Talk-Polywell.org

Or we figure out a way to get rid of half of Earth's mass.

Let us see.

E=1/2mv^2

1kg to orbit is about 1*7000^2/2~25MJ or 25000kWs

25000/3600 ~ 7kWh. At 14 cents/ kWh, that is a whopping ONE DOLLAR!

$10,000/kg seems a tad inefficient.

Perhaps a Kite Launcher-HASTOL duo would get closer.

Seems that way because you either don't know how to do the math properly or are wasting people's time with your deliberate misrepresentations.

Putting stuff in orbit requires orbital speeds and such speeds in atmosphere always create severe problems. But of course you know that.

KitemanSA wrote:Let us ee.

E=1/2mv^2

1kg to orbit is about 1*7000^2/2~25MJ or 25000kWs

25000/3600 ~ 7kWh. At 14 cents/ kWh, that is a whopping ONE DOLLAR!

$10,000/kg seems a tad inefficient.

Perhaps a Kite Launcher-HASTOL duo would get closer.

$1.00 is very close to the number I have seen touted as the electrical cost per kg for launch from Earth via a space elevator. Of course it begs the question of the cost of the space elevator.

KitemanSA wrote:Let us ee.

E=1/2mv^2

1kg to orbit is about 1*7000^2/2~25MJ or 25000kWs

25000/3600 ~ 7kWh. At 14 cents/ kWh, that is a whopping ONE DOLLAR!

$10,000/kg seems a tad inefficient.

Perhaps a Kite Launcher-HASTOL duo would get closer.

$1.00 is very close to the number I have seen touted as the electrical cost per kg for launch from Earth to GEO via a space elevator. Of course it begs the question of the cost of the space elevator.

Yet again, gastro-intestinal thruster jumps straight to accusations of malfeasance and put-downs. Oy, vat a surprise... NOT!!!

Seems he either can't or won't read simple statements of fact.

I wonder what his imaginary issue is.

ladajo wrote:and Bigelow.

It'd be nice given the current state of things, if you take that ex-BA employee at NSF's word for it.

Haven't seen it. I tend to stay away from NSF. Can you port a link?
Curious to hear what he is saying.

Layoffs and other clear negative developments. There's a curious similarity between Bigelow's repeatedly reported "character flaws" (himself and in practice thru BA, e.g. apparently dead-end whims like excessive effort put into diorama scale models, or other blunders that ex-BA employee reports) and e.g. Big.Aero. braking a crane most recently.

Look thru posts by user "Orbital Debris" in this thread
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index. ... ic=26545.0
No time now to dig more precisely, sorry. I'm pretty sure you'll find these much quicker by starting from end of thread and going back than vice versa.

Thanks, I'll give it a peruse. That would certainly suck if true. Especially given he signed a deal with NASA. His idea is a good one, and bears merit to pursue.

GIThruster wrote:Virgin Galactic's Spaceship Two is suborbital--it uses less than 1/100 the energy than is necessary to attain orbit. Orbit is expensive. Hard to imagine it ever costing much less than $10 million until we use something other than rockets.

Who said anything about using Spaceship Two for this? I was listing the name of a company that was already looking to take people to the edge of space, and extrapolating that they would, once there was someplace to go to up there, take people to that place. Sheesh ... some people need to work on their reading comprehension.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/10/spacex ... ne-to.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... et-377687/

SpaceX talk again about the XX. 200T to LEO.
I'd like to be there when it lifts off. Good Vibrations

Biglow's BA400 is mentioned by some in comments, but Musk calls the beast MCT, without elaborating. I recon Mars Colony Transport. Mars One, anybody? KitemanSA, would you take your retirement to Ares, if proposed?

krenshala wrote: Who said anything about using Spaceship Two for this? I was listing the name of a company that was already looking to take people to the edge of space. . .

You mentioned Virgin Galactic, who owns Spaceship Two. That is a suborbital ride that uses less than 1/100 the energy necessary than is required to get to an orbiting station such as Bigelow has proposed. Granted, they're offering a ride to the "edge of space" but their ship cannot gain the horizontal velocity needed for orbit--which is the vast majority of the energy needed.

Note too that Rutan's design does not include an air lock, so even if it could achieve orbit, it could not dock with something like a space station. In order to do this you need something much closer to what SpaceX has and so you're talking about not $150-200k/seat but $10m/seat.

Betruger wrote:Layoffs and other clear negative developments. There's a curious similarity between Bigelow's repeatedly reported "character flaws" (himself and in practice thru BA, e.g. apparently dead-end whims like excessive effort put into diorama scale models, or other blunders that ex-BA employee reports) and e.g. Big.Aero. braking a crane most recently.

Look thru posts by user "Orbital Debris" in this thread
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index. ... ic=26545.0
No time now to dig more precisely, sorry. I'm pretty sure you'll find these much quicker by starting from end of thread and going back than vice versa.

Thanks, I gave it a spin. Enlightening. Rossiesque at times.
Looks like BA is trying to push ahead now though. Another we'll see.

krenshala wrote: . Sheesh ... some people need to work on their reading comprehension.

You've noticed his penchant for jumping to ridiculous conclusions too, eh?