IronGhost, on 23 May 2012 - 04:57 PM, said:
Sod the 1950s rockets, I say. Maglevs, rail guns or launch rings are doable with "existing technology". Space will be conquered with equal parts (more or less) government, capitalism and new technology -- not egregiously expensive and dangerous 1950s tech.
First you claimed rockets were obsolete, when they aren't, now you are claiming them to be dangerous but providing the same amount of evidence to support your claims, ie none at all. To be honest, so far I can see no logic in your position, only an irrational dislike of rocket technology.
Your maglev article is interesting, but do you seriously think that it will be practical? Where are you going to be able to build a tube 1,000 miles long with the end suspended more than 12 miles high? Who is going to invest $60 billion in something that
might work, especially when you consider that development costs of the Falcon rockets was only $390 million and that was technology that was known to work
The article contains an awful lot of ifs and maybes. Than there is an issue not even addressed in the article. Satellites need to be launched into a varity of different orbital inclinations, depending on their function. Rockets offer this flexibility by being able to launch on any trajectory. A thousand mile long tube will only offer one orbital inclination. If built it might supplement rockets but it certainly won't replace them.
When it comes to safety the Falcon 9 has an ability to reach orbit even with an engine failure at lift off, no other launcher since the Saturn V has this capability.
What evidence can you provide to show that any of these technologies will be more reliable, safer and cheaper to operate in the near term, than rocket technology?
Repeating the same false mantra over and over again does nor make it true. Your claim that the Falcon 9 is 50s technology is wrong on so many levels.
- Liquid propulsion rockets were proposed as the best method for achieving earth orbit in 1903
- The first liquid propulsion rocket flew in 1926
- Modern liquid fuelled rocketry began not in rhe 50's but with the German V2 (A4) which first flew in 1942
- The Falcon 9 is constructed using modern techniques and materials, far more advanced than those available in the 50s
Don't get me wrong, I would like to see this technology come to fruition in my life time as much as you, but I'm a realist. Rocket technology is more likely to be invested in because it is simple, efficient and it works. Just as it will take a long time for electric cars to replace the internal combustion engine, it will take along time to replace rockets with any alternative. My only caveat to that is if something comes along which is such an improvement that it truly renders rockets obsolete, in the same way that jets rendered props obsolete, but that technology has not yet been invented/perfected.
Rockets are here to stay for the foreseeable future, with or without your approval.
1
