Trying to figure out this thing. It reads like libertarian science which usually involves lots of alcohol, lots of math, fascinating ideas, and venture capital and is preposterous. Can someone translate this into something understandable.

It looks like a giant inflatable space elevator with a system of anchoring cables as well as a modular construction system.

There is some talk of buoyancy. It also might be rigid enough to withstand high winds in the stratosphere if you used some kind of hardshell like in a high altitude airship.

http://spaceshaft.org/iframes/content/02_t...paceShaft1.html

ROFL

No, this isn't "Libertarian Science," it's just dumb. "Libertarian Science" (assuming you're referring to the lolzy Internet Libertarian bullshit out there) has more rantings about freedom for capitalist expansion in space. This is just a complete lack of understanding of physics.

I have heard about the Canadian idea which is the inflatable tower http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2009-0...ble-space-tower. I rather like the idea that each section of an inflatable tower would have buoyancy kind of like a blimp and pull upward. I guess the walls would be filled with helium or some lighter than air gas.

Imagine it is as a kind of hollow balloon standing upward. I imagine that each section as it was built would have to be tethered to the ground.

I might imagine them building each section in an octagonal shape with kind of truss on each of the eight sides made of lightweight composite tubing carbonfiber and some other plastic. The truss would have anchor cables holding the structure upright and making the structure rigid. It would not just be a set of balloon sections.

It might be broader at the base and taper somewhat at the top. It might have to be built like a wedding cake with each section being slightly smaller as it goes up to allow for anchoring to each section below it.

I know I am sounding a little silly here. Probably have the physics completely wrong.

My impression is that the problems stem from stability and wind resistance. I imagine some way to reinforce the tower like a lightweight truss system, cables, etc. would make it more feasible.

Don't know about elevators, but I've got a shaft that can send you to space for sure.

On second thought, maybe I should go back to the Rockoon Idea, there is a new heavy lift airship in design that supposedly can lift up to 150 tons. Something like this would be perfect for high altitude rocket launches. The video even looks right.
http://www.physorg.com/news205475495.html

I, for one, am of the opinion that there is a far better, more effective way to get into space. It's relatively inexpensive to do (no huge additional research costs!), utilizes existing infrastructure and proven technology, and doesn't require a complete redesign of our current paradigms.



By this, I mean the Delta IV, the Atlas 5, whatever Ariane is working on right now, and the Falcon 9. Chemical rocketry is simple, well understood, and reliable. Big Dumb Booster (BDB) is fairly foolproof. If you need more capacity than that, you need Orion.

project babylon mirite

"Better" and "more effective" are words implying this way is at all possible, and not merely a product of basic math and OK for high school knowledge of physics - only high school physics.

I am fairly convinced that there will be an automated rockoon system for launching payloads into space within the next ten to twenty years that will be cheaper than our current rocket designs. The project that stands out right now is the ARCA Aerospace project.
http://www.universetoday.com/74983/moon-ba...ul-test-flight/

I was leaving open the door for some unforseen tech or (more likely) magic to allow space elevators/fountains of some form or fashion to be made feasible.



Commonalitarianism: Lifting gas for that size of a rocket is stupid expensive. Helium, its current price notwithstanding (and related to several governments offloading bulk stocks at the moment I believe) is fairly costly and Hydrogen is not something I'd relish playing around with a huge amount. (we do enough of that shit in the fuel tank) Once the actual costs of the lifting gas, the apparatus, the uncertainties involved in balloon flight, the necessary modifications, the balloons, the alteration of structural hard points, etc are taken into account, you start hitting around an already used, proven, and effective idea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_rocket

Not to be a jerk or anything, but balloons are not going to the moon*, not anytime soon. Well, unless you can magic up a way to fly ~4 million pounds of *stuff* up into the upper atmosphere reliably with balloons. In the mean time, watch what Orbital and Virgin are doing.



*I should qualify this. I can run a NASCAR race in my Saturn, and they can probably eventually get -a- rocket to the moon using this system. Neither are very effective.

The problem is altitude limit.

They are saying their blocks "are not balloons", and keeping it sikkret:

It's highly obvious to anyone who looks at their pictures and knows about technology what their idea is. It's also obvious from using sikkretsie to protect their invention that they don't know what a provisional patent is and how to file one.

At least I "hope" that's what it is, of course, because if not, it's even more stupid and outright impossible rather than just high school sound but industrially impossible.

commonalitarianism still posts?

WAT

I'm on vacation. Why not. Maybe they are using aerogels made from seaweed or some other nonsense to fill the vacuum instead of helium or some other superlight material. Maybe they can make the material both ligther and stronger-- metal foams, etc. There are other materials than carbon nanotubes that could be used to build a space tower.

You mean they want to convince a venture investor they can, before buying some one-way first class tickets to Seychelles.

At present, there are no materials that can build a space tower. Space Elevators are not feasible within the forseeable future.



Conventional rockets and aircraft-lofted rockets will remain the dominant method, with the "far sighted blue eyed progressives" mucking around with balloons and wasting a lot of time for the next few decades. And you can quote me on that.