Startram — Maglev Train To Low Earth Orbit 356
Zothecula writes "Getting into space is one of the harder tasks to be taken on by humanity. The present cost of inserting a kilogram 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 train and taking a train ride into orbit."
Fucking magnets (Score:5, Funny)
Now, how is this going to work?
Re:Fucking magnets (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Fucking magnets (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fucking magnets (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm guessing accelerate it at 3gs for a period of 5 minutes.
If the craft is designed with any level of extraplanetary shielding in mind, it'll be able to reduce the EM bleedthrough to significantly below MRI levels, and 5 minutes in an MRI is generally not considered hazardous for a human. If they can't reasonably reduce the EM effect onboard low enough to be safe for electronics, you will probably have a secure faraday box to stow them in during launch.
Re:Fucking magnets (Score:4, Insightful)
I think he was maybe referring to the people on the ground in the area of the launch tube. I would imagine that you would have to build this thing on the ocean or in the Sahara desert to keep it from playing havoc with nearby electronics.
Re:Fucking magnets (Score:5, Interesting)
I know that a sample of one is insignifigant, but my dad was a lineman working with voltages up to 90k. He could not wear a wristwatch unless it was completely made of non-ferrous material, because when he put it on after work, an hour later it stopped. Apparently his hemoglobin was magnetized. Yet he's now 80 and still in good health.
I wouldn't worry about the magnetic fields. Apparently having your blood megnetized is harmless.
Of course, the fact that his uncle started smoking cigarettes at age 12, quit at age 82 and lived ten more years illustrates that a sample of one is indeed insignifigant and perhaps meaningless. Me, I'd risk magnetic blood for a chance to go to outer space anyway, as I have half of dad's genes.
Re:Fucking magnets (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow. That's pretty damn impressive -- that despite the fluid nature of blood the spins retained magnetic order over macroscopic distances *after* bouncing around through his arteries.
Re:Fucking magnets (Score:5, Informative)
The blood system does carry an electrical current, so it makes sense that there would be a related magnetic field. And (speculating) if a large number of individual cells had become weakly magnetized (acquired some magnetic alignment in materials in the cell), then it stands to reason that they would continue to maintain some small level of orientation for a while, as each one tends to encourage the neighbors to stay aligned.
Look up "Biologically Closed Electrical Circuits, by Björn Nordenström a very well-regarded pathologist, who was allowed in the 1960s to perform studies and experiments on terminally ill patients. He proved that there is an electrical current that flows through your blood stream, and that any inflammation involves a current flow as well. There's like a little fountain of current through that owie on your hand. Also through cancers, etc. In his experiments (on patients who were terminally ill of at least two different diseases, a requirement required to allow him to do the work), he was also able to show that many such diseases - cancerous lesions among others - could be shrunk and actually cured by reversing the current flow.
The original book of that title is oriented toward researchers in that field, is very technical and very expensive - IIRC $700? - but it is often available at college libraries, and there are several other books that are oriented more toward non-technical readers. There is also an association [readywebsites.com] that has been supporting ongoing research, some of which has shown very encouraging results with localized tumors.
Dr. Nordenström was quite familiar with negative reactions from his colleagues. As his accomplishments grew, he became Head of Diagnostic Radiology at Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. He also authored or co-authored more than 150 publications in radiology, electrobiology and pharmacology. He was a member of the Nobel Assembly from 1967 through 1986, and served as President of the Assembly in 1985. Even with these credentials, many of his ideas, such as needle biopsy and balloon catheterization were initially met with significant amounts of opposition by his peers.
Biologically closed electric circuits and cancer (Score:3)
Free Google Books preview of that book by Nordenstrom: http://books.google.com/books/about/Biologically_closed_electric_circuits.html?id=zb-3YzIn4ZcC [google.com]
There might well be something to it, but please also look into vitamin D and vegetables as a way to prevent or minimize cancer:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/cancer/ [vitamindcouncil.org]
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/article24.aspx [drfuhrman.com]
Re:Fucking magnets (Score:5, Funny)
Apparently his hemoglobin was magnetized. Yet he's now 80 and still in good health.
Another benefit is that when you're lost, you can just float your dad in a lake as a compass...
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You can't use your laptop at take off because the rocket will fall out of the sky.
Re:Fucking magnets (Score:5, Informative)
Absolutely nothing at all. Magnetic field drops off according to inverse _cube_ law. So the field will be barely detectable at that distance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Fucking magnets (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's a question: When you are accelerating a multi-ton mass at 3G up to the top of a tube that is 24 times higher than the highest skyscraper in the world, how do you keep it from buckling under the force? Don't assume that the designers have thought about stuff like this, because most of the time they have not. They just worked out the basics on the back of a cocktail napkin and got all excited.
Space elevator enthusiasts tend to be really bad about this. They're dreamers, not engineers.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Fucking magnets (Score:5, Insightful)
This is one of the big problems with our society as I see it, and a giant impediment to us actually making any real technological progress beyond building ourselves more handheld gadgets to entertain ourselves with, which aren't going to help us much with upcoming resource and energy shortages. We need to be building big superconducting structures, vacuum tubes, maglev tracks, etc. A space elevator or maglev train to orbit or undersea intercontinental vacuum tunnel or whatever is a monumental undertaking, yet the only experience we have with these technologies is very small-scale lab experiments, not any real-world production examples in the medium scale to refine our knowledge and techniques before we try building something really huge. And without any proven experience outside the lab, there's not going to be many investors willing to fund the megascale projects.
Re: (Score:3)
These "handheld gadgets" gave us Li-Ion batteries, which made all-electric cars practical... That's pretty damn huge.
These kinds of things are called "prestige projects"... meaning, in-short, they're massively impractical, but SOUND impressive
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
These "handheld gadgets" gave us Li-Ion batteries, which made all-electric cars practical... That's pretty damn huge.
If we had had a bigger push for EVs earlier, more advanced batteries would have been researched and developed earlier, rather than waiting for handheld gadgets to drive the market.
Frankly, vocal proponents of maglevs are also preventing us from just developing traditional high-speed rail, which France has shown to be imminently practical, and still very fast.
You've got to be kidding. France
Re: (Score:2)
Train romance (Score:4, Insightful)
I can imagine quite a bit (Score:5, Funny)
If I'm going to fantasize about shit that will never be built, I'd rather dream of the sexbot. Oh perfect robotic woman---who is always horny, cooks and cleans, never wants diamonds, has no parents, never drones about about some bitch at work, never cheats, never complains about wanting a bigger house or nicer car---how I dream of thee.
Re: (Score:2)
...never complains about wanting a bigger... "dork"
Re: (Score:2)
If I'm going to fantasize about shit that will never be built, I'd rather dream of the sexbot. Oh perfect robotic woman---who is always horny, cooks and cleans, never wants diamonds, has no parents, never drones about about some bitch at work, never cheats, never complains about wanting a bigger house or nicer car...
...doesn't care if you're a neckbeard. seems turned on by the fact that you're a fat slob who hasn't bathed in three days, etc. etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
She sounds dreadfully boring. You'd probably hate her within a few months.
Re: (Score:3)
Then I just flash her with a new personality.
Re: (Score:2)
PMS once a quarter, just for the entertainment.
Re:I can imagine quite a bit (Score:5, Insightful)
A robot like that would never settle for a slash dotter.
Re: (Score:3)
She will when we find a way to jailbreak her.
Re:I can imagine quite a bit (Score:4, Insightful)
F that. I'd settle for understanding how magnets work.
<deftly bringing the thread almost back on-topic.>
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine no more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_2000 [wikipedia.org]
. . . now about that memory chip necessary . . .
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
My God! He never took middle school hygiene. He never saw the propaganda film.
DON'T DATE ROBOTS!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Robosexuals are people too! And also robots!
Re: (Score:2)
Did you just call him a romosexual?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"sudo let's go into the bedroom and get comfortable."
Re: (Score:3)
now it's just a minor matter of engineering (Score:2)
Re:now it's just a minor matter of engineering (Score:4, Insightful)
All they need is a trillion $ and a bunch of technology that hasn't been invented yet. Easy Peasy.
Re:now it's just a minor matter of engineering (Score:4, Informative)
There are two proposed configurations of Startram, Generation-1 and Generation-2. Gen-1 Startram is a cargo-only version which does not require levitated tubes (but instead is built up the flank of a tall mountain) and could be built within ten years at a cost of $20 Billion. Gen-2 Startram is a people-capable version which does require levitated tubes and could be built within twenty years at a cost of $60 Billion.
[citation] [startram.com]
ohmygod. I want some of whatever they're smoking. At those low, low prices, everybody can have one.
Re: (Score:2)
$20 billion is 1% of the cost of the Iraq war. We piss away mountains of money on things far less useful (and far more harmful) than shooting bunnies into space.
Re: (Score:2)
Would they be ski bunnies?
(Side of a mountain joke.)
Re: (Score:2)
$20 billion is only a shade more expensive than the 2012 Olympic Games. Sod it, build one every 4 years!
Re:now it's just a minor matter of engineering (Score:5, Insightful)
$20 Billion is approximately NASA's yearly budget. Much more apt comparison.
Sodor (Score:3, Funny)
So will the spaceport will be built at Sodor?
Re: (Score:2)
Tidmouth. Obviously.
Alternatives (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
35756 Km of cable is going to weigh quite a bit no matter what you make it out of, multiply that by $10,000 per Kg and you've got one heck of a problem to solve right there when it comes to building a space elevator. Several non-rocket launch technologies, the star tram included, can be build from the ground, you could build the whole thing without a single rocket launch. The same can be said about space fountains and (my personal non-rocket launch technology) launch loops.
Re: (Score:3)
There are many unsolved issues with regards to a Space Elevator, but lifting 36,000 km of cable isn't necessarily one of the most significant problems. Most projections or descriptions I've come across describe things such that we would manufacture and lower the cable from orbit. Now granted, this itself presents many problems since you would have to create all that infrastructure "up there" and then find/capture source material. But you also need to do that for the counterweight. You're certainly not g
Need to mag-lev a megastructure to 20km (Score:2)
I can't see anything impractical or horrifically energy-intensive about this system.
Re:Need to mag-lev a megastructure to 20km (Score:5, Funny)
I can't see anything impractical or horrifically energy-intensive about this system.
That's because the article doesn't fill you in on all the important facts:
- it would be built by British Rail.
A better idea that a space elevator (Score:5, Informative)
1. Requires no materials we don't already have
2. Would allow for continuous launches. This tube could be used every 15 minutes or so for another payload
3. Fairly massively spaceships could be launched this way
4. Once you get into LEO, getting around in space is relatively easy and cheap.
Downsides : the forces involved here are extreme. There's enormous magnetic fields, the whole structure is suspended in the air, it's over 1000 miles long, and depends on various complex pieces of tech to not rip itself apart. If the vacuum leaks or the plasma window fails or a magnet gets too much current, a chunk or even the whole damn launcher could spectacularly fail.
In addition, the estimated costs have got to be a factor of 10 too optimistic. 60 billion dollars? For something constructed of tens of thousands of miles of superconducting cable and a structure made to aerospace engineering tolerances that is 1000 miles long? Even 600 billion sounds optimistic for something that large.
Re: (Score:2)
umm where do i go and buy a plasma window? or the materials that can handle the strain of this? nothing this thing is made of can be made by modern materials...
Re:A better idea that a space elevator (Score:4, Informative)
1. Requires no materials we don't already have 2. Would allow for continuous launches. This tube could be used every 15 minutes or so for another payload 3. Fairly massively spaceships could be launched this way 4. Once you get into LEO, getting around in space is relatively easy and cheap.
Downsides : the forces involved here are extreme. There's enormous magnetic fields, the whole structure is suspended in the air, it's over 1000 miles long, and depends on various complex pieces of tech to not rip itself apart. If the vacuum leaks or the plasma window fails or a magnet gets too much current, a chunk or even the whole damn launcher could spectacularly fail.
In addition, the estimated costs have got to be a factor of 10 too optimistic. 60 billion dollars? For something constructed of tens of thousands of miles of superconducting cable and a structure made to aerospace engineering tolerances that is 1000 miles long? Even 600 billion sounds optimistic for something that large.
The Gizmag author forgot to read these guys web-page apparently.
Whitepaper
FAQ
The version the 'requires no materials we don't have today' is built into the side of a mountain and would kill any person you tried to launch using it. Basically a massive rail-gun for getting payloads to orbit. They're especially interested in space based solar power generation. (Because launching solar panels into space and beaming the power down to a receiving station near population centers is better than putting solar panels in the desert and running power to city centers via cables?)
Re: (Score:2)
They're especially interested in space based solar power generation. (Because launching solar panels into space and beaming the power down to a receiving station near population centers is better than putting solar panels in the desert and running power to city centers via cables?)
Putting solar panels in the desert isn't feasible because you'd need a 1000km long superconducting cable to carry the power to the cities...
you know it's inevitable... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In addition, the estimated costs have got to be a factor of 10 too optimistic. 60 billion dollars? For something constructed of tens of thousands of miles of superconducting cable and a structure made to aerospace engineering tolerances that is 1000 miles long? Even 600 billion sounds optimistic for something that large.
Not to mention that the idea is that the entire tube holds a vacuum, which buoys it up, and it's held DOWN with tethers. How do you even construct that? There are no cranes to LEO. Even if you put them in place, and empty out the gas slowly so that it rises (without coming to a sudden stop at the end that breaks a tether), each segment is probably hundreds of pounds of metal. Imagine being miles in the air, wrestling with an enormous hunk of metal that's tied to the earth in what you can only hope is th
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't say it's a factor of 10 too expensive. Instead I'd say that a lot of development work needs to be done on simpler projects...like mag-lev trains for cross-continental travel, and a few other sub-components. Each one of the needed technologies can be developed in the process of constructing something useful, so you don't need to charge the developmental work against the launch device.
As for magnetic problems, Faraday cages are old technology that still works, and anything built out of steel can
cost, $60 billion? (Score:2)
So, triple it for a realistic estimate: $180 billion. Now, that sounds like a lot of money, but when you consider that the total amount of money flushed down the toilet for the Iraq war will probably be an order of magnitude above that, it's play money. We just have to convince people that there's oil in LEO.
Re:cost, $60 billion? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Another form of accounting put the cost of 135 shuttle launches at $170B - you do need to include program startup and shutdown costs.
Re:cost, $60 billion? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm skeptical of the cost. $60B 2010 dollars is the estimated cost for high speed rail from SF and Sacramento to LA and San Diego. You're telling me I can get a maglev to fucking space for that much? Please do it if it's true, but I don't believe it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'm no expert on the issue, but I will say that this maglev only needs a single station instead of several along the line.
Personally I'm in favor of using a launch loop instead however.
so... (Score:2)
a rail gun you can ride?
Energy requirements are the same (Score:3, Insightful)
The energy requirements to get into orbit are practically the same no matter what method you use. Yes there is some savings from air resistance if you do it at a slower speed but it's not that much.
The only savings will be from a safety standpoint or similar. The energy costs will still be enormous.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Posting Anon to save my mods. Don't the savings come in not accelerating your fuel?
Re:Energy requirements are the same (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, that's true, except in as much that it's not. This system would save you all the fuel it takes to launch all your fuel. The air resistance is anything but negligible at 7 times the speed of sound. That's disregarding the propulsion inefficiency of rocket fuel compared to magnetic force. Not to mention the risk/preparation costs for a launch. All estimates I've seen of the differences are measured in orders of magnitude. While a space elevator is generally considered impossible at this time, it really would be worth the cost.
Re: (Score:3)
The energy requirements to get into orbit are practically the same no matter what method you use.
True, but very misleading. If you are in a rocket, the energy cost for the cargo is the same, but there is also the energy cost of getting all of the fuel that you need. A typical rocket getting to LEO or GEO is over 90% fuel, so under 10% of the energy cost of the launch is the cost of something that is not required if you are providing the impulse from the ground.
Re: (Score:2)
It makes a big difference whether or not you need to lift part way up the fuel to take you the rest of the way up. That's the basic reason that rockets are so much less efficient than jet engines. (Jets only need to lift half their fuel.) With this approach you need to lift hardly any of the fuel you would use to get to orbit. Only enough to allow maneuvering. Of course, you still need the fuel that you're going to use while in space, but for that you can use one variety or another of electric rocket,
Re: (Score:2)
10 megajoules of electricity is a lot easier to come by than 10 megajoules of rocket fuel, especially once I get up to a few 10's of km.
Re:Energy requirements are the same (Score:5, Informative)
The actual energy requirements to get into orbit are pretty small, when you run the math. A couple hundred kg at standard kWh costs would be a couple hundred USD (don't remember the exact numbers and don't feel like doing them again. I actually ran the math to get from Earth surface to infinity: LEO would be much cheaper). You also need to accelerate to get orbital velocity, but again that actually doesn't take that much energy. The problem is, rockets are extremely inefficient. Hence why people want space elevators: technically, you could get to space, personally, for 50-60 dollars using that method. Now, this is pure physics: the actual energy cost is much higher, but even assuming only decent energy efficiency, it still wouldn't cost more than a thousand or so after you get the system set up.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Energy requirements are the same (Score:4, Informative)
Love love LOVE the artwork (Score:2)
Image 4 looks way too much like an 1850's Toile pattern for this to possibly be a serious attempt to devise a way to get to space.
Really interesting idea (Score:2)
I like the idea of building it on the ground then mag lev'ing it up. Makes building it a lot easier....
20 years is in my lifetime and 60 billion is less than 4 years of NASA's current budget. So 20 years of NASA's budget should easily be able to pay for this AND still have money for other stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Better than the space tether crap which requires manufacturing capabilities we don't have.
I like the idea of building it on the ground then mag lev'ing it up. Makes building it a lot easier....
20 years is in my lifetime and 60 billion is less than 4 years of NASA's current budget. So 20 years of NASA's budget should easily be able to pay for this AND still have money for other stuff.
That might be the case if the estimate had any basis in reality whatsoever.
Hell, a high-speed rail system of similar length to the launch track using conventional, proven technology is expected to cost around $100 billion [ca.gov]; evolutionary development of a new airliner is running about $30 billion [nwsource.com]; somehow I think it is extremely unlikely they could come anywhere near their cost estimate given the scale and number of unknowns here. It would probably take 50% of the budget just to design and build the launch veh
Re: (Score:3)
The trouble is that it is impossible for the US government to accomplish any project of large enough size to be political and which will take more than four years.
Well, unless it involves the military -- they've bamboozled the electorate into pretty consistently fellating them regardless of the wisdom of whatever it is they are doing.
Hmmm, 1600 km of superconductors... (Score:5, Interesting)
That works out to an energy density of (mgh)=1.5e9 J/m. Multiply that by 1600 km, and you get 2.5e15 J, or half a megaton, equivalent to the yield of a small hydrogen bomb. Anyone ever see a superconducting magnet quench?
Space junk, meteorites, and terrorist. (Score:2)
Falling space junk, meteorites, and terrorist. Which one takes out the $60B elevator first?
Re: (Score:2)
Falling space junk, meteorites, and terrorist. Which one takes out the $60B elevator first?
Oh will you people give it a fucking rest about terr'sts? I see this "oh but the Jihadists might try to attack it" on almost every single major engineering post on /. these days and it's getting on my wick. Why don't you demolish the Golden Gate Bridge and Hoover Dam before they get to those landmarks, hmm? Why don't you sit in the house and don't move in case anything bad happens?
Christ, you'd think terrorism was invented in 2001 to listen to you. What do you think the people of Israel and Palestine have b
Uses already available technology (Score:2)
Uses already available technology?
What like teleportation? If we're using already existing technology- why not teleport stuff up into space.
OK- OK- so we have no Star Trek like teleportation yet... we also don't have space-trains yet either.
Don't get me wrong sounds neat- if you ignore that it's an easy terrorist target/war target; vulnerable to natural disasters (cannot be moved); we have no concept of what it would realistically cost to build something like this- and you have the whole concept of NIMBY
Re: (Score:2)
Ooops- forgot to link my Wikipedia link to teleportation [wikipedia.org]
cargo version much more practical (Score:4, Interesting)
The thing that makes this such a ridiculous engineering project is the requirement to carry humans, who can't be subjected to more than about 3 g's. The length of the track is inversely proportional to the acceleration, so if you're sending up steel I-beams that can withstand 3000 g's, you can shorten the track to 1 mile rather than 1000 miles. Tanks of water and rocket fuel can also be subjected to a lot more than 3 g's.
How is this possible? (Score:4, Insightful)
I was reading through it and initially thought it was just flinging the train from the ground up... but apparently it needs a TWELVE MILE HIGH RAMP!... that is not practical. If you used Mount Everest to get a head start it would help but it wouldn't get it near enough to that mark to matter. How the hell does anyone think building this would be possible?
the space elevator ideas are less crazy and they're kookoo for cocopuffs...
Re: (Score:2)
You're imagining a 12 mile high roller coaster. They're proposing a pair of superconducting cables, one on the 'ramp' and one on the ground, that would repel each other, lifting the ramp into the air (stabilized by cables). Obviously there's some difficulties there, but they aren't talking about building a compressive structure 12 miles high. Personally I prefer the launch loop idea, which uses kinetic energy to hold the ramp and transfer power to the launch vehicle, since I feel there's less unknowns th
Re: (Score:3)
How are you defining "practical"? Remember we're already talking about a $60,000,000,000 project
Re:How is this possible? A Helical Accelerator! (Score:2)
Make the acceleration track a helix and see if you can keep the gs down to 3gs with a reasonable diameter on the helix. I don't know, but I am not going to take a ride on it in my lifetime.
Simple! (Score:2)
It only has to be 1000 miles long and 12 miles tall!
Can we go back to making more cost effective wind turbines, please?
Re: (Score:2)
All the equations that say what is and isn't 'possible' in space are really describing what is and isn't economical. If you cut the cost of LEO by 2 or 3 orders of magnitude, lots of things that sound ridiculously impractical now become feasible. If you can cut the cost of LEO from $10,000 / kg to $100 / kg, space based solar becomes practical. If you drop it to $10 / kg it becomes the cheapest energy source available. And that's ignoring all the other benefits that cheap LEO travel would bring.
wtf? (Score:4, Funny)
Did I accidentally browse to "Popular Science Online"?
Nice pictures. Never happen. (Score:3)
In the US at least, we can't even get funding for maglev trains ON THE GROUND. Until the economy is better (in, oh in another 500 years or so) nobody is going to fund something like this.
Re: (Score:3)
The Chinese have the money. And the manpower.
A "free" ramp of 5 miles is available... (Score:2)
Mt. Everest !!
29,002 ft = 5 miles
Literary mentions (Score:2)
Novel by Miyazawa Kenji: Night on the Galactic Railroad [wikipedia.org]
Manga & Anime: Ginga Tetsudou 999 [wikipedia.org]
Interesting concept... (Score:2)
...but better suited for a sci-fi novel rather than any serious contemplation. Look at all the trouble we have with building tall buildings AND magnetic installations. We are no where NEAR ready to take on something like this.
Kind of like the space elevator. Another concept that's several hundred years away from practicality, if ever.
I'd rather see us spend some real effort in improving the tech we currently have and are stuck with for the foreseeable future.
Re: (Score:2)
Even before that. The Man Who Sold the Moon.
Re: (Score:2)
Great book. One of my favorites.
For high g cargo it makes total sense, nothing too crazy required.
They assume 3g as a max. I bet you could do 6 pretty easy. Reading up, looks like if you are reclined it could be 10+ even for untrained folks.
Re: (Score:3)
Which direction do you think fuel costs are going to go over the next 20 years?