Community > Forum > Technology & Science > Alternative Space Transport Method Ideas.

Alternative Space Transport Method Ideas.

Posted by: _UGN_ - Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:18 pm
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 34 posts ] 
Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Alternative Space Transport Method Ideas. 
Author Message
Spaceflight Trainee
Spaceflight Trainee
avatar
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 35
Location: USA
Post Alternative Space Transport Method Ideas.   Posted on: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:18 pm
Tunnel Into Space idea may use 20-30 feet in diameter and up to 1500-mile vacuum-filled-tunnel placed horizontally on Earth's surface. The spacecraft will be accelerated inside the tunnel and will punch through Earth's atmosphere on the way to space. To reduce the % loss of kinetic energy the spacecraft's mass may be very large up to 5,000 tons and its diameter only at 20 feet. The propulsion during acceleration may be magnetic in nature, but most likely, will be high explosives. The tunnel system is 'anti-rocket system'. What this means is that the tunnel system will not store the bulk of it propellants internally within accelerating spacecraft. Rockets accelerate their internal propellants in the wrong direction within the very accelerating rocket, and that's what makes rockets so inefficient, and exponentially huge compared to the payload they carry. In the tunnel system the propellants will be embedded in the tunnel, that is, all along its length. For this reason, the propellants will be stationery and will only implode on the spacecraft as it approaches them.

It should be noted that the high velocities required to attain LEO will not be sufficient with explosive methods used as in firearms or cannons. Explosives are not that fast. For this reason directional explosive methods need to be employed. If you take the spacecraft, enshrouded it inside a ridged cone, place it inside the tunnel with its cone-tip pointing in the opposite direction of travel, and allow the explosives to explode on that cone, then you've got a directional explosive method on your hands. Lets say we have a cone with radius-to-length ratio of 1:12 (i.e., 1 foot in diameter and 12 feet in length), when the propellants implode at the sped of 1 mile/second, perpendicularly to cone's axis, on the very cone then this cone and the craft inside it may attain speeds of 11-11.9 miles/second and still experience some of propellant's driving force. The reverse orientation of the cone makes it possible for the propellants to travel much slower than the cone.

The spacecraft may be built in the form of the very cone talked about. This will save materials and make the system tougher. Also, the cone (i.e., spacecraft) will have to turnaround, so it can enter atmosphere with its nose pointing in the direction of travel. For this reason, the end section of the tunnel will have to be spacious to allow the craft to turnaround. Also, sudden transition from vacuum to atmosphere will most like disintegrate any spacecraft system. For this reason, the very end section of the tunnel will have tunnel segments of progressively increasing pressures. The pressure differences will be separated by membranes and the craft will punch through these membranes on the way out.

The best way to space exploration is through the employment of common people. Common people are the people who operate earth-moving machinery, army personal to manage the application of explosives, construction crews to build the tunnel, submarine and ship construction crews to build the spacecraft, etc.. These are the people who can work and at the end of the day their progress can be measured. If we'll have only PhD-type people working, nothing will get done. Years of work and they will be still polishing the finish and many years more until the project becomes obsolete. If you look back in 1950s at the US and USSR when progress was made. Why can't we do it today with automation and computer aided drafting? The more we learn the more we become incompetent at work and only prove that we can learn well. If the project is high tech then it's a low production undertaking. If the project employs hard-working people with low pay expectations then the project may become domesticated in mass. One thing for sure is that rockets will never be responsible for colonization of the moon and space exploration in general because rocket carry their propellants internally.

Written by: Eugene P. Kovalenko

_________________
Space Nut.
http://tunnelintospace.com/


Last edited by _UGN_ on Sun Jun 21, 2009 4:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.



Back to top
Profile WWW
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 11:52 am
Posts: 1375
Location: Exeter, Devon, England
Post    Posted on: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:37 pm
Eugene, welcome to the Space Fellowship! Ive moved your topic here as i think its better placed. Regards, Rob

_________________
> http://www.fullmoonclothing.com
> http://www.facebook.com/robsastrophotography
> robgoldsmith@hotmail.co.uk


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 4:01 am
Posts: 747
Location: New Zealand
Post    Posted on: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:04 pm
Hi.

Your tunnel seems a bit like a hybrid of a space elevator and a Gas gun.

With a ground based cannon one might use hot hydrogen gas as the propellant because it move so quickly, and a light upper stage.

Trying to build a tower 1500 miles high that could maintain those pressures would require very advanced material. If those materials were availabe it would porbably be easier just to build a space elevator.

Instead of making the craft turn around, why not use a sabot?

_________________
What goes up better doggone well stay up! - Morgan Gravitronics, Company Slogan.


Back to top
Profile ICQ YIM
Spaceflight Trainee
Spaceflight Trainee
avatar
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 35
Location: USA
Post    Posted on: Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:06 pm
Hi, thanks for the read!
This tunnel is horizontal.
What does sabot means?
idiom wrote:
Hi.

Your tunnel seems a bit like a hybrid of a space elevator and a Gas gun.

With a ground based cannon one might use hot hydrogen gas as the propellant because it move so quickly, and a light upper stage.

Trying to build a tower 1500 miles high that could maintain those pressures would require very advanced material. If those materials were availabe it would porbably be easier just to build a space elevator.

Instead of making the craft turn around, why not use a sabot?
[/quote]

_________________
Space Nut.
http://tunnelintospace.com/


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 4:01 am
Posts: 747
Location: New Zealand
Post    Posted on: Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:16 pm
Ah so it is. The sudden transition to the atmosphere won't be the only problem, doing that speed at low altitude with cause enormous heating and energy loss.

V3 wrote:
The V-3 used Baron von Pirquet's concept of sequentially electrically activated angled side chambers to provide additional acceleration of the shell during its passage up the barrel of the gun. This allowed a muzzle velocity of over 1500 m/s. The projectiles of the smooth bore weapon used fins for stability, as would be the case with the Canadian Martlet series 25 years later.


The V-3 basically proved that staged explosives can't get you up to high speed. After the second one further explosions have negligble effect.

A sabot is literally a shoe. You would put your rocket on a lightweight sled with a cone at the back. The force would then arct on the sabot leaving the rocket unmolested by the heat and shock of the gun. As it left the tube the Sabot would be discarded. This is often used on amour penetrating rounds because it allows a large bore gun to focus its momentum into a small projectile giving it maximum speed.

_________________
What goes up better doggone well stay up! - Morgan Gravitronics, Company Slogan.


Back to top
Profile ICQ YIM
Spaceflight Trainee
Spaceflight Trainee
avatar
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 35
Location: USA
Post    Posted on: Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:50 pm
Yes, I'm aware of the V-3 experiments and it's the reason I'm suggesting directional explosive charges. Direction explosive charges (in weapon applications) accelerate
stream of molten metal partials way above the speed necessary for LEO. If explosive charges accelerate molten metal in couple of inches distance it's logical to conclude that longer distance will accelerated the projectile to faster speeds. (Directional charge explosives are used in Iraq and are the main cause of coalition forces deaths). The key here is that the craft's cone will be intact because each explosive charge effect will be quiet starved compared to weapon application systems. This is the reason why the 1,500 miles are needed to add those mini impulses over time to a speed necessary to get to the moon. Yes, it's also my concern that the spacecraft will overheat as it flies through atmosphere. For this reason, it may be wise to use a craft with huge mass of roughly 5,000 tons. With that tonnage and size the surface area ratio decreases, i.e. it's like a large house where internal area increases much faster then the surface area. For this reason the craft with this dimension (20 ft wide @ 5,000 tons) may have the drag % loss of kinetic energy @ roughly 0.5%, and the heat will be dissipated throughout 5,000 tons of mass.
You have a point about a sabot behind the spacecraft.
idiom wrote:
Ah so it is. The sudden transition to the atmosphere won't be the only problem, doing that speed at low altitude with cause enormous heating and energy loss.

V3 wrote:
The V-3 used Baron von Pirquet's concept of sequentially electrically activated angled side chambers to provide additional acceleration of the shell during its passage up the barrel of the gun. This allowed a muzzle velocity of over 1500 m/s. The projectiles of the smooth bore weapon used fins for stability, as would be the case with the Canadian Martlet series 25 years later.


The V-3 basically proved that staged explosives can't get you up to high speed. After the second one further explosions have negligble effect.

A sabot is literally a shoe. You would put your rocket on a lightweight sled with a cone at the back. The force would then arct on the sabot leaving the rocket unmolested by the heat and shock of the gun. As it left the tube the Sabot would be discarded. This is often used on amour penetrating rounds because it allows a large bore gun to focus its momentum into a small projectile giving it maximum speed.

_________________
Space Nut.
http://tunnelintospace.com/


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 4:01 am
Posts: 747
Location: New Zealand
Post    Posted on: Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:49 pm
If you exit at orbital velocities you stand to lose up to 20% of your kinetic energy.

Most designs end up exiting at about 5-7 Km/s and using a stage or two. That is with a Hydrogen based explosion. Gerard Bull's cannons were conventional and so needed four stages.

During my N-Prize studies I came to a conclusion that the most cost effective design would be for a chemical kick stage with a second hydrogen bang 25% of the way up the barrel, the projectile only needs a very small upper stage to add orbital velocity.

I also have it aligned vertically. This increases the g-forces beyond manned flight, and beyond anything fragile but it removes the need to somehow turn the vehicle. When being fired vertically the system won't even need a guidance system for the first 20 seconds of flight because its path will be so predictable.

With a Hortizontal launch you have to start pulling up more or less immediately which will be very difficult.

Functionally I think the explosives you are talking about simply don't have the Isp to get past a certain speed. The Isp is so low that you end up with a massively unwieldy system of 1500 miles of carefully timed explosions to try and add velocity.

Other worthwhile docs:

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/sharp.htm
http://www.islandone.org/LEOBiblio/SPBI108.HTM

Quote:
During the Pascal-B nuclear test, where a heavy (900 kg) steel plate cap (a piece of armor plate) was blasted off the top of a test shaft at an unknown speed. The test's experimental designer Dr. Brownlee had performed a highly approximate calculation that suggested that the nuclear explosion, combined with the specific design of the shaft, would accelerate the massive (900 kg) steel capping plate to six times escape velocity.[1] The plate was never found, and Dr. Brownlee believes that the plate never left the atmosphere (it may even have been vaporized by compression heating of the atmosphere due to its high speed). The calculated velocity was sufficiently interesting that the crew trained a high-speed camera on the plate, which unfortunately only appeared in one frame, but this nevertheless gave a very high lower bound for the speed.

_________________
What goes up better doggone well stay up! - Morgan Gravitronics, Company Slogan.


Back to top
Profile ICQ YIM
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
avatar
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 6:16 pm
Posts: 335
Post    Posted on: Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:20 pm
Why can't the tunnel be diagnonal, so when it exits it's already going upwards?


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Trainee
Spaceflight Trainee
avatar
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 35
Location: USA
Post    Posted on: Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:43 pm
Well, you mean vertical or at an angle?
If the tunnel is vertical it will be difficult to build such tall tower. It's possible to drill down, but the drilling methods can achieve only 12km and humans need good 1,500 miles of acceleration or our bodies wont take it. Making diagonal by using a mountain will help some but the angle will be very close to horizontal.
Terraformer wrote:
Why can't the tunnel be diagnonal, so when it exits it's already going upwards?

_________________
Space Nut.
http://tunnelintospace.com/


Back to top
Profile WWW
Spaceflight Trainee
Spaceflight Trainee
avatar
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 35
Location: USA
Post    Posted on: Sat Jun 20, 2009 4:05 pm
Yes, it can be 20% loss due to atmospheric drag on lighter objects. In aerodynamics it's a common knowledge that enormous sized airframes will hard time to takeoff. The reason is wing area builds much slower than the mass of the aircraft. If you increase your wing area by making them longer or wider you make the craft weaker. The same things happens with an object flying through atmosphere. As you increase the mass and thus the size of (i.e., assume solid object) an object the crossectional area builds slower than the volumetric area. So by making something real heavy it's possible to bring the loss to 0.5% even at the speeds at 8km/s. I'm not saying that the loss will be less on bigger objects than on the smaller ones. Now I mean the % loss of kinetic energy on the body transversing thr[/color]ough atmosphere

I'm aware about the Isp of explosives and hence the reverse pointing of the cone comes in. The cone, if you look at its profile from the side, is a triangle. If the cone is 1' radius and 12' long then the cone will have to travel 12' and the propellant will have to move at the cone perpendicularly only 1'. So, if the cone's speed is 11.9km/s (flying backward) and the propellant's perpendicular propagation is 1km/s toward the cone, then the propellants will still reach the cone, bounce off of it, and deposit some of directional impulse in the direction of the cone's travel.

The tunnel I'm proposing may be build out of cement blocks and the inside lined with metal plates welded together. Instead of stages of explosives the inside of the tunnel may be 'painted' with explosives at its whole length and electrical igniters will advance the burn of explosives to keep with the craft. But most likely it may be cups with explosives embedded in the whole length of the tunnel with each cup having its own igniter. Tunnel having millions of explosive cups have smooth acceleration with no jerks.

The earth curvature will not allow the craft to remain in atmosphere and the craft will tent to fly in a straight line out from the atmosphere. Also, the atmospheric pressure below the craft is slightly greater and thus will create greater pressures on the bottom of the craft. Also, the craft will be 'in orbit' even if it flies through atmosphere and the crew inside will feel weightlessness. The craft may deploy small winglets or change angle of attack. It's not necessary for the craft to go vertical to get into orbit. It will have to raise its elevation and correct itself to assume a perfect LE-Orbit.

Can you tell me more about your idea or studies for the N-Prize





idiom wrote:
If you exit at orbital velocities you stand to lose up to 20% of your kinetic energy.

Most designs end up exiting at about 5-7 Km/s and using a stage or two. That is with a Hydrogen based explosion. Gerard Bull's cannons were conventional and so needed four stages.

During my N-Prize studies I came to a conclusion that the most cost effective design would be for a chemical kick stage with a second hydrogen bang 25% of the way up the barrel, the projectile only needs a very small upper stage to add orbital velocity.

How longs is your barrel?

I also have it aligned vertically. This increases the g-forces beyond manned flight, and beyond anything fragile but it removes the need to somehow turn the vehicle. When being fired vertically the system won't even need a guidance system for the first 20 seconds of flight because its path will be so predictable.

With a Hortizontal launch you have to start pulling up more or less immediately which will be very difficult.

Functionally I think the explosives you are talking about simply don't have the Isp to get past a certain speed. The Isp is so low that you end up with a massively unwieldy system of 1500 miles of carefully timed explosions to try and add velocity.

Other worthwhile docs:

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/sharp.htm
http://www.islandone.org/LEOBiblio/SPBI108.HTM

Quote:
During the Pascal-B nuclear test, where a heavy (900 kg) steel plate cap (a piece of armor plate) was blasted off the top of a test shaft at an unknown speed. The test's experimental designer Dr. Brownlee had performed a highly approximate calculation that suggested that the nuclear explosion, combined with the specific design of the shaft, would accelerate the massive (900 kg) steel capping plate to six times escape velocity.[1] The plate was never found, and Dr. Brownlee believes that the plate never left the atmosphere (it may even have been vaporized by compression heating of the atmosphere due to its high speed). The calculated velocity was sufficiently interesting that the crew trained a high-speed camera on the plate, which unfortunately only appeared in one frame, but this nevertheless gave a very high lower bound for the speed.

_________________
Space Nut.
http://tunnelintospace.com/


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 4:01 am
Posts: 747
Location: New Zealand
Post    Posted on: Sat Jun 20, 2009 9:11 pm
The Up-shot of only delivering dumb mass and reinforced electronics is that my tunnel only has to be 50m long for testing, eventually growing to 300m and then 1km.

That would be with exit velocities of 2 Km/s, 4km/s and 7 km/s respectively. This lies between what the HARP gun of 1.8 km/s and the SHARP gun of 8 km/s have already shown.

With average G's of 4000, 3000 and 2,500 respectively.

Internal average pressures would be 1MPa, 1.3 MPa and 1.6 MPa depending on mass.

The three systems would contribute 6%, 24%, and 74% of Orbital Momentum respectively. The rest would be made up by the upper stage.

Eventually a 2km gun would allow the G forces to average only 1,250 G's for 500ms which widens the scope of the potential payloads.

I am tending toward sticking the things on the sides of steep hills basically for cost reasons. One could always bury it in cement later.

_________________
What goes up better doggone well stay up! - Morgan Gravitronics, Company Slogan.


Back to top
Profile ICQ YIM
Spaceflight Trainee
Spaceflight Trainee
avatar
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 35
Location: USA
Post    Posted on: Sun Jun 21, 2009 3:06 pm
It's smart to fasten the cannon on the side of the mountain to reduce the costs. What kind of upper stage you think may be used at those G-forces?
idiom wrote:
The Up-shot of only delivering dumb mass and reinforced electronics is that my tunnel only has to be 50m long for testing, eventually growing to 300m and then 1km.

That would be with exit velocities of 2 Km/s, 4km/s and 7 km/s respectively. This lies between what the HARP gun of 1.8 km/s and the SHARP gun of 8 km/s have already shown.

With average G's of 4000, 3000 and 2,500 respectively.

Internal average pressures would be 1MPa, 1.3 MPa and 1.6 MPa depending on mass.

The three systems would contribute 6%, 24%, and 74% of Orbital Momentum respectively. The rest would be made up by the upper stage.

Eventually a 2km gun would allow the G forces to average only 1,250 G's for 500ms which widens the scope of the potential payloads.

I am tending toward sticking the things on the sides of steep hills basically for cost reasons. One could always bury it in cement later.

_________________
Space Nut.
http://tunnelintospace.com/


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 9:29 pm
Posts: 712
Post    Posted on: Sun Jun 21, 2009 4:14 pm
I wonder if a vehicle could be designed to use mag lift and then switch to an air bearing like a regular hard drive has? Build a long enough tunnel to accelerate to velocity at only a few g's. Maybe with gravity to aid like an arc that dips down into the ocean. With a slow arc into space? Then fire an engine at apogee to maintain orbit. Fill the tunnel with hydrogen and ignite it at the bottom of the arc behind the payload? hahahahaha! Ok bad idea.

Monroe

_________________
Today's the day! We go into Space!


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Trainee
Spaceflight Trainee
avatar
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 35
Location: USA
Post    Posted on: Sun Jun 21, 2009 4:47 pm
Haha, yea, the last part is a bit explosive one-) What are the 'hard drive' and 'mag lift' mean?

Monroe wrote:
I wonder if a vehicle could be designed to use mag lift and then switch to an air bearing like a regular hard drive has? Build a long enough tunnel to accelerate to velocity at only a few g's. Maybe with gravity to aid like an arc that dips down into the ocean. With a slow arc into space? Then fire an engine at apogee to maintain orbit. Fill the tunnel with hydrogen and ignite it at the bottom of the arc behind the payload? hahahahaha! Ok bad idea.

Monroe

_________________
Space Nut.
http://tunnelintospace.com/


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 9:29 pm
Posts: 712
Post    Posted on: Sun Jun 21, 2009 10:15 pm
Superconducting magnetic lifting like some trains in japan have and Air bearing like the heads on a computer storace device like an IDE hard drive or a SATA ect...

Monroe

_________________
Today's the day! We go into Space!


Back to top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ] 
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests


© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use