Hyperloop - Orbital Space Launch

In summary: For a human sized loop, that would be around 100 kW. That's a lot of energy, and it would be impossible to harvest energy from the sun or other celestial bodies.The only way to make this work would be to build a HUGE loop, with a diameter of around 10 kilometers, and have it positioned around the moon.In summary, this idea has a lot of potential, but it's not practical without a lot of funding and a really good idea for where to put it.
  • #1
Demigod
5
0
I'm hoping I can get my idea debunked or with some words of encouragement, continue my investigation in what could be an ideal way to solve some propulsion issues in space travel.

What I'm suggesting is building a large circular "maglev" accelerator in space, similar to CERN, which wouldn't need to be depressurized since already in the vacuum of space therefore cutting down on materials/costs, the "tube" wouldn't need to be built as such, only the interior/bottom half would need to be constructed. A possible location would be surrounding the moon, in it's orbit.

In theory, the spacecraft or payload would be accelerated to the required velocity then launched. The only fuel then required would be for minor course adjustments and to decrease velocity upon arrival. In the distant future, if a regular transit destination was determined, ie: Alpha Centauri - A habitable world, a duplicate system could be built to "Catch" a spacecraft and/or launch in the opposite direction towards earth.

Thoughts?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #2
Demigod said:
Thoughts?
Because the accelerator is not tethered to a giant rock, it still needs the same propulsion system the rocket was supposed to have. I'm not sure if putting the rocket engines on the launcher vs the rocket conveys a momentum/fuel advantage though...someone else can maybe address that.
 
  • #3
russ_watters said:
Because the accelerator is not tethered to a giant rock, it still needs the same propulsion system the rocket was supposed to have. I'm not sure if putting the rocket engines on the launcher vs the rocket conveys a momentum/fuel advantage though...someone else can maybe address that.
I see what you're saying, so the whole "loop" would want to rotate in the opposite direction, in this case it could be tethered to the moon in multiple areas. I would suppose to offset any variation on spin, each payload could be launched in the opposite direction. Now being that the loop's mass would be much greater than the payload, I'm not even sure if the impact would negate a tethering system. ??

As for any advantage without a tethering system, even if a rocket system (or other propulsion) was required for the "loop", at the bare minimum, the payload would be significantly smaller since it wouldn't require the acceleration fuel/mass for the trip.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
Demigod said:
I would suppose to offset any variation on spin, each payload could be launched in the opposite direction.
Hmm, that could potentially work.
...in this case it could be tethered to the moon in multiple areas.
I may have created a little mess: "tethered to a giant rock" was a slightly tongue in cheek way of saying our launch pads are mounted on Earth, which is also the origin point for almost all of our launches. It has, in fact, been proposed that giant linear accelerators be used to launch payloads into space, but there are technical issues such as acceleration rate and aerodynamic stress that make it impractical.

Your idea, I think, would work, but it is a fabulously expensive way to fulfill a need that doesn't exist.
 
  • #5
So you're not the first person to think about this. This is essentially a StarTram: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarTram

You're not going to achieve a meaningful percentage of c with that, as others have explained.
 
  • #6
Gigaz said:
So you're not the first person to think about this. This is essentially a StarTram: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarTram

You're not going to achieve a meaningful percentage of c with that, as others have explained.

I don't think this is the same idea - similar but not the same. I'm proposing an accelerator IN SPACE, this wouldn't be used to get into orbit, the main purpose would be to accelerate cargo/craft to a vary fast speed before launching it into deep space, thus not having to rely on an onboard propellant.
 
  • #7
Demigod said:
I'm hoping I can get my idea debunked or with some words of encouragement, continue my investigation in what could be an ideal way to solve some propulsion issues in space travel.

What I'm suggesting is building a large circular "maglev" accelerator in space, similar to CERN, which wouldn't need to be depressurized since already in the vacuum of space therefore cutting down on materials/costs, the "tube" wouldn't need to be built as such, only the interior/bottom half would need to be constructed. A possible location would be surrounding the moon, in it's orbit.

In theory, the spacecraft or payload would be accelerated to the required velocity then launched. The only fuel then required would be for minor course adjustments and to decrease velocity upon arrival. In the distant future, if a regular transit destination was determined, ie: Alpha Centauri - A habitable world, a duplicate system could be built to "Catch" a spacecraft and/or launch in the opposite direction towards earth.

Thoughts?
Let's assume you want a top speed of 1% of c, making a trip to Alpha C 430 yrs long. As the payload accelerates up to speed, the centripetal forces it will feel will grow larger. If we are talking passengers, then there is a limit to how much they could take. let's be generous and put this at 5g. In order to reach a speed of 1% of c, and keep the g forces on the passengers down to 5g, the accelerator would have to have a radius of 1.2 AU, or 20% larger than the Earth's orbit.

If we built the ring entirely circling the Moon at 100 km above its surface, then that same 5g restriction would limit the top exit velocity to under 10 km/sec, This is less than the over 12 km/sec you would need just to escape the solar system from Earth's orbit around the Sun. To reach that earlier speed of 1% of c with an accelerator of this radius would subject the payload to nearly 490,000g
 
  • Like
Likes Demigod, Bandersnatch and russ_watters
  • #8
Glad someone came up with the equation. I was actually concerned with the g forces as well, just wasn't sure on the calculation. Back to the drawing board.
 
  • #9
Demigod said:
I don't think this is the same idea - similar but not the same. I'm proposing an accelerator IN SPACE, this wouldn't be used to get into orbit, the main purpose would be to accelerate cargo/craft to a vary fast speed before launching it into deep space, thus not having to rely on an onboard propellant.
Basically, your idea is not useful with current power technology. When every space structure is powered with solar panels, it makes more sense to bring solar panels along spacecraft , to power fuel-efficient ion thrusters for several months or years in row is cost-efficient and weight-efficient manner.
Having much oversized solar panels on linear accelerator which stays idle for 99.999% of time is not a valid proposal. Super-capacitors charged by smaller solar panels are slightly better solution, but still terribly bulky and expensive.

For device like you imagine to be built (basically a mass driver), you need
1) Good pulse power but stationary power source (fusion stellarator powering MHD generator?)
2) Have thousands time more space traffic compared to today, to have a meaningful load of that pulse power source

When both pre-requisites are meet, you can attach linear accelerator (mass driver) to said power source and utilize it with good effect for space travel.
 
  • #10
IMO, however many systems are going to be useful for getting equipment into remote places, the timescales that our bodies and societies work will mean that human star travel won't be on the cards for a very long time, if ever. Actually, i don't feel the same urge as the enthusiasts have. What space exploration actually needs humans on board (bearing in mind that those humans won't be you or me)? There is far more to life than just going places. We should be far more centred on the mind and building a worthwhile society than on spending money on unfeasible manned trips. Manned trips are only approved of by politicians for political reasons and the reasons are nothing to do with improving the human condition. Just take Trump's 'Space Force' idea. Straight out of Hollywood but it could well end up being funded.
 
  • #11
Crewed trips to unknown places are the reason humans can be found outside Africa.
 
  • Like
Likes Tom.G
  • #12
mfb said:
Crewed trips to unknown places are the reason humans can be found outside Africa.
That's a frequently used argument but the analogy is extremely thin. Dispersion of the Human Species was highly incremental and it was a very low tech process. One may as well say that people swim the English Channel so it's only a matter of time before they swim the Atlantic all in one go. The actual numbers count much more than enthusiasts about anything tend to acknowledge.
 
Last edited:
  • #13
sophiecentaur said:
Dispersion of the Human Species was highly incremental and it was a very low tech process.
Going to the Americas needed more technology than going from Africa to Asia. Going to remote islands in the Pacific needed more technology than going to the Americas (probably). Going to the South Pole needed more technology than exploring all of the Pacific. Going to Mars will need even more technology.
sophiecentaur said:
One may as well say that people swim the English Channel so it's only a matter of time before they swim the Atlantic all in one go.
No one said you had to swim. You want a ship. People invented ships. People did cross the Atlantic.
 
  • #14
mfb said:
Going to the Americas needed more technology than going from Africa to Asia.
A bit more, in the 16th century, agreed. But many species of life have made it across the Atlantic, one way or another. Human presence all over the World was not due to 'manned expeditions' it was achieved way before Columbus' times in pre-history. They more or less just waited for the land bridge between Asia and America and then moved house. The only parts of the Earth that humans have not colonised are Antarctica and particularly high mountain regions and, strangely, they are the only regions with little or no other advanced life forms present. All Earthbound ' colonising expeditions' have taken humans to a place where there is Air, Water and Food Sources and individual journeys have taken no more than a few years. Also, the participants were always looked upon as expendable. I can't see modern politics accepting that.

I am always surprised that the numbers seem to be ignored by start travel enthusiasts. There is a timescale, beyond which humans do not plan - never have. The timescales are actually getting shorter. No one plants trees, for use in 500 years' time these days. It's taken several decades for the majority World opinion to have swung in the direction of acknowledging Climate Change because of inability to consider long time scales. People are 'scared' that the Sun will swallow us up because the concept of billions of years is just beyond them.

It's quite amazing that the Space industry thinks as far ahead as it does with the decade-long plans for projects. Some very sophisticated thinkers involved there, I think. But I am sure the attention span of society will max out when the first results of an interstellar space travel project will take generations to reach Earth. Great as a thought exercise but billions of dollars would be required. Who would vote for that level of spending?
 
  • #15
No one was talking about Columbus. I was talking about the first settlers that probably came over/along the land bridge, but needed tools for that. Clothes, for example, probably fishing equipment, boats and so on. Columbus was not even the first one to come from the European side.
sophiecentaur said:
The only parts of the Earth that humans have not colonised are Antarctica and particularly high mountain regions and, strangely, they are the only regions with little or no other advanced life forms present.
Don't switch the topic please. The discussion was about exploration. We did explore all these places. Humans have been on nearly every high mountain, humans have been all over the place in Antarctica. We have a permanently inhabited station at the South Pole (and a few more at the coast).
sophiecentaur said:
All Earthbound ' colonising expeditions' have taken humans to a place where there is Air, Water and Food Sources and individual journeys have taken no more than a few years.
All high jump records were below 2 m - until someone jumped higher. See the previous posts, you start with the easy things and then go to more ambitious things. Of course everything before the age of spaceflight went to a place with air and water. Where else would it go.
We did have expeditions to places without food, and since the 1960s we also had expeditions to places without air or water.

"This has never been done before" is the main point of an expedition. You don't make an expedition to New York.
sophiecentaur said:
But I am sure the attention span of society will max out when the first results of an interstellar space travel project will take generations to reach Earth.
Who knows how long a generation will be by then.
 
  • #16
mfb said:
I was talking about the first settlers
You may have been but your words were "crewed trips", which doesn't sound like early tribes following a food source. And you continue with :
mfb said:
The discussion was about exploration.
which confirms my view.
mfb said:
Don't switch the topic please.
How was it a switch of topic to compare human occupation with that of other living species, which are not technically developed? It just proved my point.

You seem to be wilfully ignoring the essential difference between Earth exploration and colonisation, (which requires virtually no essential technology) and space missions which must rely entirely on technology and which would involve many generations and far longer term planning than humans have ever managed. PF normally requires high factual accuracy and the quotation of precedents yet the star travel enthusiasts exhibit an amazing level of blind optimism about the way humans may or may not behave in a timescale that's totally unprecedented. Just because one can do calculations which may be accurate and justified, doesn't imply that humans will succeed in a project that's based on those calculations.
I am pragmatic and I have no particular optimism about the future for humans (in the long term it is none of my business) but there is evidence of a very limited lifetime for all past 'civilisations'. Why should we expect any difference - just because the technology is very attractive and exciting?

PS The Swimming the Atlantic bit was clearly just an analogy to demonstrate that the magnitude of any project is highly relevant. Actually getting across oceans does not require technology - just luck, in many cases. Study the spread of many species over tens of millennia.
 
  • #17
sophiecentaur said:
How was it a switch of topic to compare human occupation with that of other living species, which are not technically developed?
Which other species? This thread was always about human exploration.
sophiecentaur said:
You seem to be wilfully ignoring the essential difference between Earth exploration and colonisation, (which requires virtually no essential technology) and space missions which must rely entirely on technology and which would involve many generations and far longer term planning than humans have ever managed.
I'm not ignoring it. I'm pointing out that we did several big steps in the past already. The next one is always more challenging than the steps before. I know that, you don't have to repeat it again. You think the first trip over an ocean was easy with the tools at that time? I'm sure many people told the few that did the trip to stay. Because no one did it before, and blah blah blah.
sophiecentaur said:
PF normally requires [...] the quotation of precedents
There is no such rule and it would be completely against the idea of the forum. Science is always about doing something new.
sophiecentaur said:
yet the star travel enthusiasts exhibit an amazing level of blind optimism about the way humans may or may not behave in a timescale that's totally unprecedented.
I don't get that impression from most here. Or maybe the group you call "enthusiasts" is way smaller than I think. I see it acknowledged everywhere that it will be an unprecedented challenge, and no one claims that it will certainly happen.
The timescale is not new, at least not for missions within our solar system. As an example, plans for the LHC started ~1990, the project is expected to run until 2035 or longer, with data analysis taking at least 5 more years. A 50 year project, longer than the working life of people. Compared to that a crewed mission to Mars, Jupiter or even Saturn, including the planning, is much faster.
sophiecentaur said:
but there is evidence of a very limited lifetime for all past 'civilisations'.
You know what typically comes before the decline (unless it caused by a natural disaster)? Stagnation. A phase where people stop doing something new, stop exploring the world, stop expanding even if they could.
 
  • #18
mfb said:
Which other species? This thread was always about human exploration.
So now we're back into exploration and not migration? I already made the point that there are very few places on Earth that were not reached by other species, unsupported by technology so humans getting there is no big deal (comparatively).
mfb said:
several big steps in the past already.
Big by what standards? The biggest steps, interns of impact, were actually colonisation by totally primitive tribes. The biggest step of 'a man' was 350,000km for a short while. Good but no cigar in terms of hundreds or thousands of years to the stars. Extrapolation that far could be very optimistic. An interesting thought experiment, don't get me wrong (I guess you may do).
mfb said:
LHC started ~1990, the project is expected to run until 2035
You call that a long timescale - all self respecting Emperors took that long to organise their mausoleum and look where they are now.
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”
Ozymandias. Percy Shelley
(In a timescale of just a few hundred years. We are dealing with more than ten times that timescale.

I would have thought that a healthy skepticism would be the reasonable attitude to such long term plans. (Who's POTUS these days?) World stability is one thing we cannot count on, these days.
 
  • #19
sophiecentaur said:
So now we're back into exploration and not migration?
You started it:
What space exploration actually needs humans on board [...]?
[...]
Manned trips are only approved of by politicians for political reasons and the reasons are nothing to do with improving the human condition.
sophiecentaur said:
Big by what standards?
By the standards of what had been done before. You are presenting history as if everything was a trivial exercise. With modern knowledge and tools it would be, but that is not the point.
sophiecentaur said:
You call [50 years] a long timescale
It is over 5 times the length of the whole Apollo project. It is longer than any proposed project to get humans to Mars. It is longer than any future project about getting humans to Jupiter's or Saturn's moons would probably be. If you don't see a problem with projects up to 50 years in length then I don't understand your previous objection to them.
 
  • #20
mfb said:
It is longer than any proposed project to get humans to Mars.
That's my point. 50 years is 'a very long time' in the minds of people funding projects. Mars is by far the lowest hanging fruit, too. The long term benefits of some of the longest running space probes (70 years or so) were not actually planned for by the money sources, even if the designers had it up their sleeves. Sending a crewed ship on a long (star) trip could not rely on that kind of lucky extension of the project ( as in Voyager) it would need to be planned to operate over many hundreds of years. That is many times the 10X ratio that you have quoted.
Imo, you are far too optimistic about the way governments might behave and also about how much money the population of the Earth would be prepared to contribute on a personal basis. How much money would you personally sacrifice, at the expense of your children's welfare or your own comfort?
You have misinterpreted my objections all along. I am prepared to suspend my disbelief about the possibilities of future technology but, in all conscience, I cannot contemplate FTL travel or believe that humans have a future of unlimited advance. That would be very out of character.
 
  • #21
sophiecentaur said:
mfb said:
It is longer than any proposed project to get humans to Mars.
That's my point.
Your point is "the projects are not long compared to e.g. the LHC"? To me this looks like exactly the opposite of your earlier claim:
sophiecentaur said:
would involve many generations and and far longer term planning than humans have ever managed
sophiecentaur said:
How much money would you personally sacrifice, at the expense of your children's welfare or your own comfort?
Depends on the mission. Let's consider an example:
Zubrin estimates that a private company could do Mars Direct for $5B. That is less than $1 per person if we distribute it evenly over the world population, $2.4 per person in the US or $2 per person in Germany if we adjust it by GDP.
This is not "my children's welfare" at stake. This is watching people walk on another planet vs. buying a coffee. Even at ten times the cost I wouldn't think twice about what I prefer. And that isn't even considering all the scientific advances we would get from the investment, which would do much more for "my children's welfare" than drinking more coffee.

How much would you value seeing humans walking on Mars?
 
  • #22
mfb said:
Depends on the mission.
And the missions that this thread is discussing with would be to other Stars. I commented that Mars is low hanging fruit and you must surely realize that, even if and when a successful manned mission to Mars is achieved, the difference in distances, time, energy needed for the project, etc. etc. are all way out of the league of a simple day trip to Mars. There is just no comparison at all so your comments about Mars are really not relevant. "Watching people walking on another planet" for the price of a coffee is a good comparison. I would chip in £2.50, willingly. That would need to be scaled up by a good few orders of magnitude. A factor of at least a thousand would have to be applied. Would your average man / woman in the street feel like investing several £k minimum on a project that would bear fruit well after he/she is dead? In fact, even the launch date would be after a generation or more of development.
What would be the actual purpose of manned star travel? How would those remaining on Earth benefit apart from feeling a rosy glow that someone is out there? This question has been asked many times already and, to be quite honest, there have been no valid answers.
 
  • #23
As established before your first comment in this thread the proposed launch technology wouldn't be practical for interstellar travel, but still interesting for interplanetary travel. Your comment seemed to be about human exploration in space in general, so I used Mars, Jupiter and Saturn as examples.

We don't know how expensive an interstellar mission will be with the technology of 2100, and we don't know how long it will take either.
sophiecentaur said:
What would be the actual purpose of manned star travel?
What would be the actual purpose of leaving Africa?
 
  • #24
My comments were about what I called Star Travel and I was comparing it with more limited journeys. I assumed you were responding to that. Parts of your counter argument are perfectly valid about Solar system travel.
As far as the time taken for Star Travel, we can apply the limits imposed by c and also, whatever technology is involved, the total energy involved would be massive if we were to want to approach the limits due to c. Who knows what energy sources could be available in the very far future. I think that 2100 is unlikely to bring anything suitable.
There was no 'purpose' for leaving Africa. Migration had no purpose. It is the word used to describe a human and animal behavioural phenomenon and it has been an incremental process, triggered by changing circumstances. I'm sure you can't suggest there was a plan of any kind for early hominids (or other mammals) to take a journey of several thousand miles to look for Northern Europe or Western Asia. Any human migration on Earth has been incremental in their current terms and comparisons with any future migration to other stars are based on very flimsy assumptions - certainly many orders more flimsy than any assumptions that PF makes about other matters. The step size in space migration can never be looked on as incremental. Figures for estimated timescales can be found all over the place and they are all far greater than for any planned project that's ever been undertaken on Earth so optimistic extrapolations have not place there.
 
  • #25
A trip to the nearest star can be incremental if the step before is a trip to the distant outer solar system. The trip to another star is then the next step.
sophiecentaur said:
Figures for estimated timescales can be found all over the place and they are all far greater than for any planned project that's ever been undertaken on Earth so optimistic extrapolations have not place there.
Nuclear pulse propulsion can get us to ~5% the speed of light and slow down again with today's 1970's technology. That gets you to Alpha Centauri in 80 years. Add construction and we are above the length of the LHC but not that much. Add 100 years of development and 10% the speed of light don't sound so unrealistic, then you can reach Alpha Centauri within the length of the LHC project.
sophiecentaur said:
There was no 'purpose' for leaving Africa.
Of course there was. Finding a better place to live for the people who moved.
 
  • #26
mfb said:
Of course there was. Finding a better place to live for the people who moved.
How far would the steps have been, other than incremental. Did someone 'tell' the early species of birds and mammals that there was a great place to live 5000km to the north of where they were? If the other organisms had no 'strategy' then how can you insist that early hominids needed to have one? Your technical points - such as the Nuclear Pulse system - are worth discussing but you keep shifting your arguments about how humans work.
For a Nuclear Pulse system you are, presumably, assuming a Fusion process - if only for safety. As with all Star Voyage systems for humans you are implying a vast project. I am still not convinced that the population of Earth would be prepared to invest that much. I ask again, what would its purpose be? The purpose for Earth exploration was very much for personal reward. The equivalent incentive doesn't exist for Star Travel.
 
  • #27
A bit of a math error? US vs UK Billions?
mfb said:
Mars Direct for $5B. That is less than $1 per person if we distribute it evenly over the world population, $2.4 per person in the US
5E9 / 2.4 = 2.08E9 people; over 6 times the present USA population of 328 835 000+
 
  • #28
The part you quoted is out of context. Here is the full sentence, highlight by me:
mfb said:
That is less than $1 per person if we distribute it evenly over the world population, $2.4 per person in the US or $2 per person in Germany if we adjust it by GDP.
I distributed the cost over the whole world population according to the GDP (PPP) of their country. The global sum is $127 trillion, the US has $19.4 trillion. ##$5B \frac{19.4}{127 \cdot 320 M} = $2.4##
 
  • #29
OK, thanks for the clarification. I had mistakenly interpreted the statement as the whole cost distributed across the US rather than distributed across the World population.
 

1. What is Hyperloop - Orbital Space Launch?

Hyperloop - Orbital Space Launch is a proposed transportation system that combines the concept of Hyperloop with orbital space launch technology. It aims to transport passengers and cargo at high speeds through low-pressure tubes and then launch them into space.

2. How does Hyperloop - Orbital Space Launch work?

The Hyperloop - Orbital Space Launch system works by using a combination of magnetic levitation and vacuum technology to propel a pod through a low-pressure tube at speeds of up to 700 mph. Once the pod reaches the end of the tube, it is then launched into space using rocket propulsion technology.

3. What are the potential benefits of Hyperloop - Orbital Space Launch?

The potential benefits of Hyperloop - Orbital Space Launch include significantly reducing travel time for both passengers and cargo, reducing carbon emissions, and opening up new opportunities for space exploration and tourism.

4. What are some challenges facing the development of Hyperloop - Orbital Space Launch?

Some of the challenges facing the development of Hyperloop - Orbital Space Launch include the high cost of construction and maintenance, technological feasibility, and safety concerns. There are also regulatory and legal hurdles that need to be addressed before the system can be implemented.

5. When can we expect to see Hyperloop - Orbital Space Launch in action?

There is currently no set timeline for when Hyperloop - Orbital Space Launch will be fully operational. The technology is still in the early stages of development, and there are many challenges that need to be addressed before it can become a reality. However, several companies and organizations are actively working on making this concept a reality, and we may see some progress in the next decade.

Similar threads

  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • Aerospace Engineering
7
Replies
236
Views
12K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
3
Replies
85
Views
7K
Back
Top