3 ms·
I've read about this before, and I do think it sounds pretty neat, but a small part of me hopes it doesn't work for putting satellites into space, only because
by soperj 12y ago
I've read about this before, and I do think it sounds pretty neat, but a small part of me hopes it doesn't work for putting satellites into space, only because the technology doesn't help us land on other planets.
- acchow 12y agoI disagree. Familiarity with microgravity and the vacuum of space in orbit will make developments in interstellar travel that much cheaper.
- soperj 12y agoCool. Love getting down voted for having an opinion & starting the conversation.
- idlewords 12y agoI think we're pretty familiar with vacuum at this point. The obstacle to practical interstellar travel is 99.99999% propulsion, which you don't learn a lot about by endlessly falling in a circle.
- XorNot 12y agoAnd the obstacle to propulsion is the inability to lift large payloads cheaply enough into orbit to start with. The problem is we can't build big things in LEO. At the moment its that our entire LEO-access infrastructure is woefully underdeveloped.
- Zigurd 12y agoThe first few miles are the most expensive.
- bjelkeman-again 12y agoI saw a very good presentation by the CEO of Reaction Engine the other day, where he went through where they are at with the engine (Sabre) and with the vehicle (Skylon). He showed how Skylon could lift an interplanetary vehicle in pieces, just like the International Space station was built from modules. The Skylon/Sabre tech will certainly help us reach other planets, as the first 100 km to orbit is the really expensive part, and Skylon/Sabre addresses that well I think. They need some more development money though.
- soperj 12y agoI didn't say reach, I said land.