News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Space Tourism Isn’t Frivolous, or Impossible by msandford on Tuesday November 04, 2014 @02:40PM (#8558595)
I think another real problem is that at the end of the 32km of track you need to stop going sideways and start going up. At mach4 (at sea level this is really, really fast) you're going to need either a huge radius or you're going to have incredible g forces. Either way, big engineering problems.
Re:Space Tourism Isn’t Frivolous, or Impossible by Retric on Tuesday November 04, 2014 @03:42PM (#8558925)
Not 100% clear what you mean by huge g forces. You would not make a round track to do this. You want something close to a straight line with some adjustment for the curved surface of the earth and local gravity.

After launch you’re going to want to rapidly gain altitude as fast as the passengers can tolerate (so ~3g), but even if you lose 30-50% of the input energy your still dramatically reducing your on board fuel needs as in ~30+ seconds of main engine burn.

More importantly you can have an air breathing sage without including a sub sonic air breathing engine which vastly simplifies your design. Further, one proposal was instead of trying to accelerate using an air breathing engine you simply try and maintain velocity as you gain altitude which further expands your useful design space.

Net result, reusable single stage to orbit, with a useful mass fraction, might be possible. Though, I agree trying to hit mach 4 near sea level is going to be a major design issue. But, Mach 2 is defiantly possible and probably a better first goal.

Re:Space Tourism Isn’t Frivolous, or Impossible by msandford on Tuesday November 04, 2014 @04:18PM (#8559092)
Basically that everything else equal you'd prefer to exit the accelerator straight up rather than horizontally to minimize the time spent in the thick atmosphere slowing down. I agree that a round track is totally nuts.

And you're right, I did misread what you had written earlier. Thanks for engaging rather than downvoting.

Re:Space Tourism Isn’t Frivolous, or Impossible by Retric on Tuesday November 04, 2014 @07:44PM (#8559948)
Sure, I could see I was not getting my point across.

As to vertical track, you might be able to build a 2 mile near vertical track but you end up adding a lot of energy more cheaply with a horizontal track and for the most part it's energy that's important as you can trade horizontal energy for vertical energy inside the atmosphere. Don't forget for moderate cost you could use balloons to get a few tons to 50+km up where the air is vary thin. But altitude is just not that much of an issue.