4 ms·
That was my leading theory, and "cross between a rail-gun and a Concorde" all but confirms it. Flight path like a Concorde, propulsion like a rail-gun. Exploit
by schiffern 14y ago
That was my leading theory, and "cross between a rail-gun and a Concorde" all but confirms it. Flight path like a Concorde, propulsion like a rail-gun. Exploit the natural vacuum above our heads without expensive tunnels.
Let's look at the attributes Elon has described publicly, and see how they compare to a launch loop:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uegOUmgKB4E#t=43m13s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uegOUmgKB4E#t=43m13s
* could be cheaper than CA high-speed rail? Check (no right-of-way).
* "theoretically fastest way" from A-B? Check.
* can't crash? Check (w/ well-designed rails).
* immune to weather? Check.
* twice as fast as a plane? Check.
* lower energy cost than a car? Check.
* self-powering with solar panels? Check.
* stores power w/o batteries? Check.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-s_3b5fRd8#t=18m20s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-s_3b5fRd8#t=18m20s
* requires aerodynamic expertise? Check.
* "ground-based Concorde – as fast as a Concorde, but on the ground"? Arguably. All weight is supported by the ground, and cars take a Concorde-like path.
* rails are not needed? BZZT!! However, he may be talking about the "right-of-way" aspect of rails here.
http://www.businessweek.com/printer/articles/71590-elon-musk-the-21st-century-industrialist http://www.businessweek.com/printer/articles/71590-elon-musk...
* leaves right when you arrive? Check (w/ individual pods).
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/224406502188916739 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/224406502188916739
* isn't a vac tunnel? Check.
Of all the ideas that have been kicked around, the launch loop seems to fit best. Elon would certainly have been exposed to the idea when brainstorming for SpaceX.
My only question for the past few weeks has been, "How do you build the thing?" It doesn't inertially support itself in the air until the rotor is spun up, and the rotor can only be spun up when it's fully constructed between the endpoints. Catch-22!
There are basically three ways to do it, each with their own challenges.
Build it in the air. You would need huge numbers of lifting balloons (presumably of zero-pressure solar Montgolfier design, ala ARCA), and the portions of the system in the troposphere would be incredibly susceptible to adverse weather while under construction. You would want to have the entire thing already built, then unreel it as fast as possible. Smart tethering would reduce this risk, and the whole thing would need emergency descent parachutes for operation anyway. This seems like the least unworkable scheme, imho.
Build it in the water. Ocean currents and tides are now your problem instead of wind. The requirement to survive the corrosive salt water environment puts additional constraints on material selection. Oh, and you have to shut down all boat traffic from LA to SF. And your base station either has to be mobile (to start out in the ocean) or you have to start with a big arc out from the coastline and "tip it up" vertically. Do the math on how big the rotor endpoints would be (given reasonable assumptions about bending magnets), and you quickly realize that building them in place is the only option.
Build it over land. This seems the most unworkable – all the risk of having it fall (or worse, lose containment), and now you have to build tall towers every few thousand feet and string a high-tension support cable between them. Imagine explaining to homeowners that the "rail" we're building above their house will have parts moving at 10 km/s inside before it lifts off. Ouch.
- keenerd 14y agoOver water seems rather reasonable considering what we can do with cable laying ships. Whatever method is used to get it up in the air, it'll need to be safely reversible. Over water bringing it down is much easier. And you'll have to bring it down for repairs. Every five minutes it will do a full loop.. Iron is fairly ductile, but those stresses will add up. And wikipedia says the kinetic energy involved is close to a small nuclear bomb. Back of the envelope math suggests the iron cylinder would be very thin. It will wear out sooner or later. My guess is that Musk's big breakthrough is for a cheap and reversible deployment system. I'm double checking my numbers now (and reading the original papers) but the entire contraption might weight a lot less than we are implicitly assuming. Like, light enough that a single large plane/blimp could support the entire cable/sheath system. And a small fleet of planes could safely tow the cable through the sky. Or a fleet of blimps could support the entire cable while it was stopped for maintenance. (Both would need a large number of well trained pilots, it would make the skycrane maneuver look simple.) edit: The original paper talks about a ribbon 5cm wide and 7.6mm thick weighing 15.6 Gg. I dropped a kilo in the back of the envelope calculations. So it would need at least 100 very large aircraft to hold up. Still feasible, but more than a little crazy.
- schiffern 14y agoInteresting. The linear density given is 7 kg/m, which if you wanted to lift to the tropopause (density 0.35 kg/m^3, temperature ~266 K) you would need a continuous 30 °C solar Molgolfier balloon 18 m^2 in section, or a 10 meter strip of of 15 µm HDPE. Not as bad as I thought. Still, it would be hard to roll it out before sunset. Hydrogen is another possible lifting gas, with all its associated foibles. Obviously lifting bags would have to be isolated to prevent catastrophic failure, but you could get a lot more lift out of them. This must take place in a La Niña year, when the jetstream is north. Reel out the track, drag it into place with two airships, join the parts and start 'er up. You could even name the airships Jupiter and Number 119. ;) This simplified strategy that would avoid the need for aerial stations at both ends, intead using a gentle curve achieved by anchor cables and varying linear density. Acceleration would begin immediately upon departure, leaching energy from the rotor (generating eddy currents), then contributing it back by braking off the rail on the descending side. Of course, maybe I'm just dreaming here…