If you where to build a maglev catapult up the side of Mount Everest, you would have to do all your acceleration before you leave the mountain.

Um, I wasn’t arguing catapults, only commenting (or correcting) a comment. But to make another correction: abandoning The Chemists design criteria (no propellant), we can get around that as well. [Added at submit: this was also proposed in the thread,]

Btw, if you want to maximize altitude change “to do all your acceleration” alone, shouldn’t you sink a tube alongside the Hawaii island inclination? But I assume some of the design consideration goes into absolute altitude and absolute decreased air resistance, in which case your characterization of the system and its results is incomplete.

@ Gary Ansorge:

Thanks, that is interesting. Maybe I should argue catapults, if they are so feasible.

I would say that David Sarnoff was the Bill Gates of his day, considering he created the RCA radio monopoly and nearly did the same for television but was interrupted by WWII. People to this day think Marconi invented radio, and that Zworykin invented electronic television (surely news to Tesla and to Farnsworth, considering they held the radio and electronic TV patents respectively) and those misconceptions came from Sarnoff and RCA’s marketing arm.

TomR Says:
August 23rd, 2008 at 5:37 pm

Why, was breaking in half and falling flaming into the ocean not part of the plan?

From the Universe Today link:

The rocket’s planned flight wouldn’t have taken it into orbit and was set to last about 11 minutes, with the rocket coming down far out in the Atlantic Ocean, said Bryce Hallowell, an ATK spokesman.

So, it was supposed to stay in one piece and fall flaming into the ocean.

Where? I saw the Edison comments, backed up with names and dates. But hardly a gripefest. I mentioned our country’s need for decent accounting to take care of our tax dollars. Now I happen to believe we were right to take Saddam Husein out–after all the US put him there and provided him with weapons to fight a war with Iran. Who was anti-oil? Did anyone mention Bush? I must have missed those posts. And anti-business? Edison was one of the greatest when it came to getting inventions out to the public. He was the Bill Gates of his day–okay I’ll grant that one.

So where was the “anti-Bush, anti-oil, anti-Iraq, anti-business gripefest? Are we being a little hypersensitive?

Remember: they can only get your goat if your goat is out to get got.

Technically there was no “Mercury rocket.” The Mercury spacecraft used for manned flights were set atop either Redstone Ballistic vehicles or Atlas ICBM vehicles.

Here is something to chew on with those apples and oranges:

The Redstones flew from 1953 to 1967. 100 launches–47 failures. Shepard and Grissom each rode one of the successful ones.

The Atlas fared somewhat better From 1948 to 2004, there were 585 Launches and only 120 failures. Glenn, Carpenter, Schirra and Cooper flew Mercury/Atlas. Almost all of our pre-shuttle era satellites made it into orbit thanks to Atlas.
Now, if we and the Soviets had ever started pushing the red buttons, there would have been a lot more Atlas launches, as they were the mainstay of the American nuclear missile program.

The only problem with the shuttle is that we’re down 2, and they’re almost 30 years old. They’ve been tweaked as much as they can be and are rightfully being retired. I suppose they make a great platform for satellite and space station repairs, and they ferry people and things nicely as well. But exploring further than low earth orbit is hard if all you have is a tow truck/van. I always thought the shuttles were great ideas, but only if they are used in addition to other launch platforms and developments as well. Sadly NASA hasn’t done this (though they promised to when the shuttles were in development) and have relied almost solely on shuttles for decades. The shuttle program cost way more than NASA bargained for so they had to use them a LOT more than they intended.

I wonder if people see a wrecked school bus and think “What a waste of tax-payer money.” Of course they wouldn’t. I would hope they would be more worried about what was ON the bus and the people involved.

Doesn’t ATK build the SRB’s?

Affirmative, ATK Thiokol.

Doesn’t ATK build the SRB’s?

Inefficient- yes. Cheaper- maybe.

Obviously the self-destruct charges and the detonation of the remaining fuel caused it to collapse into a visibly pulsating neutron star…

Seriously, after an abortive destruct, the parts spin all over the place, and whatever is burning is periodically eclipsed by non-burning parts. For a good daylight example, watch the Atlas abort used at the end of “Koyannisquatsi.”

- Jack

- Jack

Torbj: Launch Point Technologies has a research project going to launch small payloads(10 Kg), accelerated via catapult. The accelerations are high, on the order of 10,000 Gs, but the payloads are inert(non-biological). They think they can deliver such payloads to orbit for under $200.00/Kg. (dependent on launch numbers/year). They accelerate the payload in an evacuated tube. It’s a step in the right direction. NASA is also investigating the use of a short catapult to accelerate a larger launch vehicle to 1000 Km/hr, before ignition. That eliminates the initial buildup of velocity that requires so much fuel just to get off the launch pad. Another small but potentially vital step.

Gary 7