbish on a one way trip to the sun?

Doc Ruby · 07-05-2012 11:00AM

the_syco wrote: »

If you timed it right, you could probably send rubbish on a one way trip to the sun?

No, don't think so. You'd have to have a much higher velocity for that. In a weird quirk of orbital mechanics its actually easier to send things into deep space than towards the sun. We even have bits of earlier spacecraft having swung round the sun for a few decades coming back towards the earth now.

What we'll probably have are garbage scows in orbit which direct the lumps of waste that were launched off to a dump somewhere outside Mars, to be refined when it reaches enough of a quantity. Which is another great thing about space, no pollution, you can do what you like.

The sheer volume of non-recyclable waste is impressive too, you'd need maybe a couple dozen units to take care of it all. Quite doable over time though! The economics might be a bit tricky at first but eventually its not going to be possible to just bulk-haul e-waste off to Indian and Nigerian villages for the locals to burn, so developed countries will need to find a more permanent solution.

jumpjack · 07-05-2012 02:06PM

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Generation one is a $20 billion 100km long cargo pod launcher, stretched up a mountainside, so fixed to the ground by a mountain. Generation two is the people carrier, although there's some talk of adopting gen1 for the same purpose, and it uses superconducting magnets to levitate the last stretch of track.

I dunno, maybe you know more than Sandia National Labs.

All I know is this insane image from Gizmag:

These cables should be 100 meters large on the ground to be 10 cm large at 10000 feet:

And anyway... they're just cables, how could they CARRY anithing?!?

Nasa image is not so better:

Doc Ruby · 07-05-2012 02:22PM

jumpjack wrote: »

And anyway... they're just cables, how could they CARRY anithing?!?

They aren't carrying it...

They're holding it down.

Science!

jumpjack wrote: »

Nasa image is not so better:

I agree the artwork could do with some updates, from my reading of the forum there will be more coming shortly, they've a few heavyweight artists signed up as well. A good basic overview post.

Cork boy 55 · 07-05-2012 06:08PM

What you save using such a thing for launch from Earth is cheap propellant, at the expense of complex infrastructure (including a rail and launching sled capable of carrying an orbital rocket and power systems for running them) and a more complicated vehicle. What makes spaceflight expensive isn't propellant cost, but costs of operating the infrastructure, setting up the vehicle, etc. Adding infrastructure and complexity to save propellant isn't the best approach to making spaceflight cheaper.

On the moon, though, it makes a lot more sense. Maglev technology could reach a sizable fraction of lunar orbital velocity without much trouble. And you can take some shortcuts with low gravity and no atmosphere to worry about...rather than have a long linear track that you dump a huge pulse of power into accelerating the payload along and high speed linear motors to accelerate the payload, have an unpowered circular track that's just passive maglev, or even just rail. Tether the craft to a central motorized rotor, boost it onto the track at enough speed to keep it levitated, and accelerate it with the tether until it's up to the desired velocity. Release when it's going in the desired direction.

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/116301-Alternative-to-chemical-rockets/page5

Doc Ruby · 07-05-2012 06:14PM

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

What you save using such a thing for launch from Earth is cheap propellant, at the expense of complex infrastructure (including a rail and launching sled capable of carrying an orbital rocket and power systems for running them) and a more complicated vehicle. What makes spaceflight expensive isn't propellant cost, but costs of operating the infrastructure, setting up the vehicle, etc. Adding infrastructure and complexity to save propellant isn't the best approach to making spaceflight cheaper.

On the moon, though, it makes a lot more sense. Maglev technology could reach a sizable fraction of lunar orbital velocity without much trouble. And you can take some shortcuts with low gravity and no atmosphere to worry about...rather than have a long linear track that you dump a huge pulse of power into accelerating the payload along and high speed linear motors to accelerate the payload, have an unpowered circular track that's just passive maglev, or even just rail. Tether the craft to a central motorized rotor, boost it onto the track at enough speed to keep it levitated, and accelerate it with the tether until it's up to the desired velocity. Release when it's going in the desired direction.

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/116301-Alternative-to-chemical-rockets/page5

0.004 of current launch costs to orbit.

That is all.

_Tombstone_ · 17-08-2015 03:08AM

Space Elevator Conference in the US this week.

http://www.isec.org/sec/

Capt'n Midnight · 20-08-2015 08:44PM

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Generation one is a $20 billion 100km long cargo pod launcher, stretched up a mountainside.

Roughly what's being spent on reinventing Apollo with SLS / Orion.

shedweller wrote: »

I will say this though, we'd want to watch what we send up and not add to the growing cloud of space junk. Given how cheap startram promises to be there could be any amount of stuff going up.

We could launch cheap mechanisms to deorbit stuff

_Tombstone_ · 20-11-2015 11:12PM

Ellis Dee wrote: »

To paraphrase the great Arthur C. Clarke, I suppose this idea will be put into practice fifty or so years after everyone stops laughing at it.

Came across this new Docu, didn't look at it yet, about the nice folk that intend to build clarkes Elevator. It's made on the back of this Kickstarter from last year.

Skyline

The concept of an elevator to space is not new. In the world of Arthur C. Clarke, it is a natural progression. What most people don't know is that men and women around the world are working hard to build it right this moment. Some want to solve the energy crisis, some want easier access to raw materials in the solar system, and some just want to travel to space and gaze upon their home planet. For all of them though, the elevator is more than just a science fiction plot, it is a way of life. Discover what happens when egos and passions collide in a quest to build the impossible.

Capt'n Midnight · 22-11-2015 01:26AM

IIRC using existing materials you could make a lunar elevator with an 80 tonne cable

Mars one is probable doable, might be a way to get people back off Mars. But you'd need a lot of food and radiation shielding for that trip.

cowboyBuilder · 24-11-2015 10:39AM

shedweller wrote: »

Gets my vote! 80bn is small compared to the trillions i'm used to hearing lately.
I will say this though, we'd want to watch what we send up and not add to the growing cloud of space junk. Given how cheap startram promises to be there could be any amount of stuff going up.

Especially the way they are chucking dishwashers and the like up there ..

_Tombstone_ · 30-11-2015 11:35PM

20,000 times smaller than a strand of human hair but perhaps the strongest material ever made

^^New Diamond Nanotube Material just discovered. This Elevator is gonna build itself.

http://www.space.com/31180-diamond-nanothreads-support-space-elevator.html

_Tombstone_ · 09-04-2016 03:46PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPQQwqGWktE

bogwalrus · 11-04-2016 01:25AM

That was an enlightening video. ty

Did anyone else spot this

Comments