Okay guys new Idea. look at this picture of this ramp that will

the g-force post point zero would obliterate the craft.

>>713607251
>more mass on decent

op, do you work for Acme?

>>713607428
im not trying to go super sonic at this point. I might have made the picture too sharp of a parabola but the idea is the same. lets make the curve upward less extreme to reduce g force

>>713607689
an object in motion stays in motion. get a lot of mass to go fast, and it will stay fast longer.

>>713607782
I meant it's spelled descent

>>713607251
Keep trying, but your current model would probably crash into the ground at point 0, since, you know, the laws of physics and all.

Think less in terms of a roller-coaster and more in terms of a catapult or big elastic band like on the aircraft carriers.

You're trying to get it to go into orbit so you have to force it in that direction.

the amount of energy it would take to lift the mass, force it down faster than gravity, etc to have enough momentum to hit space is ridiculous op. even if it all held up and worked, which it wouldn't.

why not just lift something up there, then use rockets to make it hit a trampoline really hard so it bounces into space.

that is at least more sound of an idea.

File: space program 2.0.png (463KB, 545x412px) Image search: [Google]

463KB, 545x412px

>>713608185
I was working on a trebuchet model like that. but the arm would have to be so long that no material could keep it straight.

>>713607251
rocket ships are made of paper. they would never survive

>>713607709
There's no point in having it go down at all, then, just have some kind of mechanical assist on an upward ramp so you save on rocket fuel. That's the whole point of those things is to save money.

The other anon is right in the assessment that even if the track was built solidly enough to handle those forces, the craft itself has a priority of having to be lightweight and the forces at point 0 would be unreasonable.

Think about it. Just have a ramp going up, not down.

what is friction trebek?

>>713608251
this trampoline fabric would have to be very strong. I think the space ship would just go through it. unless you know of another material

l>>713608454
rocket ships are not made of paper, cite your sources

>>713608602
no you need rockets to be going, because when the rocket leaves the ramp fuel tank beta starts feeding the rocket and gives additional thrust. also using high precision bearings. or mag lev to help the rocket glide would be great.


.

just fucking build that space elevator already

File: 1441031104800.gif (28KB, 329x302px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 329x302px

>>713607251

>accelerate TOWARD the center of the earth, then RAPIDLY CHANGE DIRECTION

surely nothing could go wrong

listen buddy, besides stress fractures and material strength limits, you also have to consider the fact that you are plowing through the thickest part of the atmosphere during the entire acceleration period. shits gonna heat up quick, and you'll waste a ton of fuel thanks to air friction, assuming it all doesn't melt or shred before it leaves the ramp

>>713608849
use the fabric of space-time

>>713607251
Your grasp on physics is pathetically bad. Why don't you build this as a model and see how well it performs.

Spoiler alert: it won't.

I dont think you guys get the idea. so much energy is needed to lift space ships. they are so heavy. accelerating that much mass needs alot of fuel. and the fuel has weight so you have to add more fuel to give more thrust. if we can get a rocket to move fast before it starts using its fuel. it can hold more cargo and use less fuel.

File: 1478145427317_0.jpg (473KB, 700x1120px) Image search: [Google]

473KB, 700x1120px

we're going to build a space wall instead. and the greys are going to pay for it.

File: 1354063741572.gif (1MB, 207x207px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 207x207px

>>713609112
so your solution is to put it on a hill and push it down a slide?

how about we just build the rocket in space?

>>713608849
Do you understand that you are trying to get into space, not make a cool rollercoaster with g forces that would smash a human?

it is completely pointless to have a ramp going down at all because you are trying to get it to go up. It's literally a waste of energy. If you can't wrap your head around it then I can only suggest trying to write out the physics formulas with some approximate values to estimate the G's and speeds necessary at every point to see what I mean.

>>713607251
Sure going to be rocket scientist some day..

File: 6738631e1f319c39aa618da180f7a13c.jpg (84KB, 570x848px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 570x848px

early photographs of op when coming up with this plan

>>713609112
I think what YOU don't understand is that the forces you are talking about are literally beyond your ability to reasonably imagine them and the material reaction to them.

>build rocket
>wait for quantum teleportation to move the entire rocket into desired location
>profit

>>713608959
it will not be going fast enough for air friction to have an effect.

>>713609031
oh shit let me know where to get some of that.

>>713609080
the model i drew was not to scale. the ramp will be less extreme on the ascent

>>713609150
they goddamn better.

>>713609324
thats step two

>>713609333
im not trying to save money. im not trying to save fuel. Im saying with this design you can carry more cargo with less fuel.

You would just lose all of the energy you built up on the way down the ramp when you go back up. Conservation of energy, homie.

File: contact-jodie-foster.jpg (25KB, 530x313px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 530x313px

>>713609544
they should have sent a poet

can we just turn this thread into us all drawing pictures of future propellants or launch tactics?

>>713609382
i used little rockets with wheels glued to them, but same idea.

>>713609544
holy
>>713609622
fucking shit

>>713609610
added rocket thrust going at all time. energy is only being added.

>>713609731
yes please

File: 4xjj4.png (311KB, 1383x1631px) Image search: [Google]

311KB, 1383x1631px

op here. here's my bicycle design.

>>713609622
it's actually possible just insanely improbable

>>713610115
thats the kind of science im in for. where you think you cant do it, but you do. then you put a flag on the moon.

>>713609799
>energy is only being added.
And wasted

Dude, it's really simple. Objects in motion have momentum. Your ship has momentum accelerating it into the Earth which has to be completely negated for it to go up at all. Just remove the whole roller-coaster aspect of it and make it a mechanically assisted ramp and you're actually doing something that could work, but as it is, this is sci-fi with poor understanding of physics.

Sure you could get it to work, but it would be needlessly complicated and wasteful, taking approximately more energy to gain the upward thrust necessary for orbit.

I like that you're thinking about space, but sometimes our first ideas aren't exactly on point.

>>713609546
alright I will explain why it wouldn't work in a theoretical perfectly frictionless ideal world

you see it doesn't matter how much mass you add to a body, it's acceleration g will always be 9.8 m/s2 so adding mass and detatching would cause no effect on the speed of the craft itself

when reaching point 0, the craft would simply split in two parts, both going at the same speed, and both would climb the ramp and fly up until they reached the exact same height they were when launched

As you can see, even in this idealization, the idea wouldn't work unless the ramp was as high as space

AND if you add air friction+G forces+track friction+the fact that spacecraft are usually fragile... you get the idea

>wait I read now that the craft would be thrusting the entire time

then the only gain you would have in energy would be the difference between the potential energy of the tank if detatched mid flight and the potential energy of the tank detatched at point 0; again, very low energy gain

what if we strap a rope to the ISS and just pull shit up?

You sir are brilliant. I would like to discuss your ideas. How well is your understanding of bird law?

Sincerely,
Wile E. Coyote

why dont we just use a giant slingshot?

File: 1471191701946.png (99KB, 264x240px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 264x240px

>>713611134
>bird law
lost it

>>713611134
>Wile E. Coyote
not Charlie Kelly

>>713607251
https://discord.gg/eW5qHxU

>>713611134
uh, well filibuster. I think I've made myself perfectly redundant.

>>713610265
using gravity does not sound like it works reality. ill keep thinking of designs, thanks annon.

>>713610830
thanks for explaining it. science is about new ideas, and sometimes they are not so good

>>713611134
nice

>>713611374
yes, yes you have

>>713611134
Fucking brilliant

>>713611434
how about if we make the space ship extremely buoyant
and then we submerge it into the mariana trench and then release it so the buoyancy pulls it to the surface and shoots it into space?

>>713607251
Boi, escape velocity will fuck up the tyres and don't forget the friction the tyre will face, moreover when rocket launches like that, it may harm anything like 9/11

>>713611708
water's terminal velocity is very low (the maximum travel speed inside water) and I highly doubt it would be enough to counter the fact that you need to make the craft resistent to a ton of pressure

>>713609799
So then you have the problem of getting the rockets and rocket fuel to the top of the ramp, which would put you at an energy deficit

>>713612178
but the money required to lift an elevator is much less than that of the fuel

File: 1476290756580.jpg (20KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 480x360px

>>713612146

>>713607709
>im not trying to go super sonic at this point

The speed you need to be traveling to reach minimal low Earth orbit is over 17,000 mph.

The speed of sound is only about 760 mph but depends on temperature and humidity etc. So it changes a few mph day to day.

So you are saying that at the bottom of the ramp the ship won't even be going 4% the velocity it needs to be going to reach low orbit.

WTF is the point of the downward ramp? It's not even giving you 4% of the speed you need.

>>713612257
I can dig that. I'm another anon, but what really gets me about the space elevator aspect of it is that the forces on one end would be astronomically different than the forces on the other end.

I question that mankind has the material understanding to build a structure like that with its current level of technology. Making the idea science fiction.

>>713607251
it's a ramp, it's already going to be less effective than any standing free launch will ever be. The problem is that you are connected to something, which will cause all sorts of friction and drag plus any additional from gravity. The greater the force you apply to an object downward, the greater the force that object will apply to whatever structure is guiding it, which means you'll have a massive energy leach.

>>713612492
The hypothetical idea of the space elevator makes sense. There is no material known to man strong enough to do it.

In theory carbon nanotubes "might" be able to do it. But we can only make carbon nanotubes millimeters long at this point. The space elevator needs to extend past geostationary orbit which is over 20,000 miles up.

>millimeters
>20,000 miles

We have a few things to figure out...

>>713612666
There is an interesting documentary on Netflix about the space elevator. There has been a scientific contest for several years. They have a cash reward for anybody able to generate a cable strong enough to make a space elevator. Nobody can come close yet. And in the contest you only need to make like 2 or 3 meters worth of the cable, not 20,000 miles.

Trailer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YI_PMkZnxQ

>takes high school physics
>fails the course
>thinks he's a rocket scientist now

>>713612666
different anon here but what i always found most interesting about the whole space elevator theory and all that is not just the whole greater deal of force on one end than the other deal
but also how those extreme forces would also effect the planet
ye know?
like would it throw off our orbit?
would our orbit be entirely different if the space elevator somehow lasted long enough to cause long term changes
hopefully the point im trying to get across is obvious im a bit fucked up right now and probably not explaining it the best

layman example i guess would be like the difference between
a ball spinning
a ball, with a heavy stick attached to one side, spinning

File: ss engines.jpg (2MB, 2008x3000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2008x3000px

>>713607251
Dear anon,
Even if your ramp worked perfectly, it wouldn't be much help. Getting a spaceship out into space is nothing. It's the easy part.
Guess what happens after you got a rocket into space. It falls right back, because gravity still exists there. Even at the International Space Station, 90% of Earth's gravity applies.

So how do they stay up there? They start going around Earth really fast, so as they are falling towards Earth they "continuously miss it", and freefall in a way that doesn't touch Earth. It's a bit hard to explain, look up some images about orbital mechanics if interested. ISS is going to fast that it makes a complete orbit around Earth every 30 minutes.

The thing is, actually getting onto low earth orbit is the expensive part, and you can't do it with a ramp launch since you have to accelerate the spaceship parallel to Earth's horizon, rather than away from Earth. The required acceleration is usually measured in deltaV, which is proportional to the amount of fuel needed. It takes about 1.5km/s of acceleration to shoot something into space. If you don't want it to fall back, it takes about 9km/s to actually get it into low earth orbit. So your ramp would only cover about 20% of the required energy, even if it worked perfectly.

>>713613411
It won't effect the orbit at all. The forces involved are insignificant compared to global scale forces.

Yes, extending weight outwards would slow the orbit of the Earth ever so slightly. But thousands of tons of meteorites fall to Earth every year. Even the ones that burn up in the sky have their remains fall to the surface as dust. The speed and orbit of the Earth has never been constant. The angle of the axis also shifts.

>>713613411
The earth is monumentally more massive than any proposed space elevator concept. It would affect the Earth, like everything, but it would be negligible.

More serious is the problem of the material, which is sci-fi. for me, hearing about the space elevator for years, but knowing the forces at work are astronomical, it's kind of like talking about magic or Force Powers.

Kinda like, "Oh yeah, force powers are legit hypothetically, we just don't know how to build midichlorians"

Or like "Time TRavel? Oh, totally, just have to reach the point where we can build a flux capacitor"

It sounds simple talking about carbon nanotubes and shit, but good luck with anything other than an idea. any material anywhere close to strong enough for that purpose would immediately have widespread use in everything from weapons to kitchenware before it ever made it to a space elevator. It would be like magic.

>>713613646
This.

I highly recommend the game Kerbal Space Program if you want to learn some simple fundamentals about space flight. It's by no means a simulator and getting to space in the game is easy mode compared to going to space for real, but it teaches you a lot of basics about orbits and navigation in space.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkDOOsGg-9I

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMUYFHPdIbw

>>713613651
>>713613821
appreciate the answers anons, and you're both right kinda ashamed of myself for not thinking that before having the thought and typing the post
cheers m8s

>>713607251
- The costs of building the ramp and getting the rocket to the top for launch would be greater than launching a rocket from the ground.

- The G's involved would murder anybody inside.

- The atmosphere would slow down the craft throughout the process.

- The bulk of the energy needed to get to orbit would still have to come from fuel, because if you got up to orbital velocity at the end of the ramp, you'll immediately fall out of orbit due to drag unless you continue accelerating.

If you're going to build something that goes up so high that the atmosphere isn't a major factor, then just build a space elevator.

What you're suggesting is harder than a space elevator and wouldn't serve a purpose because of its cost compared to a rocket doing the same thing.

>>713613847
i cannot recommend that game enough
like you said not 100% accurate but fuck is it glorious and amazing for at least getting a basic understanding

>>713613847
KSP is the bomb. I play with all the hardest setting, except that Kerbals respawn because death is sad.

>>713614591
have you built "rockets" and launched them at your competition yet?

File: Railgun_usnavy_2008.jpg (342KB, 1920x1386px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 1920x1386px

>>713614440
The bulk of the energy needed to get to orbit would still have to come from fuel, because if you got up to orbital velocity at the end of the ramp, you'll immediately fall out of orbit due to drag unless you continue accelerating.

Not only that, but being at orbital speeds at surface levels of atmosphere would obliterate any craft. Spaceships need heat shields to protect them when they touch the upper levels of air that are like 1% as thick as on the surface. And even then they are glowing fireballs.

Pic related. That's a NAVY experimental railgun firing a projectile at about 3,000 meters per second.

Minimal speed for low Earth orbit is 7,600 meters per second.

Going orbital speeds at low altitude will obliterate a solid block of metal, let alone a space ship.

>>713613847
I have been playing KSP for years. If it is easy mode, I never need to design a rocket. I made it out of the system a few times, to the Mun a few, but only landed on one planet by watching a tutorial. In the middle of a fucking mercury ocean. Yeah. I spend a lot of time making elaborate orbiting space stations, launching them, and trying to see if by littering the orbit with as much as possible, I can make them smash into each other. It is harder than it sounds. I figure in a couple more years, I will have enough up there it should be interesting to accelerate time and see how many collide on their own. Shit is hard. And ruthlessly unforgiving.

yea you need to dl KSP and learn some about orbital mechanics.

even the "sky momentum chain" is a better idea

>>713607251
Sooooooo many things wrong with that design.

>>713615042
The KSP solar system is micro scale. Jool, the big green planet on the edge of the Solar system is as far away from the Sun in KSP as Mercury is from the Sun in real life. Kerbin, the planet that is supposed to be Earth is like the size of our Moon.

The physics in the game are sort of realistic, the scales and distances in the game are like 1/10th real distances in our solar system. And even at like 1/10th scale its hard to go places in the game.

KSP thread?
KSP thread..

>>713615042
because of how ksp handles distance and speed, orbital objects get "put on rails" and dont actually have a collision mesh. there are ways to make it happen but its hard iirc

>>713615426
mods can change alot of that
part of the reason i started installing mods to get more planets, further distances, more realistic physics, other solar systems, etc.
fuck i love ksp

File: 1286471544210.jpg (166KB, 591x483px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 591x483px

>>713607251
This seems simpler

>>713615543
They have to make a lot of compromises to make it be able to run on a regular PC. You would need a super computer to run it if all the physics were real.

I've done some real world physics calculations on a super computer when I was in grad school. They simulated real molecules. Even simulating like 10,000 atoms in 100% realism takes like 1,000 CPUs, each quadcore, clustered together and computing for a month straight just to get like 0.01 seconds of realistic simulation.

We are a long ways away from simulating the matrix...

>>713607251
Looks legit, go find a brave young frog and prepare a craft for a test flight

>>713613646
>ISS is going to fast that it makes a complete orbit around Earth every 30 minutes.

I thought it was about 90minutes. Are they really that low?

>>713615969
hopefully quantum computers fix all that

>>713615945
i miss troll science

File: disgust.jpg (46KB, 620x400px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 620x400px

>its heavier so it falls faster
>right side of ramp is smaller so it loses less speed on climb

none of this works. kill yourself

>>713613821
>It sounds simple talking about carbon nanotubes and shit

Read about 2 months back that the error rate in making nanotubes is always going to be such that any material made will, sadly, always be way too weak for an elevator. Back to the old drawing board.