ÑóẊîöʼn
13th October 2008, 20:29
When I first intended to create this thread, it was going to be about a specific technology - the Slingatron (more on that below). But then I realised that it wasn't the only cheap way of getting into space. I also knew that there is a strong anti-space research sentiment among the left, and that in the event of a revolution such sentiments are likely to be reflected in the population at large - even today, ignorant people of all political persuasions piss and moan about the money being spent on space research, when in actual fact it is a miniscule proportion of the GDP of all countries, which spend far more on "defence". In fact the US spends hundreds of billions of dollars on it's imperialist military machine, while devoting less than 20 billion overall to NASA.
Currently, the only organisations with the resources and intellectual capital to perform serious research into space travel are organisations like NASA, ESA, JAXA, and the governments of China and India. But NASA is hidebound and unimaginative, and like the ESA and JAXA, criminally underfunded (not to mention that due in part to NASA's previously mentioned lack of imagination and also in part to the fact that NASA is used as a political football, too much of that money is wasted), while the Chinese and Indian space agencies are but in their infancy.
So it occurs to me that an essential component of any post-revolutionary body is a space program, but it seems likely that there will be significant popular sentiment against such a thing. Whatever the realities of resource allocation, space research advocates must provide results early and often to convince the masses that space research is vital and worthwhile. Any region larger than an island under revolutionary control will require orbital satellites for communication, weather monitoring, and scientific research. It may be possible to build a worthwhile space program on the back of such essentials, but then again it may not. So, resource allocation to space research is likely to be limited.
This is where the technologies I mentioned earlier come in. They will be able to demonstrate the worthiness of space research on a shoestring budget, which may be the catalyst for changing popular opinion on the importance of such research. If space research advocates can show what is possible on a limited allocation of resources, imagine what is possible if they had access to more!
So now I will show a brief run-down on low-cost and/or low-energy space access technologies:
The Slingatron (http://www.slingatron.com/index.html)
This is the technology which inspired this thread! I find it is very impressive for what it is; it uses no explosives, flammable chemicals, the energy required for launch can be built up slowly over time using flywheels (as opposed to railguns and gauss guns which require high-intensity bursts of electrical power in order to function), and it is based on simple physics and mechanical engineering principles that would have been familiar to Isaac Newton over 200 years ago. With modern day materials and engineering techniques, it is entirely possible to build one of these things capable of launching a vehicle into Earth orbit. Take a look at the website and be amazed.
The Slingatron could also be used a cheap but extremely powerful rapid-fire weapon system for defence against imperialist attack. Different Slingatron systems could be optimised for use as anti-aircraft platforms, anti-tank guns, coastal batteries, and ballistic missile defence systems. A sufficiently powerful Slingatron system would also be able to launch counter-strikes against aggressors on their own soil.
Launch Guns (http://orbitalvector.com/Orbital%20Travel/Launch%20Guns/LAUNCH%20GUNS.htm)
The types of launch guns listed in the above link that are of particular interest for this topic are the "Advanced HARP Launch Cannon" and the "Ram Accelerator Launch Gun". The Advanced HARP Launch Cannon is an option available to any moderately-industrialised country, and requires technology no more advanced than what was available during the Cold War. It would be entirely possible to launch microsatellites for various purposes using this technology. The Ram Accelerator is particularly interesting since it seems possible to build them as long as we like - which means that accelerations can be such that launching manned vehicles is possible. Further research is needed however.
Another type of launch gun is the Blast Wave Accelerator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-rocket_launch#Blast_Wave_Accelerator), which like with the Ram Accelerator it may possible to build it in lengths (and therefore accelerations) that make manned spaceflight possible. This could concievably be achieved having the initial rings made out of specially-formulated low-grade explosive, gradually increasing in explosive power as the launch vehicle goes along the tube.
Other Technologies
However, the above mentioned systems show only what is possible today. It may be that in the future more systems may be developed, advances made that make other space access technologies cheaper or more viable, and so on. Below are some technologies which I feel will become cheaper in the long run thanks to increasing technological development:
Space Elevator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elavator) - If it ever becomes feasible to manufacture carbon nanotubes in the required lengths, then the construction of a Space Elevator becomes a distinct possibility. While the initial costs are likely to be high, the Space Elevator by it's very nature will very quickly pay off it's investment. Going up a Space Elevator takes significantly less energy than the same trip by a traditional rocket would, and the Space Elevator itself could be a source of energy - intertwine it's fabric with conductive materials, and as the Space Elevator moves through the Earth's magnetic field an electrical current is generated.
Space (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_fountain) Fountain (http://[/B]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_fountain) - As with the Space Elevator, the Space Fountain requires a large initial investment of energy and materials that can be repaid over fairly rapidly over time. Unlike the Space Elevator, you would not need any presence in space - you could build it "from the ground up" - the ground station, the accelerator and the orbital station could be constructed at low cost on the Earth's surface, and the orbital station placed on top of the ground station. Then the Fountain is powered up slowly, the force of the pellet stream eventually lifts the station first a few centimeters, than a few hundred meters, and then is pushed up kilometer after kilometer.
[B]Space Tethers (http://orbitalvector.com/Orbital%20Travel/Orbital%20Tethers/Space%20Tethers.htm) - If the initial investment required of the Space Elevator is to hard to swallow, or if it turns out there is an upper limit on how long carbon nanotubes can be made, then the alternative may be a system of tethers. Like the Space Elevator, tethers can take advantage of the fact that moving conductive materials in a magnetic field can generate current, possibly making them self-powered.
Single Stage To Orbit (SSTO) vehicles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSTO) - One of the major stumbling blocks with traditional approaches to reaching orbit is the complexity of the vehicles due to requiring multiple stages or booster rockets, the cost that such approaches incur, and the added cost of having to retrieve any re-usable stages. A working SSTO would eliminate the need for staging or booster rockets and would have lower operating costs, improved safety, and better reliability than current launch vehicles. Their lower part count would also lower their cost. The mass ratio of an SSTO could be reduced with a hybrid scramjet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramjet)/rocket engine, which would use the atmosphere as a source of oxidiser in the initial part of the launch, switching to it's rocket motor when it needs to exceed the speed limit of the scramjet in order to achieve orbital velocity.
Conclusion
Despite what the naysayers say, getting into space is vital, and I feel that what I have described and linked to above points the way forward if they have their way and limit the allocation of resources to space research. While I am hopeful that this will not be the case, there are no guarantees. It is my conviction that the only viable communist society will be high-tech, and constantly pushing back both the geographical and scientific boundaries of knowledge. The only alternative is stagnation and extinction, and that is why I consider space research to be so important. We need to get a foothold off of this planet as soon as possible, because as soon as we do, then when (not if!) disaster strikes the Earth, we will have a portion of our species not at risk of extinction from the resulting fallout.
Your thoughts, comrades?
Currently, the only organisations with the resources and intellectual capital to perform serious research into space travel are organisations like NASA, ESA, JAXA, and the governments of China and India. But NASA is hidebound and unimaginative, and like the ESA and JAXA, criminally underfunded (not to mention that due in part to NASA's previously mentioned lack of imagination and also in part to the fact that NASA is used as a political football, too much of that money is wasted), while the Chinese and Indian space agencies are but in their infancy.
So it occurs to me that an essential component of any post-revolutionary body is a space program, but it seems likely that there will be significant popular sentiment against such a thing. Whatever the realities of resource allocation, space research advocates must provide results early and often to convince the masses that space research is vital and worthwhile. Any region larger than an island under revolutionary control will require orbital satellites for communication, weather monitoring, and scientific research. It may be possible to build a worthwhile space program on the back of such essentials, but then again it may not. So, resource allocation to space research is likely to be limited.
This is where the technologies I mentioned earlier come in. They will be able to demonstrate the worthiness of space research on a shoestring budget, which may be the catalyst for changing popular opinion on the importance of such research. If space research advocates can show what is possible on a limited allocation of resources, imagine what is possible if they had access to more!
So now I will show a brief run-down on low-cost and/or low-energy space access technologies:
The Slingatron (http://www.slingatron.com/index.html)
This is the technology which inspired this thread! I find it is very impressive for what it is; it uses no explosives, flammable chemicals, the energy required for launch can be built up slowly over time using flywheels (as opposed to railguns and gauss guns which require high-intensity bursts of electrical power in order to function), and it is based on simple physics and mechanical engineering principles that would have been familiar to Isaac Newton over 200 years ago. With modern day materials and engineering techniques, it is entirely possible to build one of these things capable of launching a vehicle into Earth orbit. Take a look at the website and be amazed.
The Slingatron could also be used a cheap but extremely powerful rapid-fire weapon system for defence against imperialist attack. Different Slingatron systems could be optimised for use as anti-aircraft platforms, anti-tank guns, coastal batteries, and ballistic missile defence systems. A sufficiently powerful Slingatron system would also be able to launch counter-strikes against aggressors on their own soil.
Launch Guns (http://orbitalvector.com/Orbital%20Travel/Launch%20Guns/LAUNCH%20GUNS.htm)
The types of launch guns listed in the above link that are of particular interest for this topic are the "Advanced HARP Launch Cannon" and the "Ram Accelerator Launch Gun". The Advanced HARP Launch Cannon is an option available to any moderately-industrialised country, and requires technology no more advanced than what was available during the Cold War. It would be entirely possible to launch microsatellites for various purposes using this technology. The Ram Accelerator is particularly interesting since it seems possible to build them as long as we like - which means that accelerations can be such that launching manned vehicles is possible. Further research is needed however.
Another type of launch gun is the Blast Wave Accelerator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-rocket_launch#Blast_Wave_Accelerator), which like with the Ram Accelerator it may possible to build it in lengths (and therefore accelerations) that make manned spaceflight possible. This could concievably be achieved having the initial rings made out of specially-formulated low-grade explosive, gradually increasing in explosive power as the launch vehicle goes along the tube.
Other Technologies
However, the above mentioned systems show only what is possible today. It may be that in the future more systems may be developed, advances made that make other space access technologies cheaper or more viable, and so on. Below are some technologies which I feel will become cheaper in the long run thanks to increasing technological development:
Space Elevator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elavator) - If it ever becomes feasible to manufacture carbon nanotubes in the required lengths, then the construction of a Space Elevator becomes a distinct possibility. While the initial costs are likely to be high, the Space Elevator by it's very nature will very quickly pay off it's investment. Going up a Space Elevator takes significantly less energy than the same trip by a traditional rocket would, and the Space Elevator itself could be a source of energy - intertwine it's fabric with conductive materials, and as the Space Elevator moves through the Earth's magnetic field an electrical current is generated.
Space (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_fountain) Fountain (http://[/B]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_fountain) - As with the Space Elevator, the Space Fountain requires a large initial investment of energy and materials that can be repaid over fairly rapidly over time. Unlike the Space Elevator, you would not need any presence in space - you could build it "from the ground up" - the ground station, the accelerator and the orbital station could be constructed at low cost on the Earth's surface, and the orbital station placed on top of the ground station. Then the Fountain is powered up slowly, the force of the pellet stream eventually lifts the station first a few centimeters, than a few hundred meters, and then is pushed up kilometer after kilometer.
[B]Space Tethers (http://orbitalvector.com/Orbital%20Travel/Orbital%20Tethers/Space%20Tethers.htm) - If the initial investment required of the Space Elevator is to hard to swallow, or if it turns out there is an upper limit on how long carbon nanotubes can be made, then the alternative may be a system of tethers. Like the Space Elevator, tethers can take advantage of the fact that moving conductive materials in a magnetic field can generate current, possibly making them self-powered.
Single Stage To Orbit (SSTO) vehicles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSTO) - One of the major stumbling blocks with traditional approaches to reaching orbit is the complexity of the vehicles due to requiring multiple stages or booster rockets, the cost that such approaches incur, and the added cost of having to retrieve any re-usable stages. A working SSTO would eliminate the need for staging or booster rockets and would have lower operating costs, improved safety, and better reliability than current launch vehicles. Their lower part count would also lower their cost. The mass ratio of an SSTO could be reduced with a hybrid scramjet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramjet)/rocket engine, which would use the atmosphere as a source of oxidiser in the initial part of the launch, switching to it's rocket motor when it needs to exceed the speed limit of the scramjet in order to achieve orbital velocity.
Conclusion
Despite what the naysayers say, getting into space is vital, and I feel that what I have described and linked to above points the way forward if they have their way and limit the allocation of resources to space research. While I am hopeful that this will not be the case, there are no guarantees. It is my conviction that the only viable communist society will be high-tech, and constantly pushing back both the geographical and scientific boundaries of knowledge. The only alternative is stagnation and extinction, and that is why I consider space research to be so important. We need to get a foothold off of this planet as soon as possible, because as soon as we do, then when (not if!) disaster strikes the Earth, we will have a portion of our species not at risk of extinction from the resulting fallout.
Your thoughts, comrades?