Religions > Atheism > OT: Another fuel-free way to launch objects into space....
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Uncle Buck" |
| Date: |
28 Feb 2006 11:01:56 PM |
| Object: |
OT: Another fuel-free way to launch objects into space.... |
This idea may have been proposed already, but it just came to me. The only two
proposals for fuel-free rocket launches I've seen rely one on a kind of "ski
ramp" and the other a slingshot. This way is vaguely related to the slingshot
method, only it relies on chains & weight. See crude ascii diagram below:
/
_.... /|\ +---------+
,;-----:-. | .' ,-----. \
,'/ \ \ | + / \ |
/ / \ `. | | / \ +
+ ( B1 ) | | |( B2 )|
| \ / | | \ \ / /
\ \ / | | \ / |
| `-----' | ,-. | `-----' |
| | ,' `. | /
| | / \ | ,---.
,-+-. | ; : + / ` \
,' `. / ; : | / \
/ \ | ; : | / \
; : | | | | ; :
| A1 | | | C | | | A2 |
: ; | | | | : ;
\ / | : ; | \ /
`. ,' | : ; | \ /
'---' `. : ; + \ /
`.\ / / `---'
. \`. ,' .'
| `.'-' / |
| `...+ |
\|/ \|/
You can probably see the general concept - a weighted pully system, somewhat
like in a grandfather clock. Weights (A1 & A2) are suspended up high by locked
pullies (B1 & B2). The payload (C) is in the middle - in reality, it'd be much
lower than the weights, but I don't want to use too much space for this to be
easily read. It's resting in a nest attached to the other end of the chains the
weights are on. When it's time to launch, the locks on the pullies come of,
they tumble down and send the payload flying.
I only drew two weights here, but it would actually be a better idea to have the
necessary weight distributed among as many chains and pulley systems as
possible. This would reduce the strain on any given chain and help safeguard
the safety of the payload - one chain out of two breaking could possibly be a
catastrophe. One or two out of hundreds would be just another failed launch.
Another advantage if you happened to have one of these in a mostly sunny region:
you can have the pullies be "rewound" with solar-powered engines prior to
readying the next payload, this the launch could truly be 100% natural and only
enough fuel for steering & reentry would be required.
The nest would probably be best kept in a tubular chamber burrowed into the
ground, the weights hanging high in the air above the ground with their own
holes dug to fall into on their descent. That would keep the device from
needing to be too tall.
That's it, I'm exhausted and tired of thinking. Hope to see you some other
time. ;-)
--
L8r,
Uncle Buck
************************************************
The true mark of a civilized society is when its
citizens know how to hate each other peacefully.
************************************************
Put another way, a society can't claim the right
to label itself "civilized" until and unless its
citizens master "The Art of Peaceful Conflict".
************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Another fuel-free way to launch objects into space.... |
01 Mar 2006 12:04:28 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Buck" <UncleBuck@SpamMeNot.com> wrote in message
news:6l9a02p1stmp3crsmujrj9doe08pkg6v2e@4ax.com...
This idea may have been proposed already, but it just came to me. The
only two
proposals for fuel-free rocket launches I've seen rely one on a kind of
"ski
ramp" and the other a slingshot. This way is vaguely related to the
slingshot
method, only it relies on chains & weight. See crude ascii diagram below:
/
_.... /|\ +---------+
,;-----:-. | .' ,-----. \
,'/ \ \ | + / \ |
/ / \ `. | | / \ +
+ ( B1 ) | | |( B2 )|
| \ / | | \ \ / /
\ \ / | | \ / |
| `-----' | ,-. | `-----' |
| | ,' `. | /
| | / \ | ,---.
,-+-. | ; : + / ` \
,' `. / ; : | / \
/ \ | ; : | / \
; : | | | | ; :
| A1 | | | C | | | A2 |
: ; | | | | : ;
\ / | : ; | \ /
`. ,' | : ; | \ /
'---' `. : ; + \ /
`.\ / / `---'
. \`. ,' .'
| `.'-' / |
| `...+ |
\|/ \|/
You can probably see the general concept - a weighted pully system,
somewhat
like in a grandfather clock. Weights (A1 & A2) are suspended up high by
locked
pullies (B1 & B2). The payload (C) is in the middle - in reality, it'd be
much
lower than the weights, but I don't want to use too much space for this to
be
easily read. It's resting in a nest attached to the other end of the
chains the
weights are on. When it's time to launch, the locks on the pullies come
of,
they tumble down and send the payload flying.
The one I liked the best was something like a free-wheeling space elevator.
You had big weights on either end, and it spun end over end in orbit. As it
spun, the ends would dip down into the atmosphere. You time the spin with
the rotational speed of the earth so that the end dipping into the
atmosphere is laterally motionless with respect to the surface of the earth.
So this big weight looks like it dips straight down into the atmosphere, you
swap a payload for the weight as it hangs there nearly motionless for a
moment, and then it lifts smoothly back up into space. Then you wait for the
other end to arrive.
Cool!
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Another fuel-free way to launch objects into space.... |
01 Mar 2006 10:55:21 AM |
|
|
In a message sent 'round the world, Uncle Buck poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
This idea may have been proposed already, but it just came to me. The only two
proposals for fuel-free rocket launches I've seen rely one on a kind of "ski
ramp" and the other a slingshot.
....
Ever hear tell of the space elevator?
http://tinyurl.com/12v2
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast07sep_1.htm
Regards,
Josef
To be uncertain is uncomfortable; to be certain is ridiculous.
-- Chinese proverb
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Another fuel-free way to launch objects into space.... |
02 Mar 2006 05:59:49 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 11:55:21 -0500, Josef Balluch
<josef.balluch@sympatico.can> wrote in alt.atheism
In a message sent 'round the world, Uncle Buck poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
This idea may have been proposed already, but it just came to me. The only two
proposals for fuel-free rocket launches I've seen rely one on a kind of "ski
ramp" and the other a slingshot.
...
Ever hear tell of the space elevator?
It doesn't reach the 'top floor'........
[whistling]
[]
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Another fuel-free way to launch objects into space.... |
02 Mar 2006 06:59:12 PM |
|
|
stoney <stoney@the.net> said:
On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 11:55:21 -0500, Josef Balluch
<josef.balluch@sympatico.can> wrote in alt.atheism
In a message sent 'round the world, Uncle Buck poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
This idea may have been proposed already, but it just came to me. The only two
proposals for fuel-free rocket launches I've seen rely one on a kind of "ski
ramp" and the other a slingshot.
...
Ever hear tell of the space elevator?
It doesn't reach the 'top floor'........
[whistling]
Hey, there's another idea: The ultimate penthouse suite.
--- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Another fuel-free way to launch objects into space.... |
03 Mar 2006 12:57:32 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 00:59:12 GMT, Jim07D6 <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in
alt.atheism
stoney <stoney@the.net> said:
On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 11:55:21 -0500, Josef Balluch
<josef.balluch@sympatico.can> wrote in alt.atheism
In a message sent 'round the world, Uncle Buck poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
This idea may have been proposed already, but it just came to me. The only two
proposals for fuel-free rocket launches I've seen rely one on a kind of "ski
ramp" and the other a slingshot.
Ever hear tell of the space elevator?
It doesn't reach the 'top floor'........
[whistling]
Hey, there's another idea: The ultimate penthouse suite.
With blondes, brunettes, and redheads. Sweet.
--- Jim07D6
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harry F. Leopold" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Another fuel-free way to launch objects into space.... |
01 Mar 2006 04:16:55 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 23:01:56 -0600, Uncle Buck wrote
(in article <6l9a02p1stmp3crsmujrj9doe08pkg6v2e@4ax.com>):
This idea may have been proposed already, but it just came to me. The only
two
proposals for fuel-free rocket launches I've seen rely one on a kind of "ski
ramp" and the other a slingshot. This way is vaguely related to the
slingshot
method, only it relies on chains & weight. See crude ascii diagram below:
/
_.... /|\ +---------+
,;-----:-. | .' ,-----. \
,'/ \ \ | + / \ |
/ / \ `. | | / \ +
+ ( B1 ) | | |( B2 )|
| \ / | | \ \ / /
\ \ / | | \ / |
| `-----' | ,-. | `-----' |
| | ,' `. | /
| | / \ | ,---.
,-+-. | ; : + / ` \
,' `. / ; : | / \
/ \ | ; : | / \
; : | | | | ; :
A1 | | | C | | | A2 |
; | | | | : ;
\ / | : ; | \ /
`. ,' | : ; | \ /
'---' `. : ; + \ /
`.\ / / `---'
. \`. ,' .'
| `.'-' / |
| `...+ |
\|/ \|/
You can probably see the general concept - a weighted pully system, somewhat
like in a grandfather clock. Weights (A1 & A2) are suspended up high by
locked
pullies (B1 & B2). The payload (C) is in the middle - in reality, it'd be
much
lower than the weights, but I don't want to use too much space for this to be
easily read. It's resting in a nest attached to the other end of the chains
the
weights are on. When it's time to launch, the locks on the pullies come of,
they tumble down and send the payload flying.
I only drew two weights here, but it would actually be a better idea to have
the
necessary weight distributed among as many chains and pulley systems as
possible. This would reduce the strain on any given chain and help safeguard
the safety of the payload - one chain out of two breaking could possibly be a
catastrophe. One or two out of hundreds would be just another failed launch.
Another advantage if you happened to have one of these in a mostly sunny
region:
you can have the pullies be "rewound" with solar-powered engines prior to
readying the next payload, this the launch could truly be 100% natural and
only
enough fuel for steering & reentry would be required.
The nest would probably be best kept in a tubular chamber burrowed into the
ground, the weights hanging high in the air above the ground with their own
holes dug to fall into on their descent. That would keep the device from
needing to be too tall.
That's it, I'm exhausted and tired of thinking. Hope to see you some other
time. ;-)
To launch something into orbit with this, or with the canon launcher, would
smear you into jelly with the g's.
A much better way, as far as I know, is to use lasers on the ground to launch
it, but that would take one hell of a lot of power. But at least it would be
serviceable from the ground and you don't have to carry your fuel with you.
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
(remove gene to email)
"You think atoms like having a half-life?"
Incenjucar
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Another fuel-free way to launch objects into space.... |
01 Mar 2006 09:12:10 AM |
|
|
Harry F. Leopold wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 23:01:56 -0600, Uncle Buck wrote
(in article <6l9a02p1stmp3crsmujrj9doe08pkg6v2e@4ax.com>):
This idea may have been proposed already, but it just came to me. The only
two
proposals for fuel-free rocket launches I've seen rely one on a kind of "ski
ramp" and the other a slingshot. This way is vaguely related to the
slingshot
method, only it relies on chains & weight. See crude ascii diagram below:
For anime fans, think "Moldiver".
To launch something into orbit with this, or with the canon launcher, would
smear you into jelly with the g's.
Not if the fanciful idea I mention below could be done.
A much better way, as far as I know, is to use lasers on the ground to launch
it, but that would take one hell of a lot of power. But at least it would be
serviceable from the ground and you don't have to carry your fuel with you.
One British sci-fi comic I read as a kid (Eagle? 2000 AD?) had
a guy sent to the moon and brought back via magnetic repulsion.
Maybe magnets and superconductors of enormous size and using
unfathomable amounts of electricity could move something, but I
doubt it could ever be anything of significant size, and even
then probably not as high as weather balloons can go.
But, at least, the g-forces would be unimportant.
Bob Dog
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Another fuel-free way to launch objects into space.... |
01 Mar 2006 12:01:34 AM |
|
|
Uncle Buck <UncleBuck@SpamMeNot.com> said:
This idea may have been proposed already, but it just came to me. The only two
proposals for fuel-free rocket launches I've seen rely one on a kind of "ski
ramp" and the other a slingshot. This way is vaguely related to the slingshot
method, only it relies on chains & weight. See crude ascii diagram below:
/
_.... /|\ +---------+
,;-----:-. | .' ,-----. \
,'/ \ \ | + / \ |
/ / \ `. | | / \ +
+ ( B1 ) | | |( B2 )|
| \ / | | \ \ / /
\ \ / | | \ / |
| `-----' | ,-. | `-----' |
| | ,' `. | /
| | / \ | ,---.
,-+-. | ; : + / ` \
,' `. / ; : | / \
/ \ | ; : | / \
; : | | | | ; :
| A1 | | | C | | | A2 |
: ; | | | | : ;
\ / | : ; | \ /
`. ,' | : ; | \ /
'---' `. : ; + \ /
`.\ / / `---'
. \`. ,' .'
| `.'-' / |
| `...+ |
\|/ \|/
You can probably see the general concept - a weighted pully system, somewhat
like in a grandfather clock. Weights (A1 & A2) are suspended up high by locked
pullies (B1 & B2). The payload (C) is in the middle - in reality, it'd be much
lower than the weights, but I don't want to use too much space for this to be
easily read. It's resting in a nest attached to the other end of the chains the
weights are on. When it's time to launch, the locks on the pullies come of,
they tumble down and send the payload flying.
I only drew two weights here, but it would actually be a better idea to have the
necessary weight distributed among as many chains and pulley systems as
possible. This would reduce the strain on any given chain and help safeguard
the safety of the payload - one chain out of two breaking could possibly be a
catastrophe. One or two out of hundreds would be just another failed launch.
Another advantage if you happened to have one of these in a mostly sunny region:
you can have the pullies be "rewound" with solar-powered engines prior to
readying the next payload, this the launch could truly be 100% natural and only
enough fuel for steering & reentry would be required.
The nest would probably be best kept in a tubular chamber burrowed into the
ground, the weights hanging high in the air above the ground with their own
holes dug to fall into on their descent. That would keep the device from
needing to be too tall.
That's it, I'm exhausted and tired of thinking. Hope to see you some other
time. ;-)
Get back to us when you have figures for the weights and mechanical
advantage needed to achieve escape velocity in a few seconds, how
humans will do under the acceleration, air friction heat abatement
issues. and maybe more.
--- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Another fuel-free way to launch objects into space.... |
01 Mar 2006 03:35:39 AM |
|
|
Uncle Buck wrote:
This idea may have been proposed already, but it just came to me.
Well, it gave me a chuckle. Where is the energy going to come from to
load the weights into their firing position?
I think Professor Bull might had one of the better ideas for low cost,
low orbit insertions, and that was to use a multi-chambered BBG
(bloddy-big gun).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Bull
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Another fuel-free way to launch objects into space.... |
01 Mar 2006 07:09:12 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 09:35:39 +0000, in alt.atheism , Martin
<usenet1@etiqa.co.uk> in <44056ae9$0$23292$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>
wrote:
Uncle Buck wrote:
This idea may have been proposed already, but it just came to me.
Well, it gave me a chuckle. Where is the energy going to come from to
load the weights into their firing position?
I think Professor Bull might had one of the better ideas for low cost,
low orbit insertions, and that was to use a multi-chambered BBG
(bloddy-big gun).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Bull
Impey Barbicane got there first:
Literature.org - The Online Literature Library
http://www.literature.org/authors/verne-jules/earth-to-the-moon/
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Another fuel-free way to launch objects into space.... |
01 Mar 2006 12:23:05 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> said:
On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 09:35:39 +0000, in alt.atheism , Martin
<usenet1@etiqa.co.uk> in <44056ae9$0$23292$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>
wrote:
Uncle Buck wrote:
This idea may have been proposed already, but it just came to me.
Well, it gave me a chuckle. Where is the energy going to come from to
load the weights into their firing position?
I think Professor Bull might had one of the better ideas for low cost,
low orbit insertions, and that was to use a multi-chambered BBG
(bloddy-big gun).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Bull
Impey Barbicane got there first:
Literature.org - The Online Literature Library
http://www.literature.org/authors/verne-jules/earth-to-the-moon/
I like the space elevator. (Geostationary Orbiting Tether Space
Elevator )
http://www.spaceelevator.com/
--- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Another fuel-free way to launch objects into space.... |
01 Mar 2006 06:43:55 PM |
|
|
Uncle Buck wrote:
This idea may have been proposed already, but it just came to me. The
only two proposals for fuel-free rocket launches I've seen rely one on
a kind of "ski
ramp" and the other a slingshot. This way is vaguely related to the
slingshot
method, only it relies on chains & weight. See crude ascii diagram
below:
Won't work. You need a certain speed, escape velocity.
Gravity will accelerate things only so fast, your
weights can never get close to escape velocity due
to acceleration due mere gravity at a leisurely 32
feet per second per second.
To build up true escape velocity would take a tower
many miles high, technologically impossible.
Air friction also would stop teh ability of your
weights to acclereate at a point far, far short of
escape velocity anyway.
/
_.... /|\ +---------+
,;-----:-. | .' ,-----. \
,'/ \ \ | + / \ |
/ / \ `. | | / \ +
+ ( B1 ) | | |( B2 )|
| \ / | | \ \ / /
\ \ / | | \ / |
| `-----' | ,-. | `-----' |
| | ,' `. | /
| | / \ | ,---.
,-+-. | ; : + / ` \
,' `. / ; : | / \
/ \ | ; : | / \
; : | | | | ; :
| A1 | | | C | | | A2 |
: ; | | | | : ;
\ / | : ; | \ /
`. ,' | : ; | \ /
'---' `. : ; + \ /
`.\ / / `---'
. \`. ,' .'
| `.'-' / |
| `...+ |
\|/ \|/
You can probably see the general concept - a weighted pully system,
somewhat
like in a grandfather clock. Weights (A1 & A2) are suspended up high
by locked
pullies (B1 & B2). The payload (C) is in the middle - in reality, it'd
be much lower than the weights, but I don't want to use too much space
for this to be
easily read. It's resting in a nest attached to the other end of the
chains the
weights are on. When it's time to launch, the locks on the pullies
come of, they tumble down and send the payload flying.
I only drew two weights here, but it would actually be a better idea to
have the necessary weight distributed among as many chains and pulley
systems as
possible. This would reduce the strain on any given chain and help
safeguard the safety of the payload - one chain out of two breaking
could possibly be a
catastrophe. One or two out of hundreds would be just another failed
launch.
Another advantage if you happened to have one of these in a mostly
sunny region: you can have the pullies be "rewound" with solar-powered
engines prior to readying the next payload, this the launch could truly
be 100% natural and only enough fuel for steering & reentry would be
required.
The nest would probably be best kept in a tubular chamber burrowed into
the ground, the weights hanging high in the air above the ground with
their own
holes dug to fall into on their descent. That would keep the device
from needing to be too tall.
That's it, I'm exhausted and tired of thinking. Hope to see you some
other
time. ;-)
--
L8r,
Uncle Buck
************************************************
The true mark of a civilized society is when its
citizens know how to hate each other peacefully.
************************************************
Put another way, a society can't claim the right
to label itself "civilized" until and unless its
citizens master "The Art of Peaceful Conflict".
************************************************
--
"If I saw a man beating a tied up horse, I could
not prove it was wrong, but I'd know it was wrong."
- Mark Twain
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Another fuel-free way to launch objects into space.... |
28 Feb 2006 11:55:29 PM |
|
|
Uncle Buck wrote:
This idea may have been proposed already, but it just came to me. The only two
proposals for fuel-free rocket launches I've seen rely one on a kind of "ski
ramp" and the other a slingshot. This way is vaguely related to the slingshot
method, only it relies on chains & weight. See crude ascii diagram below:
/
_.... /|\ +---------+
,;-----:-. | .' ,-----. \
,'/ \ \ | + / \ |
/ / \ `. | | / \ +
+ ( B1 ) | | |( B2 )|
| \ / | | \ \ / /
\ \ / | | \ / |
| `-----' | ,-. | `-----' |
| | ,' `. | /
| | / \ | ,---.
,-+-. | ; : + / ` \
,' `. / ; : | / \
/ \ | ; : | / \
; : | | | | ; :
| A1 | | | C | | | A2 |
: ; | | | | : ;
\ / | : ; | \ /
`. ,' | : ; | \ /
'---' `. : ; + \ /
`.\ / / `---'
. \`. ,' .'
| `.'-' / |
| `...+ |
\|/ \|/
You can probably see the general concept - a weighted pully system, somewhat
like in a grandfather clock. Weights (A1 & A2) are suspended up high by locked
pullies (B1 & B2). The payload (C) is in the middle - in reality, it'd be much
lower than the weights, but I don't want to use too much space for this to be
easily read. It's resting in a nest attached to the other end of the chains the
weights are on. When it's time to launch, the locks on the pullies come of,
they tumble down and send the payload flying.
I only drew two weights here, but it would actually be a better idea to have the
necessary weight distributed among as many chains and pulley systems as
possible. This would reduce the strain on any given chain and help safeguard
the safety of the payload - one chain out of two breaking could possibly be a
catastrophe. One or two out of hundreds would be just another failed launch.
Another advantage if you happened to have one of these in a mostly sunny region:
you can have the pullies be "rewound" with solar-powered engines prior to
readying the next payload, this the launch could truly be 100% natural and only
enough fuel for steering & reentry would be required.
The nest would probably be best kept in a tubular chamber burrowed into the
ground, the weights hanging high in the air above the ground with their own
holes dug to fall into on their descent. That would keep the device from
needing to be too tall.
That's it, I'm exhausted and tired of thinking. Hope to see you some other
time. ;-)
Nice bit of lateral thinking... However...
The max acceleration you have available is g (acceleration due to
gravity) 32 ft/s/s (9.8m/s/s)
Escape velocity for earth is 11,183 m/s (11 km/sec ! )
to reach this velocity you have to accelerate for t =142.85 seconds
(2.3 minutes)
over a distance of y=100,000 m !
So your launch tower would be 100 km tall and you would need very long
ropes!
To get into orbit you have to accelerate faster - your human passengers
can endure 8g for a few seconds before blacking out - they could
tolerate 4 to 6 g (in comfy chairs) for much longer.
At 8g you reach escape velocity in 17 seconds by which time your height
is 11km.
At 6g you reach escape velocity in 19 seconds by which time your height
is
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Another fuel-free way to launch objects into space.... |
01 Mar 2006 05:04:39 AM |
|
|
Richo wrote:
Uncle Buck wrote:
This idea may have been proposed already, but it just came to me. The only two
proposals for fuel-free rocket launches I've seen rely one on a kind of "ski
ramp" and the other a slingshot. This way is vaguely related to the slingshot
method, only it relies on chains & weight. See crude ascii diagram below:
/
_.... /|\ +---------+
,;-----:-. | .' ,-----. \
,'/ \ \ | + / \ |
/ / \ `. | | / \ +
+ ( B1 ) | | |( B2 )|
| \ / | | \ \ / /
\ \ / | | \ / |
| `-----' | ,-. | `-----' |
| | ,' `. | /
| | / \ | ,---.
,-+-. | ; : + / ` \
,' `. / ; : | / \
/ \ | ; : | / \
; : | | | | ; :
| A1 | | | C | | | A2 |
: ; | | | | : ;
\ / | : ; | \ /
`. ,' | : ; | \ /
'---' `. : ; + \ /
`.\ / / `---'
. \`. ,' .'
| `.'-' / |
| `...+ |
\|/ \|/
You can probably see the general concept - a weighted pully system, somewhat
like in a grandfather clock. Weights (A1 & A2) are suspended up high by locked
pullies (B1 & B2). The payload (C) is in the middle - in reality, it'd be much
lower than the weights, but I don't want to use too much space for this to be
easily read. It's resting in a nest attached to the other end of the chains the
weights are on. When it's time to launch, the locks on the pullies come of,
they tumble down and send the payload flying.
I only drew two weights here, but it would actually be a better idea to have the
necessary weight distributed among as many chains and pulley systems as
possible. This would reduce the strain on any given chain and help safeguard
the safety of the payload - one chain out of two breaking could possibly be a
catastrophe. One or two out of hundreds would be just another failed launch.
Another advantage if you happened to have one of these in a mostly sunny region:
you can have the pullies be "rewound" with solar-powered engines prior to
readying the next payload, this the launch could truly be 100% natural and only
enough fuel for steering & reentry would be required.
The nest would probably be best kept in a tubular chamber burrowed into the
ground, the weights hanging high in the air above the ground with their own
holes dug to fall into on their descent. That would keep the device from
needing to be too tall.
That's it, I'm exhausted and tired of thinking. Hope to see you some other
time. ;-)
Nice bit of lateral thinking... However...
The max acceleration you have available is g (acceleration due to
gravity) 32 ft/s/s (9.8m/s/s)
Escape velocity for earth is 11,183 m/s (11 km/sec ! )
<snip>
So far so good - then I stuffed up.
It would take ~900seconds and by that time your height would be 4000km!
by which time the escape velocity would have dropped to 8773 m/s and
your velocity would be 8820m/s.
To go into space you need higher acceleration 8g is about the limit for
humans - in special couches and pressure suits to keep the blood from
pooling in the legs etc.
At a more reasonable 4g the numbers are
t=260 seconds to reach a height of 1325km
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Another fuel-free way to launch objects into space.... |
01 Mar 2006 06:18:59 AM |
|
|
On 1 Mar 2006 03:04:39 -0800, "Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au>
wrote:
Richo wrote:
Uncle Buck wrote:
This idea may have been proposed already, but it just came to me. The only two
proposals for fuel-free rocket launches I've seen rely one on a kind of "ski
ramp" and the other a slingshot. This way is vaguely related to the slingshot
method, only it relies on chains & weight. See crude ascii diagram below:
/
_.... /|\ +---------+
,;-----:-. | .' ,-----. \
,'/ \ \ | + / \ |
/ / \ `. | | / \ +
+ ( B1 ) | | |( B2 )|
| \ / | | \ \ / /
\ \ / | | \ / |
| `-----' | ,-. | `-----' |
| | ,' `. | /
| | / \ | ,---.
,-+-. | ; : + / ` \
,' `. / ; : | / \
/ \ | ; : | / \
; : | | | | ; :
| A1 | | | C | | | A2 |
: ; | | | | : ;
\ / | : ; | \ /
`. ,' | : ; | \ /
'---' `. : ; + \ /
`.\ / / `---'
. \`. ,' .'
| `.'-' / |
| `...+ |
\|/ \|/
You can probably see the general concept - a weighted pully system, somewhat
like in a grandfather clock. Weights (A1 & A2) are suspended up high by locked
pullies (B1 & B2). The payload (C) is in the middle - in reality, it'd be much
lower than the weights, but I don't want to use too much space for this to be
easily read. It's resting in a nest attached to the other end of the chains the
weights are on. When it's time to launch, the locks on the pullies come of,
they tumble down and send the payload flying.
I only drew two weights here, but it would actually be a better idea to have the
necessary weight distributed among as many chains and pulley systems as
possible. This would reduce the strain on any given chain and help safeguard
the safety of the payload - one chain out of two breaking could possibly be a
catastrophe. One or two out of hundreds would be just another failed launch.
Another advantage if you happened to have one of these in a mostly sunny region:
you can have the pullies be "rewound" with solar-powered engines prior to
readying the next payload, this the launch could truly be 100% natural and only
enough fuel for steering & reentry would be required.
The nest would probably be best kept in a tubular chamber burrowed into the
ground, the weights hanging high in the air above the ground with their own
holes dug to fall into on their descent. That would keep the device from
needing to be too tall.
That's it, I'm exhausted and tired of thinking. Hope to see you some other
time. ;-)
Nice bit of lateral thinking... However...
The max acceleration you have available is g (acceleration due to
gravity) 32 ft/s/s (9.8m/s/s)
Escape velocity for earth is 11,183 m/s (11 km/sec ! )
<snip>
So far so good - then I stuffed up.
It would take ~900seconds and by that time your height would be 4000km!
by which time the escape velocity would have dropped to 8773 m/s and
your velocity would be 8820m/s.
To go into space you need higher acceleration 8g is about the limit for
humans - in special couches and pressure suits to keep the blood from
pooling in the legs etc.
At a more reasonable 4g the numbers are
t=260 seconds to reach a height of 1325km
Mark.
That, and you're still neglecting the drag issue as the weights get
into denser atmosphere.
---
I bought a Venus Fly Trap today. I was going to name it
‘Republican’, but the fly trap is beneficial to the
environment. I’ll save that name - someday I might find
a plant that eats poor people and minorities.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Another fuel-free way to launch objects into space.... |
01 Mar 2006 05:13:13 PM |
|
|
Adam H wrote:
On 1 Mar 2006 03:04:39 -0800, "Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au>
wrote:
Richo wrote:
Uncle Buck wrote:
This idea may have been proposed already, but it just came to me. The only two
proposals for fuel-free rocket launches I've seen rely one on a kind of "ski
ramp" and the other a slingshot. This way is vaguely related to the slingshot
method, only it relies on chains & weight. See crude ascii diagram below:
/
_.... /|\ +---------+
,;-----:-. | .' ,-----. \
,'/ \ \ | + / \ |
/ / \ `. | | / \ +
+ ( B1 ) | | |( B2 )|
| \ / | | \ \ / /
\ \ / | | \ / |
| `-----' | ,-. | `-----' |
| | ,' `. | /
| | / \ | ,---.
,-+-. | ; : + / ` \
,' `. / ; : | / \
/ \ | ; : | / \
; : | | | | ; :
| A1 | | | C | | | A2 |
: ; | | | | : ;
\ / | : ; | \ /
`. ,' | : ; | \ /
'---' `. : ; + \ /
`.\ / / `---'
. \`. ,' .'
| `.'-' / |
| `...+ |
\|/ \|/
You can probably see the general concept - a weighted pully system, somewhat
like in a grandfather clock. Weights (A1 & A2) are suspended up high by locked
pullies (B1 & B2). The payload (C) is in the middle - in reality, it'd be much
lower than the weights, but I don't want to use too much space for this to be
easily read. It's resting in a nest attached to the other end of the chains the
weights are on. When it's time to launch, the locks on the pullies come of,
they tumble down and send the payload flying.
I only drew two weights here, but it would actually be a better idea to have the
necessary weight distributed among as many chains and pulley systems as
possible. This would reduce the strain on any given chain and help safeguard
the safety of the payload - one chain out of two breaking could possibly be a
catastrophe. One or two out of hundreds would be just another failed launch.
Another advantage if you happened to have one of these in a mostly sunny region:
you can have the pullies be "rewound" with solar-powered engines prior to
readying the next payload, this the launch could truly be 100% natural and only
enough fuel for steering & reentry would be required.
The nest would probably be best kept in a tubular chamber burrowed into the
ground, the weights hanging high in the air above the ground with their own
holes dug to fall into on their descent. That would keep the device from
needing to be too tall.
That's it, I'm exhausted and tired of thinking. Hope to see you some other
time. ;-)
Nice bit of lateral thinking... However...
The max acceleration you have available is g (acceleration due to
gravity) 32 ft/s/s (9.8m/s/s)
Escape velocity for earth is 11,183 m/s (11 km/sec ! )
<snip>
So far so good - then I stuffed up.
It would take ~900seconds and by that time your height would be 4000km!
by which time the escape velocity would have dropped to 8773 m/s and
your velocity would be 8820m/s.
To go into space you need higher acceleration 8g is about the limit for
humans - in special couches and pressure suits to keep the blood from
pooling in the legs etc.
At a more reasonable 4g the numbers are
t=260 seconds to reach a height of 1325km
Mark.
That, and you're still neglecting the drag issue as the weights get
into denser atmosphere.
Yes and friction in the pulleys etc - thats why the acceleration will
be less than the max of 1g. That's a rather minor problem compared to
having the tower 4000km high!
8-)
Mark.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Buck" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Another fuel-free way to launch objects into space.... |
04 Mar 2006 02:41:55 PM |
|
|
Just for the record, I see how truly "not practical" such an idea would be.
Thanks to all for the insight. Now I shall use them as springboards from which
to launch new, improved ideas. Merci! :-)
--
L8r,
Uncle Buck
************************************************
The true mark of a civilized society is when its
citizens know how to hate each other peacefully.
************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
