Originally posted by DeepThought
The tower's a little pointless without the cable.
It depends on how much stuff you want to get up there. I was assuming enough to be able to get a largish station at earth moon L1 and small industrial or scientific outposts on the moon. If you are thinking in terms of mass colonization then sure, you need to be able to get much more material up. Bu ...[text shortened]... eavy equipment can be fabricated there and there aren't really any environmental considerations.
I'm thinking in terms of mass colonisation, so I need something other than space-planes
to do it.
In the near future... I'm not convinced space planes are the best way to go.
By which I mean I have yet to be convinced either way, not that I am
convinced that they are not the way to go.
The reason being that, as I said before, space planes have to carry all these aerodynamic
surfaces up into space, and the heat shielding to protect them.
And ~80% of your velocity increase happens after they become essentially useless.
It may well be that the route SpaceX is taking is the best solution in the near term.
The other thing is that if you launch something that is supposed to stay in space
with a space plane, then you have wasted a huge bunch of your fuel lifting up the
plane that is only going to come back down again.
The SpaceX approach means you don't waste any energy lifting stuff only to bring it back
down again.
But given the difficulties of living in the kinds of hostile environments in the rest of
the solar system I'm skeptical about plans of mass colonization.
The difficulties are those of scale, you need a large enough volume and usable area to
grow enough food for a decent sized resilient self sustaining population to thrive.
There is nothing intrinsically undo-able about that IF you can shift enough stuff and
people into space in the first place.
There is more than enough matter out their to build with, and turn into habitats for
people to live in.
For power you have solar and nuclear, which gets you everything you need.
It's just hard to do small scale, and small groups face catastrophe if one person dies,
or if there is any wrinkle or bump in the road.
Large groups fare much better, but you need to be looking at million+ settlements.
The tower's a little pointless without the cable.
Not necessarily, launching from 20~25 miles up solves an awful lot of the "have to
waste fuel dealing with air resistance" problems with launching space craft.
As you are already past 80+% of the atmosphere.
Plus you don't have to worry about the weather effecting the launch.
So a tower alone does have potential uses.
For the foreseeable future I think space plane type technology is the most viable way of getting into space. The trick with re-entry is to avoid fast re-entries. I don't know how feasible it is, but getting the re-entry speed down to Mach 5 or so makes the whole thing much more manageable.
Sure... But the only way you have space craft with enough deltaV to slow to Mach 5 for re-entry
are nuclear rockets. Otherwise you basically have to put something the size of an entire current rocket
at launch into space so you have enough fuel to slow down again.
And rockets already have something like a 20:1 fuel:dry mass ratio as it is.
No, the most viable way of getting back down is to use atmospheric friction to slow you down for the
price of a heat shield.
If the moon can be mined for resources then most of the heavy equipment can be fabricated there and there aren't really any environmental considerations
Sure... But you still have to lift millions of people into space [plus starter biomass and their life support]
to be able to do serious space colonisation.