I just figured a way to ease the space access a bit..by making a spot on earth where gravity does not affect 100%..like only 20 %.
Maxwell's 4th law gives a possibility to make this.
LoLwUtM8?
I just figured a way to ease the space access a bit..by making a spot on earth where gravity does not affect 100%..like only 20 %.
Maxwell's 4th law gives a possibility to make this.
Maxwell's 4th law gives a possibility to make this.
It is not an up-to-date information about Skylon, see the hatnote of the article. Things may have changed considerably relative to the article. To get an up-to-date information, go to the official website of its manufacturer, Reaction Engines.Come on now, a nice typed description would be beneficial for future readers too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon_(spacecraft)
Hmm, an orbital craft capable of getting to orbit.
It would take thousands of years to do so compared to rockets and other alts. It is very good for your SF, but not in real life.Instead of focussing on engines and fuels, maybe one could focus on the mechanical way of generating some kind of anti-gravity, using dense materials as mass and adjusting the speed of rotation to increase or decrease the effect of the mass and simply using planets and stars for gravity assist to hop through the galaxy.
Science these days is politicized, biased and only enabled with funding. No money, no science. Also those who fund science, do that for their own interest, rather than everyones. Weapons always come first. I hope that Elon Musk becomes an exception, but he's still the only one.
Point 2, no argument there. One thing tho, Roger Penrose provided knowledge. Any technology or practical application from this knowledge might become someone else's interest and become realisable by someone's extensive funding. Einstein is one example. It's my mistake for not clarifying, that I meant "practical" science, like building technologies out of research, and not the research itself.
Old, but probably belongs here:
You mean engineering there. Or economics, which influences engineering a lot. Sure a point. But even that does not require a big company to achieve big things. From my work, I know quite many companies, which are world market leaders - but actually operate from a tiny factory with a small workforce from some small town you have never heard of before.
Just take Rocket Lab as example there from a spaceflight point of view. They might do things slower and smaller than the Think-Big-SpaceX, but they innovate spaceflight a lot in their own way. Still only 500 employees. Just imagine a world, where you would have more tier-1 suppliers for spaceflight components, especially engines. Right now, in most cases the OEM is also the engine manufacturer. Even the turbopumps - despite the economic possibility, that a specialized turbopump supplier might be more effective.
Actually a youtube video.... it shows here...Was there supposed to be a link?
Altho space debris is hazardous, pollution caused by rocket is not so hazardous compared to an aeroplane (excluding pollution caused by manufacturing them). Aeroplanes fly every time, while rockets fly once in a blue Moon. Rockets have to be flown every time to exceed the pollution caused by aeroplane.Pollution (accidental or consequential) and loss of not renewable resources, debris in space, just to name a few.
Actually a youtube video.... it shows here...
Altho space debris is hazardous, pollution caused by rocket is not so hazardous compared to an aeroplane (excluding pollution caused by manufacturing them). Aeroplanes fly every time, while rockets fly once in a blue Moon. Rockets have to be flown every time to exceed the pollution caused by aeroplane.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAdj6vpYppACould you post a literal link then. I have my browser pretty secured tight and thus it doesn't always show all elements.
I don't know the statistics about that, so you might be right. Yet, no evil is better then the lesser one.