WHY THE FUCK IT GOTTA BE SO EXPENSIVE TO PUT SHIT INTO ORBIT

>>9121724
BECAUSE CHEMICAL PROPULSION IS AN INCREDIBLY INEFFICIENT, ALBEIT THE ONLY PRACTICAL, METHOD.

File: Space Elevator.png (43KB, 330x767px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 330x767px

>>9121732

WHY NOT JUST LIFT SOME SHIT AND DON'T STOP LIFTING UNTIL IT'S IN ORBIT

Gravity is a harsh mistress

File: big.png (31KB, 1100x488px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 1100x488px

because we're too pussy to build a giant spiral railgun

its getting alot cheaper these days, we could be reaching the mythical $500/lb really soon. there are also lots of ways to split the costs, and even ways of getting grants and vc funding so you arent paying out of pocket.

>>9121746

>Spiral

Wouldn't it be better to build it in an exponential arc over the course of a couple dozen of miles?

>>9121739
I think the consensus is that material and manufacturing science hasn't advanced enough to build a cable able to supply the necessary centripetal acceleration. People talk about carbon nanotubes and shit, but who knows how long that's going to take.

>>9121740
We need to kill that bitch

>>9121746
we already built oh god I can't keep it secret anymore

now im gunna get bagged. remember me anons

>>9121724
nigga just tie that shit into a balloon, the balloon will pop at the right altitude enough for it to be in """Orbit"""

>>9121971

I tied a frog to a ballon once

Is it in orbit?

>>9122041
Not with a regular balloon

File: IMG_1119.png (1MB, 1242x2208px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1242x2208px

>>9121724

File: IMG_1120.png (3MB, 1242x2208px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1242x2208px

>>9122111
Things I think about - what if there really is a black hole at the tip of the Seattle space needle like in my delusions?

Then I remember that I already handled that possibility

File: heres-a-recap-of-elon-musks-crazy-2015[1].jpg (2MB, 3000x3306px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x3306px

I'M FUCKING WORKING ON IT ALRIGHT YOU LITTLE SHIT

>>9122214

Looks like a villain from a b-reel sci-fi

Rockets have poorest performance near the ground (liftoff and initial climb), so why not lift it with an airplane (like the 747 carrying the space shuttle) and make it start there? Service ceiling of an aircraft is a good portion of thickest atmosphere so I imagine it would enable pretty good fuel savings.

>>9122222
Nice digits

>>9122222

Because a 747 cannot carry a big enough rocket to do anything useful.

You think a 747 is big, but a Falcon 9 Full Thrust is 70m high, 3.6m in diameter and weighs 550 tons.
A 747 is also 70m long, it's much larger at 65m because of the wings, and also much higher at 20m because it's empty.
However, its maximum takeoff weight is 440 tons including fuel and cargo.

So basically you're trying to strap 1.2 fully loaded 747s on top of your 747. That's not gonna end well.

Of course this is reductive, since we're not taking into account the reduced mass of a Falcon 9 equivalent that would be able to depart from high in the atmosphere and not at ground level, but you get the gist of it. There's no way to get that kind of mass into the air with our currently available planes.
Virgin Galactic is trying to do it for smaller tourist spacecraft however.

>>9122214
>I'M FUCKING WORKING ON IT ALRIGHT YOU LITTLE SHIT

Work FASTER!
I am not getting any younger!

>>9121746
shit tier
lofstrom loop is the real deal

>>9121947
Why kill when you could impregnate

>>9122041
The Flying Frenchman

>>9122214
Yes Reddit!

File: IMG_1245.png (433KB, 1242x2208px) Image search: [Google]

433KB, 1242x2208px

Here's a new idea someone else had for me

File: IMG_1292.png (461KB, 1242x2208px) Image search: [Google]

461KB, 1242x2208px

This might also help

Get your diamond mechanosynthesis revved up folks