Never, mind, I got the video.

Sorry, still not even close. I will remark four things:

1) The schematic is substantially different form the Christmas ribbon roll.

2) If you look at your schematic closely, you will see that the little wheels
don't roll, they slip, and in the wrong direction. Not surprising, really,
because if you got it to where they don't, you would realize your mistake and
not post the video...

3) If you measured the force you need to pull on the Christmas ribbon, you would
notice that it is larger than when you push the roll at its center. Using your
10 to 2000 design parameters, exactly 200 times as large.

4) If you change the spindle radius of the ribbon roll, you will find that the
drive ribbon speed increases as you decrease the spindle radius, contrary to
what you probably expect. You can try this by comparing a full and empty roll.
This is because the lever in this case has its fulcrum where the wheel touches
the floor, and you get the largest leverage when the ribbon is very close to the
floor, and far from the center.

Better luck next time...

Andreas



--- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, "Geoffrey G" <goeggel@...> wrote:
>
> Second, and final, wheel video.  If Charlie doesn't get it this time, he's out
of luck.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/user/gbgoeggel
>

This one doesn't play for me. It wants me to create an account or something,
which I don't care for. I'd love to see it though, if you could put it up the
same way you did the other. Have you gotten the perpetual motion mode working?

Who is this friend of yours, Charlie?

Andreas

--- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, "Geoffrey G" <goeggel@...> wrote:
>
> Second, and final, wheel video.  If Charlie doesn't get it this time, he's out
of luck.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/user/gbgoeggel
>

Second, and final, wheel video.  If Charlie doesn't get it this time, he's out
of luck.

http://www.youtube.com/user/gbgoeggel

Any regular old winch would do...

The main problem is that this is good for at most a few hundred kilometers. Good
for tourists to enjoy the view, and some high altitude research, but not an inch
closer to orbit, really.

Andreas


--- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, "Geoffrey G" <goeggel@...> wrote:
>
> > I would like to see a pull down let go elevator.
>
> That would work.  Going up anyway.  But how do you retract it?  Needs a power
souce.
>

>Did you get a response...

      Nope.  Zero.  Nada.  Nothing.  So far.

>BTW how many space agencies have a 40B budget?

      That's not per year....that's the total.  I need $ 3 B/yr for 15 years. 
And not from Nasa, or the US, but from the WORLD!

> I would like to see a pull down let go elevator.

That would work.  Going up anyway.  But how do you retract it?  Needs a power
souce.

> Please give me $40B .....

Me?  A retired civil engineer with absolutely no space experience?  HA!

> And that design moves at 2,000 mph with a 2 foot spindle
> and 20 mph belt.  Change the drive spindles to 1 foot diameter,
> and belt speed is back to 10 mph.  Send me $ 10,000.
> I'll build one for you @ 1/100th scale, or refund your money.
>
Unfortunately I do not have that kind of money at the moment to give away, but I
will give you this:

Modify your toy elevator to have the drive belt go half the cab speed.

That means: While the cab still goes up 6 feet, the weight only goes down 3
feet, not 8. Do this without increasing the weight above twice the cab weight
(remember you said the force does not need to increase in proportion to the
leverage?), and I will publicly apologize for slandering your design.

After that, I will get rich investing in a "free energy" company with a
perpetual motion machine (there are a surprising number of those) and give you
my first $40 billion, no strings attached.

Andreas

I would like to see a pull down let go elevator. Like you do with a kite. No
energy to bring objects to space and can be really FAST if you want it to be!
;-)



--- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Irvine <01rocket@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >  > Not true! My report lays out a clear path for a $ 40 B SE.
> >Submitted to two dozen space agencies and websites for review.
> >>
>
>
> Please give me $40B and I will make an entirely green field technical
> project and it will work.  Trust me.
>
> Now I may trust you.
>
> But consider this. Ares went from a 4 grain solid to a 5 grain solid
> and NASA was stodgy.  It was not until the suppliers built and fired
> that thing that NASA said, oh that could work.
>
> 100+ firings heritage on the general design, hardware, people,
> infrastructure, flight tests, payload service deliveries, and general
> good vibes.
>
> Now comes along a $40B SE proposal with NO contractor support, proven
> tests, existing deployed examples, heritage.
>
> It almost doesn't matter how good it is.  It is bureaucratically
> incompatible.  On its face.
>
> Jerry
>
> --
> Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, CA 91711 USA - <mail to: 01rocket@...>
>

I not to to be rude, but I think that is funny. Did you get a response from any
of these space agencies? BTW how many space agencies have a 40B budget?

--- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, "awnd329" <awnd329@...> wrote:
>
>
> Heave, ho, off to the circular file they go...
>
> --- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, "Geoffrey G" <goeggel@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > One of the reasons these proposals continue to stay at the level of
> > > obscure web list posts is nobody is generating a formal proposal for
> > > funding.
> >
> > Not true!  My report lays out a clear path for a $ 40 B SE.  Submitted to
two dozen space agencies and websites for review.
> >
>

You have not addressed my comment that the drive ribbon in your video is faster
than the cab, contrary to your design, where it is 100 times slower.

> 2.   "Low Power" … you said I needed "100,000,000 MW".  It doesn't.

Unfortunately, you are running up against some very basic physics, here. Lifting
40,000 lb against near full gravity at 2000 mph DOES require more than 100 MW,
notwithstanding cute videos and six order of magnitude misquotes. That is about
50 heavy duty railway locomotives, each weighing 500,000 lb. But I am sure you
can come up with a much more lightweight construction.

> BTW, you said there are "dozens" of reasons my SE concept won't work.  Can you
send me your top five for a response?

Sorry, I decided to pick just one, in order to limit the waste of time. Rest
assured, though, your proposal is a veritable buffet of fatal flaws and blatant
ignorance of most of the basic constraints that have been learned in previous,
more serious studies on the subject.

I would not worry about a team arriving at your door eager to do $40 billion due
diligence on this anytime soon, if I were you.

Andreas

--- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, "Geoffrey G" <goeggel@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Sorry Charlie…wrong again!
>
> Video only shows:
>
> 1.   "It works" … you said it couldn't be done; and
> 2.   "Low Power" … you said I needed "100,000,000 MW".  It doesn't.
>
> My 40,000# elevator design showed another critic it can be done….  even though
he said "it couldn't".  And that design moves at 2,000 mph with a 2 foot spindle
and 20 mph belt.  Change the drive spindles to 1 foot diameter, and belt speed
is back to 10 mph.  Send me $ 10,000.  I'll build one for you @ 1/100th scale,
or refund your money.
>
> BTW, you said there are "dozens" of reasons my SE concept won't work.  Can you
send me your top five for a response?
>

Sorry Charlie…wrong again!

Video only shows:

1.   "It works" … you said it couldn't be done; and
2.   "Low Power" … you said I needed "100,000,000 MW".  It doesn't.

My 40,000# elevator design showed another critic it can be done….  even though
he said "it couldn't".  And that design moves at 2,000 mph with a 2 foot spindle
and 20 mph belt.  Change the drive spindles to 1 foot diameter, and belt speed
is back to 10 mph.  Send me $ 10,000.  I'll build one for you @ 1/100th scale,
or refund your money.

BTW, you said there are "dozens" of reasons my SE concept won't work.  Can you
send me your top five for a response?

In your video it looks like your drive ribbon moves 8.75 ft for each 6.5 feet of
elevator rise. The drive ribbon thus moves faster than the cab, right?

In your design, the drive ribbon is to move at 10 or 20 mph (variously), while
the cab is to rise at 2000 mph. There, the drive ribbon is (much) slower than
the cab, contrary to what we see in the video. The video thus appears to leave
open the question of how this particular miracle is to be accomplished. Or have
the speeds in the design been changed to something more reasonable?

Andreas




--- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, "Geoffrey G" <goeggel@...> wrote:
>
> Wheel video posted:
>
>      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOYFrTUEvss
>
> And my rocket design, intended for launching the Temporary Space Elevator for
$ 3,000/pound.  Easily scaled up to a 1,000,000# payload:
>
>      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPOag9hxiuU
>
> Next video up: "From Earth to the Moon".  $ 250/pound in 3 days.  Posted
01/01/2010?
>

>
>  > Not true! My report lays out a clear path for a $ 40 B SE.
>Submitted to two dozen space agencies and websites for review.
>>


Please give me $40B and I will make an entirely green field technical
project and it will work.  Trust me.

Now I may trust you.

But consider this. Ares went from a 4 grain solid to a 5 grain solid
and NASA was stodgy.  It was not until the suppliers built and fired
that thing that NASA said, oh that could work.

100+ firings heritage on the general design, hardware, people,
infrastructure, flight tests, payload service deliveries, and general
good vibes.

Now comes along a $40B SE proposal with NO contractor support, proven
tests, existing deployed examples, heritage.

It almost doesn't matter how good it is.  It is bureaucratically
incompatible.  On its face.

Jerry

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, CA 91711 USA - <mail to: 01rocket@...>

>
>Practical? Sure, except for some minor details here and there, such
>as mining the asteroids and erecting a major industrial facility in
>LEO. Piece of cake, really, given enough Money and Private
>Enterprise. We can budget those subprojects under G&A. Oh, and then
>there is the small matter of accelerating a massive cable to
>super-orbital velocity while hanging an elevator from it. Hiring an
>MIT graduate or two will surely take care of any technical glitches
>that might occur.
>
>Andreas


Details :)

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, CA 91711 USA - <mail to: 01rocket@...>

> That actually sounds like a practical plan and unlike the stimulus
> plan, and for a lot less money,  would actually pay for itself.
>
Practical? Sure, except for some minor details here and there, such as mining
the asteroids and erecting a major industrial facility in LEO. Piece of cake,
really, given enough Money and Private Enterprise. We can budget those
subprojects under G&A. Oh, and then there is the small matter of accelerating a
massive cable to super-orbital velocity while hanging an elevator from it.
Hiring an MIT graduate or two will surely take care of any technical glitches
that might occur.

Andreas

--- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Irvine <01rocket@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >In 1970 dollars the 15 Saturn V launch vehicle cost 7 billion
> >dollars. In todays dollars that would be 1.3 Billion dollars per
> >vehicle. Each vehicle could put 120 tons in LEO, that is $5400 per
> >pound in todays dollars. Using the 7 tons and the $120 million
> >figures results in a $8500 per pound number. Scaling up a launch
> >vehicle makes sense if there is need to put a lot stuff into orbit
> >at one time.
> >
> >If we want to built a space elevator then update the Saturn V
> >design, where 10 to 20 launches are use to establish an orbiting
> >cable manufacturing plant, using NEOs as a source of raw
> >material.The cables then can be used to build an orbiting ring
> >system that suspend a system of space elevators.
> >
> >Or we can wait for the development of CNT based ribbons.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> Bert
>
>
> That actually sounds like a practical plan and unlike the stimulus
> plan, and for a lot less money,  would actually pay for itself.
>
> Let's form a proposal to the stimulus board.  They love unmanned
> rockets and infrastructure.  In the 10 years it will take to get the
> major pieces up, materials will have developed quite a bit just in
> time.
>
> Jerry
>
> --
> Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, CA 91711 USA - <mail to: 01rocket@...>
>

--- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Irvine <01rocket@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >In 1970 dollars the 15 Saturn V launch vehicle cost 7 billion
> >dollars. In todays dollars that would be 1.3 Billion dollars per
> >vehicle. Each vehicle could put 120 tons in LEO, that is $5400 per
> >pound in todays dollars. Using the 7 tons and the $120 million
> >figures results in a $8500 per pound number. Scaling up a launch
> >vehicle makes sense if there is need to put a lot stuff into orbit
> >at one time.
> >
> >If we want to built a space elevator then update the Saturn V
> >design, where 10 to 20 launches are use to establish an orbiting
> >cable manufacturing plant, using NEOs as a source of raw
> >material.The cables then can be used to build an orbiting ring
> >system that suspend a system of space elevators.
> >
> >Or we can wait for the development of CNT based ribbons.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> Bert
>
>
> That actually sounds like a practical plan and unlike the stimulus
> plan, and for a lot less money,  would actually pay for itself.
>
> Let's form a proposal to the stimulus board.  They love unmanned
> rockets and infrastructure.  In the 10 years it will take to get the
> major pieces up, materials will have developed quite a bit just in
> time.
>
> Jerry
>
> --
> Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, CA 91711 USA - <mail to: 01rocket@...>
>

Heave, ho, off to the circular file they go...

--- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, "Geoffrey G" <goeggel@...> wrote:
>
>
> > One of the reasons these proposals continue to stay at the level of
> > obscure web list posts is nobody is generating a formal proposal for
> > funding.
>
> Not true!  My report lays out a clear path for a $ 40 B SE.  Submitted to two
dozen space agencies and websites for review.
>

> One of the reasons these proposals continue to stay at the level of
> obscure web list posts is nobody is generating a formal proposal for
> funding.

Not true!  My report lays out a clear path for a $ 40 B SE.  Submitted to two
dozen space agencies and websites for review.

Wheel video posted:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOYFrTUEvss

And my rocket design, intended for launching the Temporary Space Elevator for $
3,000/pound.  Easily scaled up to a 1,000,000# payload:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPOag9hxiuU

Next video up: "From Earth to the Moon".  $ 250/pound in 3 days.  Posted
01/01/2010?

>
>
>Hi Jerry, I didn't know there was a stimulus board.
>
>Twenty Saturn Vs could place 2400 tonnes (4.8 million pounds) in LEO
>about the equivalent of 5 International Space Stations. I have no
>idea if that is adequate for a purpose built orbiting steel mill and
>wire factory
>
>If anyone is really interested in working on such a plan, please
>join the NSS Space Elevator Chapter (Not the same as the NSS Space
>Elevator Team) at
><http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/nsecc/>http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/n\
secc/
>
>Cheers,
>Bert


One of the reasons these proposals continue to stay at the level of
obscure web list posts is nobody is generating a formal proposal for
funding.  Whether that funding is along the lines of an IPO, DARPA,
or other types of funding, nobody is funding anything, and all these
various "visions" are not being formally documented, compared and
suggested for next step testing and funding.  The sheer number of
rockets NASA has done paper studies on would astound you, a few of
which are truly great and worth doing NOW.  But the confusion level
and the parties who advocate their particular baby prevent them ALL
fro going forward.

This project is far larger and less likely to proceed, so it is even
more critical a clarity of direction at least exist so whatever the
data and science suggests is available for a practical funding or
testing or research effort as available.

Now that we have the internet and access to public document editing
technology, perhaps that is the approach required to get "critical
mass", for something, anything.

I make rockets and the most common reason for one not getting done is
not technology or funding, but personality conflict, project
mismanagement, and changes in regulatory treatment.  People and
politics.

Jerry

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, CA 91711 USA - <mail to: 01rocket@...>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

SOME OPTIONS:

Make Junk Into Cable

I beleive there may be enough orbiting junk that can be melted down and
reprocess for making a starter orbital ring space elevator system.

An orbiting ring can be place in any orbit. Deterimine which orbital inclination
where most of the junk is in and move the rest of the debris to that orbit. One
will need to find the best way to move the debris from one orbit to another.
Electrodynamic tethers and lasers might be a good approach.

Retire Shuttle Option

Another option is to buy up the space shuttles. Fly the shuttle on tracjectory
so that the external tank reaches orbit. Use the payload of the shuttle to
transport the modules for the orbiting wire factory.
Chop up the external tanks and process them into cable. Operating the shuttles
under a commerical organization certainly would be more cost effetive, than NASA
or a NASA contractor.

Again my point: There are many ways from a tech point of view to build a space
elevator using orbiting metal cables now (There are challenges, but solvable).
The main hurdle is finding the money.

Cheers,
Bert

Cheers,
Bert

--- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Irvine <01rocket@...> wrote:
>
> >  musthavemorestuff:
> >
> >
> >I watch railguns with great interest. Most payloads can't tolerate
> >the high G takeoff provided by them, but graphite should be highly
> >stable. A projectile with a packed graphite core and the right outer
> >coating could be lobbed to orbit if the technology continues to
> >advance. The US Navy is testing a gun that can fire a projectile at
> >5800 m/s that can hit a 5 meter target at 200 nautical miles. It is
> >designed to fire 10 shots per minute. Escape velocity is about
> >12,000 m/s.
> >
> >If the graphite can be processed into the ribbon in orbit, it is one
> >possible way to tackle it without crippling launch costs.
>
>
> So instead of orbiting the material, shoot at and hit an already
> orbiting target so the altitude component is done but the horizontal
> velocity component gets a nudge after impact with the orbital unit.
> This could be used with a longer rail gun to lower g's, and insulated
> capsules, to loft non-cryo propellants and water and base materials.
>
> Drop clusters of shells over designated recovery zones for reuse.
>
> Jerry
>
> --
> Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, CA 91711 USA - <mail to: 01rocket@...>
>

Rail guns and space guns (Such as the SHARP concept) is another way to get raw
materiels to LEO, But that approach has not been demostrated yet. Gerry Bull
with the HARP project came the closest

Cheers,
Bert

--- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, "musthavemorestuff"
<musthavemorestuff@...> wrote:
>
>
> I watch railguns with great interest. Most payloads can't tolerate the high G
takeoff provided by them, but graphite should be highly stable. A projectile
with a packed graphite core and the right outer coating could be lobbed to orbit
if the technology continues to advance. The US Navy is testing a gun that can
fire a projectile at 5800 m/s that can hit a 5 meter target at 200 nautical
miles. It is designed to fire 10 shots per minute. Escape velocity is about
12,000 m/s.
>
> If the graphite can be processed into the ribbon in orbit, it is one possible
way to tackle it without crippling launch costs.
>
>
> --- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, "Bert" <hcm1955@> wrote:
> >
> > In 1970 dollars the 15 Saturn V launch vehicle cost 7 billion dollars. In
todays dollars that would be 1.3 Billion dollars per vehicle. Each vehicle could
put 120 tons in LEO, that is $5400 per pound in todays dollars. Using the 7 tons
and the $120 million figures results in a $8500 per pound number. Scaling up a
launch vehicle makes sense if there is need to put a lot stuff into orbit at one
time.
> >
> > If we want to built a space elevator then update the Saturn V design, where
10 to 20 launches are use to establish an orbiting cable manufacturing plant,
using NEOs as a source of raw material.The cables then can be used to build an
orbiting ring system that suspend a system of space elevators.
> >
> > Or we can wait for the development of CNT based ribbons.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Bert
> >
> > --- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, "musthavemorestuff"
<musthavemorestuff@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > The best we have today is Ariane 5/Delta 4 Heavy class. They can lift
about 20 tons to low earth orbit or 7 tons to geo xfer orbit. The total mass of
payload, rocket and fuel is 770 tons and an Ariane launch is going for $120
million. Not very efficient or economical.
> > >
> > > The best we have done is the Saturn 5, 120 tons to LEO with a launch
weight of 3000 tons. To go bigger than the Saturn 5 gets very impractical very
fast. Every new pound of payload requires many times it's weight in fuel and
structure. Cost? Great question, it was a govt program.
> > >
> > > Ok, what does 120 tons work out to? That's 2 rail cars. The average
freight car carries 60 tons of freight. Not much by industrial standards.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, "Everett L.(Rett) Williams" <rett@>
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You present a false dichotomy. The current projected lift capacity of
chemical
> > > > rockets is a million pounds or better. If you need more, you assemble in
space.
> > > > Except for demonstration projects, I do believe that we should get most
of our
> > > > materials from space in the form of asteroids or materials from the
Moon, but
> > > > the limitations on rocket capability are largely illusory.
> > > >
> > > > musthavemorestuff wrote:
> > > > > I don't agree. I think it will come down to payload sizes. Back in the
Apollo days, we hit the limits of chemical rockets. You could not add much more
weight to the Saturn 5 stack before it became so heavy it would not get off the
ground. We are back on that trail again with Ares/Constellation. Before that
runs it's course, the world will see clearly what the weight limit of chemicals
rockets is. When we have a mission we want to do that exceeds the weight limit,
we either need the elevator, off-planet manufacturing, or a combination.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am of the opinion that off-planet manufacturing off payloads will
demand a reliable delivery system that is not effected by the whims of weather.
It might not be the elevator that solves the problem, but our current lauch
methods just won't get the job done. I'm betting on the elevator.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, "Bert"<hcm1955@>  wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I think the odds for forming a political party where development of
space as it's main plank has a better chance in succeeding than a publicly
traded corporation.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> There is a case to be made that cheap access to space would have
positive effects on jobs, economy and environment.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Cheers,
> > > > >> Bert
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, "Bert"<hcm1955@>  wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> 2OOB to 500B sounds like a goverment funding to me. The world's
largest defense contractor brings in 45B revenues a year. The largest
corporation brings in 300B in revenues, with a profit of 10B
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Cheers,
> > > > >>> Bert
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> --- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Irvine<01rocket@> 
wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Currently CNTs can be produced with tensile strength of 50 Gpa. QC
> > > > >>>>> and a process to tie CNTs into a long thread needs to be work out.
> > > > >>>>> This is less of a technical challenge than producing fissionable
> > > > >>>>> materiel in the 1930/40s was for the Manhattan project.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Also an orbital ring system using steel cables is possible. This
> > > > >>>>> would require the equivalent of 10 to 15 Saturn V launches to
> > > > >>>>> establish a starter system.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> So I believe a space elevator is more of a policy and national
goal
> > > > >>>>> issue, than a technical issue. This is not to say there is not
> > > > >>>>> significant technical issues that need to resolve. It may not be
> > > > >>>>> within the reach of a corporation, but it is within the reach of a
> > > > >>>>> nation. I can not think of a better stimulus package. The payback
> > > > >>>>> would be mining the moon and NEOs, which also low impact to the
> > > > >>>>> enviroment.
> > > > >>>>> Cheers,
> > > > >>>>> Bert
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> I disagree. A public stock offering could raise the funds, and the
> > > > >>>> clear value of the venture would provide sufficient prospective
value
> > > > >>>> that the investment would multiply in value, not merely sit there.
> > > > >>>> Being stock it is by definition "patient capital" which is what is
> > > > >>>> needed for a long gestation scientific project.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Private capital is 10x-30x the capacity of governments, which
receive
> > > > >>>> 100% of their proceeds from confiscatory taxation of private
> > > > >>>> activities, only a small portion is capital.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> One of my first posts to this list when it started up was to offer
to
> > > > >>>> implement this plan when the technical effort was practical.  My
> > > > >>>> scheme improves the "patience" of the capital drastically, which
also
> > > > >>>> increases the raise scale drastically.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Are we there yet?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> 15 Saturn V's does not sound like much of a hurtle to me.  I made a
> > > > >>>> rocket last month that was a tiny fraction of that (15k lb for 10
> > > > >>>> sec) and did it with almost no resources at all.  What I could do
> > > > >>>> with $1B would be astounding. I am guessing you are talking closer
to
> > > > >>>> $200-600B total system cost. Recoverable in less time than a 30
year
> > > > >>>> mortgage.  Think about that.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Jerry
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> --
> > > > >>>> Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, CA 91711 USA -<mail to:
01rocket@>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Hi Jerry, I didn't know there was a stimulus board.

Twenty Saturn Vs could place 2400 tonnes (4.8 million pounds) in LEO about the
equivalent of 5 International Space Stations. I have no idea if that is adequate
for a purpose built orbiting steel mill and wire factory

If anyone is really interested in working on such a plan, please join the NSS
Space Elevator Chapter (Not the same as the NSS Space Elevator Team) at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/nsecc/

Cheers,
Bert

--- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Irvine <01rocket@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >In 1970 dollars the 15 Saturn V launch vehicle cost 7 billion
> >dollars. In todays dollars that would be 1.3 Billion dollars per
> >vehicle. Each vehicle could put 120 tons in LEO, that is $5400 per
> >pound in todays dollars. Using the 7 tons and the $120 million
> >figures results in a $8500 per pound number. Scaling up a launch
> >vehicle makes sense if there is need to put a lot stuff into orbit
> >at one time.
> >
> >If we want to built a space elevator then update the Saturn V
> >design, where 10 to 20 launches are use to establish an orbiting
> >cable manufacturing plant, using NEOs as a source of raw
> >material.The cables then can be used to build an orbiting ring
> >system that suspend a system of space elevators.
> >
> >Or we can wait for the development of CNT based ribbons.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> Bert
>
>
> That actually sounds like a practical plan and unlike the stimulus
> plan, and for a lot less money,  would actually pay for itself.
>
> Let's form a proposal to the stimulus board.  They love unmanned
> rockets and infrastructure.  In the 10 years it will take to get the
> major pieces up, materials will have developed quite a bit just in
> time.
>
> Jerry
>
> --
> Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, CA 91711 USA - <mail to: 01rocket@...>
>

I'm afraid railguns and reuse don't exactly go hand-in-hand.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Railgun_usnavy_2008.jpg

The outer coating will mostly ablate off during the flight thru the atmosphere.
On orbit, the charred outer casing will have to be carefully milled off to
prevent contaminating the graphite. The graphite can then be ground up and
processed.

--- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Irvine <01rocket@...> wrote:
>
> >  musthavemorestuff:
> >
> >
> >I watch railguns with great interest. Most payloads can't tolerate
> >the high G takeoff provided by them, but graphite should be highly
> >stable. A projectile with a packed graphite core and the right outer
> >coating could be lobbed to orbit if the technology continues to
> >advance. The US Navy is testing a gun that can fire a projectile at
> >5800 m/s that can hit a 5 meter target at 200 nautical miles. It is
> >designed to fire 10 shots per minute. Escape velocity is about
> >12,000 m/s.
> >
> >If the graphite can be processed into the ribbon in orbit, it is one
> >possible way to tackle it without crippling launch costs.
>
>
> So instead of orbiting the material, shoot at and hit an already
> orbiting target so the altitude component is done but the horizontal
> velocity component gets a nudge after impact with the orbital unit.
> This could be used with a longer rail gun to lower g's, and insulated
> capsules, to loft non-cryo propellants and water and base materials.
>
> Drop clusters of shells over designated recovery zones for reuse.
>
> Jerry
>
> --
> Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, CA 91711 USA - <mail to: 01rocket@...>
>

>  musthavemorestuff:
>
>
>I watch railguns with great interest. Most payloads can't tolerate
>the high G takeoff provided by them, but graphite should be highly
>stable. A projectile with a packed graphite core and the right outer
>coating could be lobbed to orbit if the technology continues to
>advance. The US Navy is testing a gun that can fire a projectile at
>5800 m/s that can hit a 5 meter target at 200 nautical miles. It is
>designed to fire 10 shots per minute. Escape velocity is about
>12,000 m/s.
>
>If the graphite can be processed into the ribbon in orbit, it is one
>possible way to tackle it without crippling launch costs.


So instead of orbiting the material, shoot at and hit an already
orbiting target so the altitude component is done but the horizontal
velocity component gets a nudge after impact with the orbital unit.
This could be used with a longer rail gun to lower g's, and insulated
capsules, to loft non-cryo propellants and water and base materials.

Drop clusters of shells over designated recovery zones for reuse.

Jerry

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, CA 91711 USA - <mail to: 01rocket@...>

I watch railguns with great interest. Most payloads can't tolerate the high G
takeoff provided by them, but graphite should be highly stable. A projectile
with a packed graphite core and the right outer coating could be lobbed to orbit
if the technology continues to advance. The US Navy is testing a gun that can
fire a projectile at 5800 m/s that can hit a 5 meter target at 200 nautical
miles. It is designed to fire 10 shots per minute. Escape velocity is about
12,000 m/s.

If the graphite can be processed into the ribbon in orbit, it is one possible
way to tackle it without crippling launch costs.


--- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, "Bert" <hcm1955@...> wrote:
>
> In 1970 dollars the 15 Saturn V launch vehicle cost 7 billion dollars. In
todays dollars that would be 1.3 Billion dollars per vehicle. Each vehicle could
put 120 tons in LEO, that is $5400 per pound in todays dollars. Using the 7 tons
and the $120 million figures results in a $8500 per pound number. Scaling up a
launch vehicle makes sense if there is need to put a lot stuff into orbit at one
time.
>
> If we want to built a space elevator then update the Saturn V design, where 10
to 20 launches are use to establish an orbiting cable manufacturing plant, using
NEOs as a source of raw material.The cables then can be used to build an
orbiting ring system that suspend a system of space elevators.
>
> Or we can wait for the development of CNT based ribbons.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bert
>
> --- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, "musthavemorestuff"
<musthavemorestuff@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > The best we have today is Ariane 5/Delta 4 Heavy class. They can lift about
20 tons to low earth orbit or 7 tons to geo xfer orbit. The total mass of
payload, rocket and fuel is 770 tons and an Ariane launch is going for $120
million. Not very efficient or economical.
> >
> > The best we have done is the Saturn 5, 120 tons to LEO with a launch weight
of 3000 tons. To go bigger than the Saturn 5 gets very impractical very fast.
Every new pound of payload requires many times it's weight in fuel and
structure. Cost? Great question, it was a govt program.
> >
> > Ok, what does 120 tons work out to? That's 2 rail cars. The average freight
car carries 60 tons of freight. Not much by industrial standards.
> >
> >
> > --- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, "Everett L.(Rett) Williams" <rett@>
wrote:
> > >
> > > You present a false dichotomy. The current projected lift capacity of
chemical
> > > rockets is a million pounds or better. If you need more, you assemble in
space.
> > > Except for demonstration projects, I do believe that we should get most of
our
> > > materials from space in the form of asteroids or materials from the Moon,
but
> > > the limitations on rocket capability are largely illusory.
> > >
> > > musthavemorestuff wrote:
> > > > I don't agree. I think it will come down to payload sizes. Back in the
Apollo days, we hit the limits of chemical rockets. You could not add much more
weight to the Saturn 5 stack before it became so heavy it would not get off the
ground. We are back on that trail again with Ares/Constellation. Before that
runs it's course, the world will see clearly what the weight limit of chemicals
rockets is. When we have a mission we want to do that exceeds the weight limit,
we either need the elevator, off-planet manufacturing, or a combination.
> > > >
> > > > I am of the opinion that off-planet manufacturing off payloads will
demand a reliable delivery system that is not effected by the whims of weather.
It might not be the elevator that solves the problem, but our current lauch
methods just won't get the job done. I'm betting on the elevator.
> > > >
> > > > --- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, "Bert"<hcm1955@>  wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> I think the odds for forming a political party where development of
space as it's main plank has a better chance in succeeding than a publicly
traded corporation.
> > > >>
> > > >> There is a case to be made that cheap access to space would have
positive effects on jobs, economy and environment.
> > > >>
> > > >> Cheers,
> > > >> Bert
> > > >>
> > > >> --- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, "Bert"<hcm1955@>  wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> 2OOB to 500B sounds like a goverment funding to me. The world's
largest defense contractor brings in 45B revenues a year. The largest
corporation brings in 300B in revenues, with a profit of 10B
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Cheers,
> > > >>> Bert
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Irvine<01rocket@>  wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Currently CNTs can be produced with tensile strength of 50 Gpa. QC
> > > >>>>> and a process to tie CNTs into a long thread needs to be work out.
> > > >>>>> This is less of a technical challenge than producing fissionable
> > > >>>>> materiel in the 1930/40s was for the Manhattan project.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Also an orbital ring system using steel cables is possible. This
> > > >>>>> would require the equivalent of 10 to 15 Saturn V launches to
> > > >>>>> establish a starter system.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> So I believe a space elevator is more of a policy and national goal
> > > >>>>> issue, than a technical issue. This is not to say there is not
> > > >>>>> significant technical issues that need to resolve. It may not be
> > > >>>>> within the reach of a corporation, but it is within the reach of a
> > > >>>>> nation. I can not think of a better stimulus package. The payback
> > > >>>>> would be mining the moon and NEOs, which also low impact to the
> > > >>>>> enviroment.
> > > >>>>> Cheers,
> > > >>>>> Bert
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I disagree. A public stock offering could raise the funds, and the
> > > >>>> clear value of the venture would provide sufficient prospective value
> > > >>>> that the investment would multiply in value, not merely sit there.
> > > >>>> Being stock it is by definition "patient capital" which is what is
> > > >>>> needed for a long gestation scientific project.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Private capital is 10x-30x the capacity of governments, which receive
> > > >>>> 100% of their proceeds from confiscatory taxation of private
> > > >>>> activities, only a small portion is capital.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> One of my first posts to this list when it started up was to offer to
> > > >>>> implement this plan when the technical effort was practical.  My
> > > >>>> scheme improves the "patience" of the capital drastically, which also
> > > >>>> increases the raise scale drastically.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Are we there yet?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> 15 Saturn V's does not sound like much of a hurtle to me.  I made a
> > > >>>> rocket last month that was a tiny fraction of that (15k lb for 10
> > > >>>> sec) and did it with almost no resources at all.  What I could do
> > > >>>> with $1B would be astounding. I am guessing you are talking closer to
> > > >>>> $200-600B total system cost. Recoverable in less time than a 30 year
> > > >>>> mortgage.  Think about that.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Jerry
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> --
> > > >>>> Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, CA 91711 USA -<mail to: 01rocket@>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

>
>
>In 1970 dollars the 15 Saturn V launch vehicle cost 7 billion
>dollars. In todays dollars that would be 1.3 Billion dollars per
>vehicle. Each vehicle could put 120 tons in LEO, that is $5400 per
>pound in todays dollars. Using the 7 tons and the $120 million
>figures results in a $8500 per pound number. Scaling up a launch
>vehicle makes sense if there is need to put a lot stuff into orbit
>at one time.
>
>If we want to built a space elevator then update the Saturn V
>design, where 10 to 20 launches are use to establish an orbiting
>cable manufacturing plant, using NEOs as a source of raw
>material.The cables then can be used to build an orbiting ring
>system that suspend a system of space elevators.
>
>Or we can wait for the development of CNT based ribbons.
>
>Cheers,
>
Bert


That actually sounds like a practical plan and unlike the stimulus
plan, and for a lot less money,  would actually pay for itself.

Let's form a proposal to the stimulus board.  They love unmanned
rockets and infrastructure.  In the 10 years it will take to get the
major pieces up, materials will have developed quite a bit just in
time.

Jerry

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, CA 91711 USA - <mail to: 01rocket@...>

In 1970 dollars the 15 Saturn V launch vehicle cost 7 billion dollars. In todays
dollars that would be 1.3 Billion dollars per vehicle. Each vehicle could put
120 tons in LEO, that is $5400 per pound in todays dollars. Using the 7 tons and
the $120 million figures results in a $8500 per pound number. Scaling up a
launch vehicle makes sense if there is need to put a lot stuff into orbit at one
time.

If we want to built a space elevator then update the Saturn V design, where 10
to 20 launches are use to establish an orbiting cable manufacturing plant, using
NEOs as a source of raw material.The cables then can be used to build an
orbiting ring system that suspend a system of space elevators.

Or we can wait for the development of CNT based ribbons.

Cheers,

Bert

--- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, "musthavemorestuff"
<musthavemorestuff@...> wrote:
>
>
> The best we have today is Ariane 5/Delta 4 Heavy class. They can lift about 20
tons to low earth orbit or 7 tons to geo xfer orbit. The total mass of payload,
rocket and fuel is 770 tons and an Ariane launch is going for $120 million. Not
very efficient or economical.
>
> The best we have done is the Saturn 5, 120 tons to LEO with a launch weight of
3000 tons. To go bigger than the Saturn 5 gets very impractical very fast. Every
new pound of payload requires many times it's weight in fuel and structure.
Cost? Great question, it was a govt program.
>
> Ok, what does 120 tons work out to? That's 2 rail cars. The average freight
car carries 60 tons of freight. Not much by industrial standards.
>
>
> --- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, "Everett L.(Rett) Williams" <rett@>
wrote:
> >
> > You present a false dichotomy. The current projected lift capacity of
chemical
> > rockets is a million pounds or better. If you need more, you assemble in
space.
> > Except for demonstration projects, I do believe that we should get most of
our
> > materials from space in the form of asteroids or materials from the Moon,
but
> > the limitations on rocket capability are largely illusory.
> >
> > musthavemorestuff wrote:
> > > I don't agree. I think it will come down to payload sizes. Back in the
Apollo days, we hit the limits of chemical rockets. You could not add much more
weight to the Saturn 5 stack before it became so heavy it would not get off the
ground. We are back on that trail again with Ares/Constellation. Before that
runs it's course, the world will see clearly what the weight limit of chemicals
rockets is. When we have a mission we want to do that exceeds the weight limit,
we either need the elevator, off-planet manufacturing, or a combination.
> > >
> > > I am of the opinion that off-planet manufacturing off payloads will demand
a reliable delivery system that is not effected by the whims of weather. It
might not be the elevator that solves the problem, but our current lauch methods
just won't get the job done. I'm betting on the elevator.
> > >
> > > --- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, "Bert"<hcm1955@>  wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I think the odds for forming a political party where development of space
as it's main plank has a better chance in succeeding than a publicly traded
corporation.
> > >>
> > >> There is a case to be made that cheap access to space would have positive
effects on jobs, economy and environment.
> > >>
> > >> Cheers,
> > >> Bert
> > >>
> > >> --- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, "Bert"<hcm1955@>  wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> 2OOB to 500B sounds like a goverment funding to me. The world's largest
defense contractor brings in 45B revenues a year. The largest corporation brings
in 300B in revenues, with a profit of 10B
> > >>>
> > >>> Cheers,
> > >>> Bert
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Irvine<01rocket@>  wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Currently CNTs can be produced with tensile strength of 50 Gpa. QC
> > >>>>> and a process to tie CNTs into a long thread needs to be work out.
> > >>>>> This is less of a technical challenge than producing fissionable
> > >>>>> materiel in the 1930/40s was for the Manhattan project.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Also an orbital ring system using steel cables is possible. This
> > >>>>> would require the equivalent of 10 to 15 Saturn V launches to
> > >>>>> establish a starter system.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> So I believe a space elevator is more of a policy and national goal
> > >>>>> issue, than a technical issue. This is not to say there is not
> > >>>>> significant technical issues that need to resolve. It may not be
> > >>>>> within the reach of a corporation, but it is within the reach of a
> > >>>>> nation. I can not think of a better stimulus package. The payback
> > >>>>> would be mining the moon and NEOs, which also low impact to the
> > >>>>> enviroment.
> > >>>>> Cheers,
> > >>>>> Bert
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I disagree. A public stock offering could raise the funds, and the
> > >>>> clear value of the venture would provide sufficient prospective value
> > >>>> that the investment would multiply in value, not merely sit there.
> > >>>> Being stock it is by definition "patient capital" which is what is
> > >>>> needed for a long gestation scientific project.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Private capital is 10x-30x the capacity of governments, which receive
> > >>>> 100% of their proceeds from confiscatory taxation of private
> > >>>> activities, only a small portion is capital.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> One of my first posts to this list when it started up was to offer to
> > >>>> implement this plan when the technical effort was practical.  My
> > >>>> scheme improves the "patience" of the capital drastically, which also
> > >>>> increases the raise scale drastically.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Are we there yet?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 15 Saturn V's does not sound like much of a hurtle to me.  I made a
> > >>>> rocket last month that was a tiny fraction of that (15k lb for 10
> > >>>> sec) and did it with almost no resources at all.  What I could do
> > >>>> with $1B would be astounding. I am guessing you are talking closer to
> > >>>> $200-600B total system cost. Recoverable in less time than a 30 year
> > >>>> mortgage.  Think about that.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Jerry
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, CA 91711 USA -<mail to: 01rocket@>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

The best we have today is Ariane 5/Delta 4 Heavy class. They can lift about 20
tons to low earth orbit or 7 tons to geo xfer orbit. The total mass of payload,
rocket and fuel is 770 tons and an Ariane launch is going for $120 million. Not
very efficient or economical.

The best we have done is the Saturn 5, 120 tons to LEO with a launch weight of
3000 tons. To go bigger than the Saturn 5 gets very impractical very fast. Every
new pound of payload requires many times it's weight in fuel and structure.
Cost? Great question, it was a govt program.

Ok, what does 120 tons work out to? That's 2 rail cars. The average freight car
carries 60 tons of freight. Not much by industrial standards.


--- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, "Everett L.(Rett) Williams" <rett@...>
wrote:
>
> You present a false dichotomy. The current projected lift capacity of chemical
> rockets is a million pounds or better. If you need more, you assemble in
space.
> Except for demonstration projects, I do believe that we should get most of our
> materials from space in the form of asteroids or materials from the Moon, but
> the limitations on rocket capability are largely illusory.
>
> musthavemorestuff wrote:
> > I don't agree. I think it will come down to payload sizes. Back in the
Apollo days, we hit the limits of chemical rockets. You could not add much more
weight to the Saturn 5 stack before it became so heavy it would not get off the
ground. We are back on that trail again with Ares/Constellation. Before that
runs it's course, the world will see clearly what the weight limit of chemicals
rockets is. When we have a mission we want to do that exceeds the weight limit,
we either need the elevator, off-planet manufacturing, or a combination.
> >
> > I am of the opinion that off-planet manufacturing off payloads will demand a
reliable delivery system that is not effected by the whims of weather. It might
not be the elevator that solves the problem, but our current lauch methods just
won't get the job done. I'm betting on the elevator.
> >
> > --- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, "Bert"<hcm1955@>  wrote:
> >>
> >> I think the odds for forming a political party where development of space
as it's main plank has a better chance in succeeding than a publicly traded
corporation.
> >>
> >> There is a case to be made that cheap access to space would have positive
effects on jobs, economy and environment.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Bert
> >>
> >> --- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, "Bert"<hcm1955@>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 2OOB to 500B sounds like a goverment funding to me. The world's largest
defense contractor brings in 45B revenues a year. The largest corporation brings
in 300B in revenues, with a profit of 10B
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Bert
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Irvine<01rocket@>  wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Currently CNTs can be produced with tensile strength of 50 Gpa. QC
> >>>>> and a process to tie CNTs into a long thread needs to be work out.
> >>>>> This is less of a technical challenge than producing fissionable
> >>>>> materiel in the 1930/40s was for the Manhattan project.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Also an orbital ring system using steel cables is possible. This
> >>>>> would require the equivalent of 10 to 15 Saturn V launches to
> >>>>> establish a starter system.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So I believe a space elevator is more of a policy and national goal
> >>>>> issue, than a technical issue. This is not to say there is not
> >>>>> significant technical issues that need to resolve. It may not be
> >>>>> within the reach of a corporation, but it is within the reach of a
> >>>>> nation. I can not think of a better stimulus package. The payback
> >>>>> would be mining the moon and NEOs, which also low impact to the
> >>>>> enviroment.
> >>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>> Bert
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I disagree. A public stock offering could raise the funds, and the
> >>>> clear value of the venture would provide sufficient prospective value
> >>>> that the investment would multiply in value, not merely sit there.
> >>>> Being stock it is by definition "patient capital" which is what is
> >>>> needed for a long gestation scientific project.
> >>>>
> >>>> Private capital is 10x-30x the capacity of governments, which receive
> >>>> 100% of their proceeds from confiscatory taxation of private
> >>>> activities, only a small portion is capital.
> >>>>
> >>>> One of my first posts to this list when it started up was to offer to
> >>>> implement this plan when the technical effort was practical.  My
> >>>> scheme improves the "patience" of the capital drastically, which also
> >>>> increases the raise scale drastically.
> >>>>
> >>>> Are we there yet?
> >>>>
> >>>> 15 Saturn V's does not sound like much of a hurtle to me.  I made a
> >>>> rocket last month that was a tiny fraction of that (15k lb for 10
> >>>> sec) and did it with almost no resources at all.  What I could do
> >>>> with $1B would be astounding. I am guessing you are talking closer to
> >>>> $200-600B total system cost. Recoverable in less time than a 30 year
> >>>> mortgage.  Think about that.
> >>>>
> >>>> Jerry
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, CA 91711 USA -<mail to: 01rocket@>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

You present a false dichotomy. The current projected lift capacity of chemical
rockets is a million pounds or better. If you need more, you assemble in space.
Except for demonstration projects, I do believe that we should get most of our
materials from space in the form of asteroids or materials from the Moon, but
the limitations on rocket capability are largely illusory.

musthavemorestuff wrote:
> I don't agree. I think it will come down to payload sizes. Back in the Apollo
days, we hit the limits of chemical rockets. You could not add much more weight
to the Saturn 5 stack before it became so heavy it would not get off the ground.
We are back on that trail again with Ares/Constellation. Before that runs it's
course, the world will see clearly what the weight limit of chemicals rockets
is. When we have a mission we want to do that exceeds the weight limit, we
either need the elevator, off-planet manufacturing, or a combination.
>
> I am of the opinion that off-planet manufacturing off payloads will demand a
reliable delivery system that is not effected by the whims of weather. It might
not be the elevator that solves the problem, but our current lauch methods just
won't get the job done. I'm betting on the elevator.
>
> --- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, "Bert"<hcm1955@...>  wrote:
>>
>> I think the odds for forming a political party where development of space as
it's main plank has a better chance in succeeding than a publicly traded
corporation.
>>
>> There is a case to be made that cheap access to space would have positive
effects on jobs, economy and environment.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Bert
>>
>> --- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, "Bert"<hcm1955@>  wrote:
>>>
>>> 2OOB to 500B sounds like a goverment funding to me. The world's largest
defense contractor brings in 45B revenues a year. The largest corporation brings
in 300B in revenues, with a profit of 10B
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Bert
>>>
>>>
>>> --- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Irvine<01rocket@>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Currently CNTs can be produced with tensile strength of 50 Gpa. QC
>>>>> and a process to tie CNTs into a long thread needs to be work out.
>>>>> This is less of a technical challenge than producing fissionable
>>>>> materiel in the 1930/40s was for the Manhattan project.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also an orbital ring system using steel cables is possible. This
>>>>> would require the equivalent of 10 to 15 Saturn V launches to
>>>>> establish a starter system.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I believe a space elevator is more of a policy and national goal
>>>>> issue, than a technical issue. This is not to say there is not
>>>>> significant technical issues that need to resolve. It may not be
>>>>> within the reach of a corporation, but it is within the reach of a
>>>>> nation. I can not think of a better stimulus package. The payback
>>>>> would be mining the moon and NEOs, which also low impact to the
>>>>> enviroment.
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Bert
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I disagree. A public stock offering could raise the funds, and the
>>>> clear value of the venture would provide sufficient prospective value
>>>> that the investment would multiply in value, not merely sit there.
>>>> Being stock it is by definition "patient capital" which is what is
>>>> needed for a long gestation scientific project.
>>>>
>>>> Private capital is 10x-30x the capacity of governments, which receive
>>>> 100% of their proceeds from confiscatory taxation of private
>>>> activities, only a small portion is capital.
>>>>
>>>> One of my first posts to this list when it started up was to offer to
>>>> implement this plan when the technical effort was practical.  My
>>>> scheme improves the "patience" of the capital drastically, which also
>>>> increases the raise scale drastically.
>>>>
>>>> Are we there yet?
>>>>
>>>> 15 Saturn V's does not sound like much of a hurtle to me.  I made a
>>>> rocket last month that was a tiny fraction of that (15k lb for 10
>>>> sec) and did it with almost no resources at all.  What I could do
>>>> with $1B would be astounding. I am guessing you are talking closer to
>>>> $200-600B total system cost. Recoverable in less time than a 30 year
>>>> mortgage.  Think about that.
>>>>
>>>> Jerry
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, CA 91711 USA -<mail to: 01rocket@>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>