h a l f b a k e r yApply directly to forehead.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
|
best idea of the day. bun. |
|
|
The USA now has a launch facility in Alaska. On Kodiak Island, I think. Apparently there are advantages to being further from the equator. + |
|
|
How much would it cost to pump the water to make a giant ice ramp? What track-launch mechanism do you propose for accelerating spaceships to the needed ~5 miles per second? |
|
|
Hey, Vikings in space, more power to you. I dont think a ramp would really help all that much though. |
|
|
It's going to be awfully slippy on the way up - but would make for a massive slide/toboggan run. |
|
|
Isn't there a fairly active volcano under Vatnajökull which has erupted fairly recently? |
|
|
//best idea of the day// The "delta-V assist" comes from launching near the equator, not from a ramp. Cheap hydrogen? One space shuttle launch cost half a billion. It burns half a million gallons of liquid H2. At $2 a gallon, that's one million dollars, or one-fifth of one percent of the total launch cost. Insignificant. |
|
|
Agreed that the raw cost of hydrogen is not the biggest burden on a space launch. Rather it seems supporting infrastructure, read: Nasa bureaucracy, and the fact that rocket-engine costs generally increase exponentially with size (especially the turbinepump variations). |
|
|
Therefore, the largest potential saving would come from using the spaceramplaunch assist, enabling a smaller engine SSTO and naturally smaller rockets can do without all the Nasa overhead as opposed to the outdated overpriced Space Shuttle. The cheaper hydrogen, aluminum and electricity for the rocket and or the launchassist are imho all together not insignificant and can be considered added bonus. |
|
| |