tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post1427292201012022053..comments2024-03-28T00:36:19.403-07:00Comments on Rocketpunk Manifesto: Like a Virgin ...Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-46737151305881897582011-01-14T00:55:30.302-08:002011-01-14T00:55:30.302-08:00What a great resource!What a great resource!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-9364504246328976142009-12-15T18:54:53.906-08:002009-12-15T18:54:53.906-08:00I don't think that laser launch is very well s...I don't think that laser launch is very well suited to human traffic, for the reason Luke implies - the beam power requirements get hefty, and VERY hefty if you are sending up something heavy like passenger capsules. It is best suited to a steady flow of small freight payloads.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-55273615248658784932009-12-14T20:00:09.563-08:002009-12-14T20:00:09.563-08:00Better late than never I guess:
Newer fusion sche...Better late than never I guess:<br /><br />Newer fusion schemes like MTF, IEC and Focus Fusion use totally different means to achieve fusion, and if (big if) they work as described they use much smaller, cheaper machinery to create the plasma and achieve fusion. IEC is an outgrowth of the Farnsworth Fusor, and high school kids make these from time to time for science fair projects. If Polywell IEC is feasable, then fusion reactors can be made cheaply by the same people who make your car, not highly trained scientists and engineers.<br /><br />WRT laser propulsion, using the laser to vaporize propellent blocks was one of the first schemes devised, Lyek Myrabo has refined this idea to use the atmosphere for reaction mass (heated by the laser) to boost to near space altitude. Like I said, the sticking point right now is getting the right laser, his tests shut down while waiting for funding to refurbish a former "SDI" laser, which never seems to have happened.<br /><br />Read this for a good introduction:<br />http://pdf.aiaa.org/downloads/1998/1998_1001.pdf?CFID=1326408&CFTOKEN=88988801&Thucydideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09828932214842106266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-3378807029650672412009-12-14T18:50:09.636-08:002009-12-14T18:50:09.636-08:00CJ: "I thought the laser launch technique foc...CJ: "I thought the laser launch technique focuses the laser in a combustion chamber. The intake air then expands to create thrust. The mass reduction for no power plant, no thruster and no remass makes it very light. However, once you get above the atmosphere you lose your thrust."<br />Yes...but if you bring a small amount of propellent on board with you, you can still use the laser to power the craft...so long as you are in line-of-sight of the laser.<br /><br />I'm wondering if a variant of the beamed power launch could be used? Have a solid disk of propellent (like a ceramic, plastic, or composite material), under the bell; use a laser or particle beam to vapourize this material, propelling the craft into orbit; not exactly like the air-breathing lightcraft, but it can be used above the atmosphere by redirecting the beamed power to where the craft is...even if it is in orbit.<br /><br />FerrellAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-26176881617635766562009-12-13T18:09:36.746-08:002009-12-13T18:09:36.746-08:00I thought the laser launch technique focuses the l...I thought the laser launch technique focuses the laser in a combustion chamber. The intake air then expands to create thrust. The mass reduction for no power plant, no thruster and no remass makes it very light. However, once you get above the atmosphere you lose your thrust.Citizen Joenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-24183089982872584242009-12-13T16:29:43.471-08:002009-12-13T16:29:43.471-08:00Citizen Joe: "Fusion has to be possible, beca...Citizen Joe: "Fusion has to be possible, because the Sun does it."<br /><br />But that doesn't mean it has to be easy. Fission turned out to be easy - It's happened under Earth-normal conditions at least sixteen times. Google 'natural fission reactor'. On the other hand, fusion has never occurred spontaneously on Earth (Excluding rare high-energy cosmic ray collisions with the atmosphere, because that process has the entire freakin' galaxy powering it).<br /><br />Fusion-for-energy may be something like lead-into-gold. Possible, but not worth the effort.<br /><br />Ian_MAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-45222571953051783122009-12-13T13:50:00.121-08:002009-12-13T13:50:00.121-08:00Jean: There is an important distinction between pe...Jean: There is an important distinction between peak laser power and time averaged laser power. The fusion lasers have very high peak laser powers, but poor time averaged powers. For laser launch, you want a high time averaged power. For this, the current research on military laser weapons seems the most appropriate.<br /><br />Atmospheric propagation does not cause much diffraction in the usual sense. You will get scattering from the beam path (including some caused by diffraction around particulates), but this in itself is not likely to be a health hazard. You will need good air traffic control, to prevent the lasers from frying commercial and private aircraft.<br /><br />The anti-blinding laser treaty only forbids lasers specifically designed to cause permanent blindness. It does not address lasers that may incidentally cause blindness as a normal part of their non-blinding duties. It also applies to the use of lasers in warfare - the treaty has no bearing on civilian applications.<br /><br />That said, we are still a long way from laser launch. A 1 MW continuous laser producing a 5 km/s exhaust velocity would produce a thrust of 400 newtons. That's enough to levitate a 40 kg object against the Earth's gravity.Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09617890536562434320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-23863923332529020492009-12-13T12:27:06.758-08:002009-12-13T12:27:06.758-08:00But we do know how to make AI's. Dolly the cl...But we do know how to make AI's. Dolly the cloned sheep was artificial and it was intelligent. Actually, you might apply the same logic to in-vitro fertilization, which makes those children artificial intelligences with biological support systems.<br /><br />I think that just about all of humanity's inventions have come from the observation of nature. Hey! Look at that bird flap its wings, that must be how it flies... no... wait... its the SHAPE of the wing... Fusion has to be possible, because the Sun does it.<br /><br />Now if we side step our crude efforts to thrust two nuclei together and instead figure out a way to either make gravity (like the Sun) or eliminate the electrostatic force of two like particles, then fusion would be as simple as pouring reagents into a cup.Citizen Joenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-79037265518604530682009-12-13T12:08:11.173-08:002009-12-13T12:08:11.173-08:00"Fusion is like AI; they've both been 20 ..."Fusion is like AI; they've both been 20 years away for about 50 years now."<br /><br />But once it is implemented someone twenty years before will have been right that it was 20 years away.<br /><br />Also, fusion is a simple process and we know how it works. Like the director of the CNRS said once: "It's putting the sun in a box. We just don't know how to make the box yet."<br /><br />Consciousness? We don't even know what that IS.Jean-Remyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07186948442919090289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-40404025479932409482009-12-13T11:40:53.206-08:002009-12-13T11:40:53.206-08:00Fusion is like AI; they've both been 20 years ...Fusion is like AI; they've both been 20 years away for about 50 years now.<br /><br />Fusion propulsion has considerably different requirements than electric power production, though no easier. You only have to recover enough power to maintain the cycle, and don't have to be cost competitive in power output. On the other hand there's a stringent power density requirement, which power plants don't have.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-22342010804281457952009-12-13T09:10:02.751-08:002009-12-13T09:10:02.751-08:00So to get from JT-60's 1998 record of Q=1.25 t...So to get from JT-60's 1998 record of Q=1.25 to a goal of Q=20 in 2030, we need a sustainable increase in Q of >53% per year. Doable, if we're in the right part of the development curve.<br /><br />Now we just need to find out of Q=20 really is the right point for fusion to be competitive with other power sources. If it is, then based on historical rates of uptake for new power sources we could expect fusion to provide 1% of global power needs around the turn of the century.<br /><br />On the other hand, pyroelectric fusion is already useful in areas other than power generation. By 2030 we may discover that economically-viable fusion power is a pipe dream, but the pure physics pay off in other areas.<br /><br />Ian_MAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-58696470614969462022009-12-13T05:20:55.418-08:002009-12-13T05:20:55.418-08:00Part of the problem, and inherent to D-T fusion, i...Part of the problem, and inherent to D-T fusion, is that the primary energy produced is by means of high energy neutrons. These must first be caught (typically in water) and then converted to heat. That heat then needs to be converted to electricity by means of turbines. Each of those steps adds inefficiencies. If it were applied to a project where heat was required, like a rocket, then you can pick up efficiency from direct usage. <br /><br />D-He3 throws protons, but you've got mixed reactants. The Deuterium (outside a specific temperature range) will preferentially fuse to itself, which in turn creates He3 and Tritium. The tritium then reacts and throws neutrons. He3-He3 fusion is completely aneutronic, and only throws protons. Protonic fusion can be efficiently converted to electricity due to its charge. It does take a tremendous amount of energy and confinement to get it to work though.Citizen Joenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-26572099965024188252009-12-12T21:51:50.079-08:002009-12-12T21:51:50.079-08:00I am actually having to correct my own numbers aft...I am actually having to correct my own numbers after further research as prompted by Ian.<br /><br />The record is Q=1.25 at Japan's JT-60, achieved in 1998<br /><br />Other than that I can't report much success getting a Q timeline.<br /><br />Projections for the ITER (an international collaboration, based in France) say they might achieve Q=20 (necessary to even consider a commercially viable generator) by 2030. They expect a fully functional prototype generator to be in place in 2050, and global adoption of fusion power plants no sooner than 2080. Since project backer include the European Union, the Russian Federation, the United States and the People's Republic of China (ie: anyone who has a chance of developing fusion power at all) we can safely guess that unless an unexpected breakthrough happens, these are <b>best case</b> estimates.<br /><br />ITER is a D-T cycle magnetic confinement reactor.Jean-Remyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07186948442919090289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-42096557623783651002009-12-12T20:18:47.697-08:002009-12-12T20:18:47.697-08:00Does anyone here know the historical rate of incre...Does anyone here know the historical rate of increase in Q (The net energy gain factor in fusion)? That is, in 1950 researchers could achieve a Q of <i>?</i>, in 1965 they achieved a Q of <i>?</i>, in 1975 <i>?</i>, in 1990 <i>?</i>, etc.<br /><br />I'm curious about the historical rate of progress in fusion research, but can't find the information. I suspect I'm not using the right search terms.<br /><br />Ian_MAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-53890224396103099682009-12-12T11:42:23.532-08:002009-12-12T11:42:23.532-08:001/ Carbon nanotubes: right now we can barely make ...1/ Carbon nanotubes: right now we can barely make a few strands. We have no idea how to mass produce them or to effectively "weave" them into, say, giant cables. They are not a magical material either. They have good tensile strength, yes, but are also brittle and non malleable, as metals are. They are also non-conducting. And they do a bad job at contracting and expanding. You can't build an entire engine out of carbon materials. Coat them, yes, but you still need a metal structure. and metal components, and metal electrical systems, especially for power generation. Even more if you want to use fusion, which require magnetic fields, which require a lot of metal, not least of which steel to absorb neutrons, which brings us to<br /><br />2/ Fusion. Even D-He3 fusion is not truly aneutronic. It will emit free neutrons, in smaller percentages than, say D-T fusion, granted. But it doesn't take a lot of neutrons to ruin your day. So you'll need shielding. Luckily steel and hydrogen make good proton shields, so really you get free shielding just building one. Proton-Boron is aneutronic, but proton-Boron has so many more disadvantages few scientists think it can ever become a viable fusion pair. It gives off very little energy (especially compared to D-T, but even less than D-He3) thus reducing the net power creation. By the way, so far, both Magnetic and Inertial confinements systems have yielded rather the same results. So far net power generation is 65%, that is: 65% of the input power is generated back. For the foreseeable future, fusion generators are energy sinks, not generators. It could change, but to get fro 65% today to a viable source of commercial power, 20 years seems.... actually, unsafe.<br /><br />3/ ground laser-based delivery systems have been explored. They have several issues. First it would need to be very powerful. Now, lasers of that power are possible, and are being used (ironically the most powerful lasers are used to research inertial confinement systems. Another issue with lasers shooting through the atmosphere is diffraction, which not only lowers their power but might divert part of the beam at unintended targets, notably eyes. There is a multinational treaty, which even the Chinese signed, that forbids the use of laser weapons in a blinding manner.<br /><br />4/ It is difficult to quantify exactly the impact of one factor on an extremely complex system like the biosphere. However, fudged as some numbers might be, there isn't a world-wide conspiracy of scientists aimed at toppling the US economy. Even if some of the more extreme projections are exaggerated, the consensus across the board is that yes, indeed, man has altered his environment in the past 100 years far more than any other factor naturally occurring could have. We are looking at C02 and CO levels in ice cores from the poles which do not appear in the history of the world's natural climate changes. Ever. One need only take a picture of LA to realize pollution has gone out of hands and needs to be regulated, or that new sources of power need to be sought out and developed. Refusing to develop new clean technologies by threatening it would ruin our economy is to refuse to look at the evidence that it is *because* in the past we have sought out new sources of energy that our economy is even feasible.Jean-Remyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07186948442919090289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-86116387816785784812009-12-12T11:17:36.655-08:002009-12-12T11:17:36.655-08:00I have to say, I don't see any of those techno...I have to say, I don't see any of those technologies having massive impact on launch operations in 20 years time.<br /><br />Featherlight carbon-composites are incredibly useful. But the types of carbon-composites that would be particularly useful in space operations are still hard to produce and not cost-effective compared to current aerospace materials. We know how to make graphine materials, but we don't know how to make them in large amounts. Twenty years from now, we'll probably just be starting to see experimental launch-vehicles made from these materials as opposed to cheaper aerospace aluminum or titanium steels.<br /><br />I'm a big proponent of laser-launch technologies, but as far as I can tell they're only useful for small packages. Beyond that the more traditional lift technologies are more cost-effective.<br /><br />Fusion. Yeah, sure. Anytime real soon now. Wait for it, wa-a-i-i-t...<br /><br />The people working in the fusion industry have developed a bad habit of over-promising and under-delivering. If you want a real analysis of their claimed results, the rule of thumb from investors is to knock 30% off the claimed outputs and add 30% to the inputs.<br /><br />Ian_MAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-25540987593161531742009-12-12T08:59:19.212-08:002009-12-12T08:59:19.212-08:00WRT to the technological development of light laun...WRT to the technological development of light launch vehicles and the timeline, there are a few developments on the horizon that make me think the 2030 timeline is indeed possible.<br /><br />Carbon nanotubes and graphine materials promise super light and super strong structures which would allow orbital flight using modest rocket engines and far less fuel than we use today. If the space shuttle orbiter only weighed five tons, the entire stack would become far smaller in proportion and absolute size as well. SpaceShip two might be capable of orbital insertion with its current rocket engine if it was made of featherweight graphine materials.<br /><br />Removing the engines and fuel entirely and launching with beamed power is another breakthrough, and the convergence of propulsion science by Lyek Myrabo and the development of high energy lasers should come very soon. Myrabo has been waiting for suitable lasers since the 1990's, and demonstration flights using subscale models and modest lasers have taken place. Military laser technology has advanced to the point that rugged 100 kW lasers can now be mounted on aircraft, ships and armoured vehicles for tests, and megawatt lasers are not far behind (sized to fit a Boeing 747 carrier plane).<br /><br />The real wild card is fusion energy using unconventional methods. Small fusion devices have been developed using diverse techniques like magnetized target fusion, dense focus fusion and Inertial Electrostatic Confinement, all of which (if practical) are far smaller and have higher power densities than conventional devices like laser driven inertial confinement. If they are successful, they can also be fueled with aneutronic fuels like 3He or proton-Boron, which means direct harvesting of electrical energy from the charged fusion products is possible; another order of magnitude reduction in size and cost.<br /><br />Where politics intrudes can be seen in the current push for economic controls and political rent seeking (Cap and Trade and Carbon Taxes). Given the proponents of "Global Warming" and "Climate Change" have been discovered to have been doctoring data, stonewalling attempts to see raw data, methodology and algorithems; the same data used to support the need for such economic controls as Cap and Trade or Carbon Taxes, then yes there is reason to be concerned.<br /><br />Since the proponents of man made climate change have tweaked their models to hide or diminish events such as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, I think fraud is certainly a very good word to describe their actions. We can agree that the Earth's climate has changed without resorting to man made causes.Thucydideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09828932214842106266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-36981213065907146302009-12-11T14:40:38.044-08:002009-12-11T14:40:38.044-08:00Oh and I hadn't thought about trucks as being ...Oh and I hadn't thought about trucks as being a challenge to the trains but of course!Jean-Remyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07186948442919090289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-31023877681663842612009-12-11T14:37:59.635-08:002009-12-11T14:37:59.635-08:00Actually I was referring to the elevator when I sa...Actually I was referring to the elevator when I said "or is there? dun dun dunnn".<br /><br />It was a little obscure.<br /><br />Kind of in the way the Andromeda Galaxy is a little far.Jean-Remyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07186948442919090289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-2480218565136878162009-12-11T14:35:29.980-08:002009-12-11T14:35:29.980-08:00You could say in a way that an elevator is a '...You could say in a way that an elevator is a 'tunnel to space.' Or at any rate an el train to space. It has no similarity to either an airplane or spaceship, but in fact basically IS a form of railway. <br /><br />My comparison of TGVs to clipper ships is along a different dimension. Both embody techs that were not only mature, but thought to have reached their practical limits of refinement until they faced challenges from entirely new techs.<br /><br />You are right that air travel never challenged freight railroading - its challenge came from trucks.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-42083673887645514422009-12-11T10:48:09.986-08:002009-12-11T10:48:09.986-08:00I think a better comparison to the clipper v steam...I think a better comparison to the clipper v steamship comparison is the electric v steam train competition, since they operate in the same medium utilizing (mostly) existing infrastructure (railroads and ports)<br /><br />The first electric rail line opened in 1881, yet there were some streamlined steam engines that were built as late as 1950. Eventually the electric (or diesel-electric for the US on the non-electrified lines) would win over and supplant the steam engine.<br /><br />The reason I feel the comparison is more valid than the electric-jetliner you seem to imply is that we're talking about complementary rather than supplementary technologies. We currently move 2 billion metric tonnes of crude a year, this would not be possible by airline. Similarly, however, passenger and mail delivery being far less bulky and far more time sensitive benefits hugely from air travel.<br /><br />In the end, really, the transportation advances never really mesh up between the various mediums (land, sea, air) because of the various challenges posed by each medium. Space is a fourth medium, the difficulty being compounded by the fact you need a form of transportation that links both mediums. Basically SS2 is neither clipper nor TGV but a Hovercraft, which introduces a great many more design problems into the mix (not the least the blunt/streamline issue we discussed in another post) and unlike the Chunnel, which thretens to obsolete the channel hovercrafts, there is no way to dig a tunnel to space...<br /><br />or, is there? *dun dun duuuun*Jean-Remyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07186948442919090289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-60599967837767144902009-12-11T10:06:58.591-08:002009-12-11T10:06:58.591-08:00Good point about the distinction between 'matu...Good point about the distinction between 'maturity' and 'ultimate expression.' To make a pre-industrial comparison, the TGV is the clipper ship of trains, pushing the technology to a level no one in the age of classical maturity thought was necessary or practical.<br /><br />The difference between them is interesting too. Both were challenged by a fundamentally later and more 'advanced' tech. <br /><br />The clippers fought back against steam, but in the end steamers could outperform them in all trades. In contrast, while fast trains are superior to jetliners for trips up to several hundred km, and there's no longer any credible prospect that VTOL or the like will change this.<br /><br /><br />On global warming. I'm hesitant to wade into contentious political issues here, but this one has its roots in planetary science. I'll make four observations:<br /><br />1) Scientists, being human, are as prone as anyone else to think that they alone can Save the World.<br /><br />2) Science is always more complicated and nuanced than the version that gets into the mass media, and thence into political debate.<br /><br />3) Environmentalists can be really annoying and self righteous (again, common behaviors of H. sapiens), and the movement readily becomes a stalking horse for vegetarianism, Henry David Thoreau wannabees, et al.<br /><br />4) All of that said, if you dump a lot of CO2 into a planetary atmosphere, other things being equal you will warm up its surface. This is pretty much Planetary Science 101.<br /><br />Planetary atmospheres are complex, especially Earth's biogenic atmosphere, so a lot of other mechanisms MAY cancel out the projected linear effects of increased CO2. But this is no given, and for now we pretty much have to go with the planetary science we've got. <br /><br />Which gives us considerable reason to take global warming seriously, and none to dismiss it.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-22602578292579425402009-12-10T12:06:14.118-08:002009-12-10T12:06:14.118-08:00Going to pick a few nits.
Is the TGV the maturity...Going to pick a few nits.<br /><br />Is the TGV the maturity of the rail? No, it is the ultimate expression of the technology. It is the very best we can do at this time, and so there will always be something better in the horizon.<br /><br />The first steam rail line was opened in 1804. I would advance maturity for steam rail as the Orient Express, opened in 1883. By that time most European countries had railroad systems that could be linked together (implying a shared technology, and shared gauge, therefore implying standardization) The Orient Express cemented the train into the consciousness. It became synonymous with a sort of casual luxury for travel. It's still 80 years, rather than fifty, but railroad and steam power also harkened the age of industrialization, without which the maturity time for a technology is far far greater than 50 years anyway.<br /><br />Maturity therefore is not the "current ultimate expression of the technology" but "at what point did it become a common cheap and reliable form of itself that can be applied on a widespread level. I think we're nearing that point in terms of standard rocketry. The launch of an R-7 rocket carrying a small be-antennaed spherical radio transmitter shook the world. Badly. In 1957. Do we even twitch at the news of yet ANOTHER TV sat going up on an Ariane IV? Yawn. It doesn't even make CNN. That's maturity.<br /><br />Is SS2 a mature X-15? Probably not yet. We're not jaded enough for that. It's a step in the process thoughJean-Remyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07186948442919090289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-45600175140293431472009-12-10T11:59:32.064-08:002009-12-10T11:59:32.064-08:00"Of course if Global warming fraudsters manag..."Of course if Global warming fraudsters manage to destabilize the economy with their schemes,"<br /><br />It seems rather fraudulent to suggest that moving away from fossil fuels will wreck the economy. Replacing fossil fuels with nuclear can be done for many applications at no greater expense.<br />Eg: electricity generation, ocean shipping, rail travel (by electrifying the rail lines) are ones that come to my mind.<br /><br />It will benefit some while damaging the prosperity of those invested in fossil fuels (which is why there is well funded opposition to nuclear power).Jim Baergnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-70772196008970150032009-12-10T10:38:16.695-08:002009-12-10T10:38:16.695-08:00How does the saying go? Cheap, Fast, Good... pick...How does the saying go? Cheap, Fast, Good... pick one.<br /><br />I suppose for cheap, you just assume that a meteor will impact Earth eventually and eject matter into orbit...<br /><br />Fast could include the Pegasus booster system.<br /><br />Good... I'm not entirely convinced that we've come up with a good means of getting something into orbit. Right now, all the methods involve riding a bomb into space...Citizen Joenoreply@blogger.com