You wouldn't need it - that's the point I was trying to make. The Cube would enable at least a four-fold reduction of the counterweight mass. At that rate the Skyhook machinery plus The Cube might be heavy enough itself to constitute a counterweight.
The Cube
- Thread starter Success_Machine
- Start date
- Status
that’s why my idea is reasonable and the rest are well... crazy
better not be like the movie "the cube"
dam-nit. The Cube may mass 14,000 tonnes, but it can loft 358,000 tonnes of payload into orbit annually. A properly designed tether will last at least 20 years, and the powerplant is solid state, and does not degrade. Therefore over the lifetime of The Cube it will loft over 7 million tonnes of cargo into orbit. That's enough to build a space station for millions of people, or one that contains enough farmland to support 10's of thousands - and I'm talking square miles of fully enclosed pressurized illuminated farmland, with rich fertile soil !!! In orbit !!!
Do you know how many shuttle missions that is?!!! That's equivalent to something like 9000 shuttle launches annually !
Dudes..... THE CUBE is awesome.
Do you know how many shuttle missions that is?!!! That's equivalent to something like 9000 shuttle launches annually !
Dudes..... THE CUBE is awesome.
Even at the lesser mass of this Cube, we'd be insane to try and lift all that material out of the Earth's gravity well, when there's plenty of material floating around already. Yes, I realize we're not in the best position to go get it right now. But it'd be a lot easier to develop cargo ships to go retrieve space resources than to try and launch that much from Earth.
And as for afterwards, why use even the new and improved Cube technology for heavy lifting when you've got plenty of resources only a few delta v's away.
And as for afterwards, why use even the new and improved Cube technology for heavy lifting when you've got plenty of resources only a few delta v's away.
Jaxom,
You did not read what he said did you? That’s 16,000 Deltas worth a year! This thing would pay for its self in just 1 months of use! Considering price of maintenance and all we probably talking 20$/lb price for lifting cargo to orbit! If we could only pay enough money to put it up there. I think the concept is wonderful Success_Machine don't listen to these people.
You did not read what he said did you? That’s 16,000 Deltas worth a year! This thing would pay for its self in just 1 months of use! Considering price of maintenance and all we probably talking 20$/lb price for lifting cargo to orbit! If we could only pay enough money to put it up there. I think the concept is wonderful Success_Machine don't listen to these people.
and it will cost $318,181,000,000 to use the current shuttle to put it in orbit(based on $250m per launch, a conservative price). Over 1200 launches. If we assume a new shuttle with a $40million(man is that optimistic) per launch cost, and a 30,000lb payload, it will take 934 launches, at a total cost of $37,333,000,000. As you said, it will take half a century to do. Let's say we spend 5 billion developing, building, and launching a probe to go to a NEO and knock it into orbit to serve as your counter wieght. BTW, this asteriod would probably tip the scales against your cube by several million tons.
You know we could build a LEO to Luna skyhook array for under 1000ton. And we could use the materials from the moon to supply assembly of this LEO to LEA (low earth atmosphere) skyhook. How’s that for problem solving!
Gifted got my point...I agree that if the Cube or variant was already built, it makes LEO cheap to get to. I was talking about the construction itself.
1) There's already material outside the gravity well.
2) Much of it already passes close by us, and just needs a nudge, compared to a huge effort for each shuttle launch.
3) Every launch removes Earth resources, when again, there's stuff already out there, waiting.
As for lunar mining, that's a closer debate. Is the cost of construction of the lunar Cube and availability of primarily metals aa better choice than the cost of locating a retrieving a comparible asteroid? Lots of variables to factor in.
Luna will be a great source for certain things, like oxygen, soil for shielding, and of course fusion fuel. I think even titatium can be extracted, but I don't know the amount. But some stuff wil have to be asteroid or Earth mined, and Earth pulls too hard.
1) There's already material outside the gravity well.
2) Much of it already passes close by us, and just needs a nudge, compared to a huge effort for each shuttle launch.
3) Every launch removes Earth resources, when again, there's stuff already out there, waiting.
As for lunar mining, that's a closer debate. Is the cost of construction of the lunar Cube and availability of primarily metals aa better choice than the cost of locating a retrieving a comparible asteroid? Lots of variables to factor in.
Luna will be a great source for certain things, like oxygen, soil for shielding, and of course fusion fuel. I think even titatium can be extracted, but I don't know the amount. But some stuff wil have to be asteroid or Earth mined, and Earth pulls too hard.
To move 30 tons from the moon to LEO would need an array of at lest 3 skyhooks that weighs a cumulative mass of only 840tons into LEO. That’s only 42 shuttle launches, $17billion or 9 Energia launches for less if Russia had the money to build the things. Once you install a LEO Skyhook it can place a HEO Skyhook in orbit that can then thrust cargo for a LLO Skyhook that could drop off or pick up cargo at the moon. Cargo from the moon could build a LEA to HEO (Low Earth Atmosphere) skyhook like “The Cube” (I still think this name is stupid)
I disagree with the use of a asteroid at lest for near term use. the questions are:
1. How are we going to get there?
2. How do we drag the asteroid back?
3. How do we place it in earth orbit?
I personally would invest in fusion engines/reactors then we could move things the old fashion way (with space ships) and give the earth a new source of power that could replace all others and produce enough surplus to make hydrogen fuel and end the need for mined hydrocarbon as a fuel and solve global warming, are present political crisis and all future energy need crisisi as well as bring a new age of world peace.
I disagree with the use of a asteroid at lest for near term use. the questions are:
1. How are we going to get there?
2. How do we drag the asteroid back?
3. How do we place it in earth orbit?
I personally would invest in fusion engines/reactors then we could move things the old fashion way (with space ships) and give the earth a new source of power that could replace all others and produce enough surplus to make hydrogen fuel and end the need for mined hydrocarbon as a fuel and solve global warming, are present political crisis and all future energy need crisisi as well as bring a new age of world peace.
pumpkinsaren'torange
Registered Senior Member
man....*points and laughs* you guys will discuss ANYTHING!! Of course to do all this we need to redevelop the methods of getting to the Moon. Do you think all this could be done robotically? Questionable to me, especially the Moon mining part. Humans react better to unusual situations than robots. which of course leads to Moon colonization....etc...
I've been talking NEOs (Near Earth Object), not a journey to the asteroid belt...that too is a possibility, but NEOs just need a little adjustment in their path. One thing, we would need to practice orbit parking with small ones first...just in case.
Once you have a LEO to LLO array up we could very easily (and much more cheaply then rockets direct) sling people to the moon to start a moon base and produce the supplies need for "The Cube". Not to mention all the other wonderful thing having a moon base could do.
Success_Machine and my system is work out on paper as possible with no "show stopper" problem except money.
But again I would prefer a investment in fusion technology over all these things
Success_Machine and my system is work out on paper as possible with no "show stopper" problem except money.
But again I would prefer a investment in fusion technology over all these things
Actually fusion research, or at the least, widespread fusion usage, might depend on something like these systems first being set up, if the speculation of He-3 and deuterium is correct.
But I'm all for fusion as well, however we get it. Ad mars et ad astra!
But I'm all for fusion as well, however we get it. Ad mars et ad astra!
I'm for B11+P fusion: No penetrating ionizing radiation and very cheap fuel.
The Cube would only work if it is orbiting a planet with a strong magnetic field, like earth or jupiter. This allows it to reboost itself without using any propellant. Otherwise if you need to re-fuel it, why bother? Just use the rocket to launch payloads.
The Cube would get payloads above the atmosphere and into orbit, and in huge quantities. Once there spacecraft can employ high efficiency, relatively low thrust engines, to go whereever they want. That could include ion engines, nuclear thermal, or antimatter-initiated microfission/microfusion (AIM) propulsion.
The Cube would allow construction of ships bigger than any we've conceive before. Maybe even interstellar probes! Make no mistake, one of those would be HUGE !!!
The Cube would get payloads above the atmosphere and into orbit, and in huge quantities. Once there spacecraft can employ high efficiency, relatively low thrust engines, to go whereever they want. That could include ion engines, nuclear thermal, or antimatter-initiated microfission/microfusion (AIM) propulsion.
The Cube would allow construction of ships bigger than any we've conceive before. Maybe even interstellar probes! Make no mistake, one of those would be HUGE !!!
- Status