Re:The Spaceline: a space elevator alternative achievable wi...
by pavel_lishin on Friday September 06, 2019 @03:10PM
(#20898811)
But amusingly enough, a spaceline costs orders of magnitude less than a space elevator. It might make sense as an intermediate step, where we launch a Spaceline using ol' fashioned rockets, and then use it to haul up the materials we're going to build an actual space elevator from.
Re:The Spaceline: a space elevator alternative achievable wi...
by TheSpiceIsLife on Friday September 06, 2019 @08:18PM
(#20900978)
A space elevator needs to be anchored in geostationary orbit at about 36,000k altitude, which isn't possible with available materials.
This article talks about a cable from geostationary orbit to the moon.
That still leave the ground-to-geostationary part for conventional lifters.
Re:The Spaceline: a space elevator alternative achievable wi...
by pavel_lishin on Monday September 09, 2019 @10:29AM
(#20918507)
I must have misunderstood - I thought the Spaceline was going to actually reach into the atmosphere?
Dang, I totally misunderstood, I thought this thing was going to go much lower.
If the starting point is 2,880t fuel for 120t payload, so 24t of fuel per ton of payload, then 25% less fuel gives 18t of fuel per ton of payload and thus your 3,000t rocket can now carry 158t of payload, or 32% more.
Even "we can see that the spaceline cuts the fuel cost of such a mission by approximately two thirds" is not a game changer compared to the cost of building the cable.
Space elevators are touted as game changers because although building one would be extraordinarily expensive it would slash the cost of sending payload to space by orders of magnitude, making it worthwhile.