Posted on the Quicklaunch Facebook Page

9/28/24:

This is an old one, but goodie. If memory serves, I may have gotten a response from the head honcho at Quicklaunch about the idea for one on the Moon. The response, if memory serves, is that it would be relatively easy to get to lunar orbit with a gas gun. Quicklaunch would utilize a gas gun, which means that heated gas expands for the thrust needed to get a payload to orbit. The gas gun had been tested at that time, and had success getting them hypersonic, if memory serves.

This topic returns, as there's some news provided by the Marcus House channel on YouTube. He does Space Updates there, and there's a mention of a new company ( new to me, anyway) that proposes to use this concept. I've joined the video in progress at that point:







11/18/11:

As of now, there has been no response. It was a comment about the feasibility of putting one of these devices on the moon or Mars. The idea was to use the device to build a space elevator on the moon or Mars.

Here's another idea. Since tungsten has such a high melting point, he could called upon to use his Quicklaunch to put tungsten in LEO. Twelve million pounds of tungsten would be enough to serve as an anchor for a lunar space elevator, or moonstalk. The trick would be to transport the tungsten to EML-1. That might be accomplished by a fleet of VASIMRs.

In order to build the moonstalk, you'd need that much, or possibly more mass for the anchor in space, plus another anchor on the lunar surface, plus the cable which can be deployed from space so that it can connect to the surface. No new exotic materials need to be invented for cable, as the strength of currently available materials is sufficient.

Once emplaced, it could be used to get access to the surface without the use of propellants.

If it were extended toward the poles, and a second moonstalk was built on the far side with extensions to the poles, one could get to the gateway of interplanetary space from which missions could be launched. The advantage of this arrangement is that you could actually construct your spacecraft so that could do these types of missions right there from EML-2.

The interplanetary ship, could be a variation of the NERVA type rocket which was tested and found space-worthy during the Apollo Era. The nuclear fuel could be supplied from the lunar surface. It could use the Thorium fuel cycle to produce an isotope of Uranium. Since everything would take place on the far side of the moon, NIMBY opposition should be minimized. The Thorium fuel cycle precludes the development of explosive devices, so the project should not be in violation of any treaties. If nuclear is too objectionable, a solar powered VASIMR may be feasible, provided that the solar panels were constructed from lunar materials.

For reaction mass for the NERVA, you could use the abundant hydrogen found in permanently shaded craters near the poles. With the extensions to the poles, the lunar surface could be populated permanently and could even supply interplanetary missions, as opposed to relying upon the Earth. Thus, the moon could serve as a support base for interplanetary exploration and settlement.

The superior ISP of nuclear rockets could open up the space frontier for settlement. The spacecraft could be large enough to provide sufficient shielding and habitat for long duration missions. Most likely, it could also be set up to provide artificial gravity so as to limit the effects of long term exposure to weightlessness. Overall, it minimize the hazards of long duration missions and provide the best probability of success for human exploration and settlement.

This could take place no risk to the Earth from radiation or explosions. It is hard to imagine any political opposition, but the ingenuity of opponents can't be underestimated. Nevertheless, whatever opposition that could develop to this proposition should be manageable, provided that the will to do the project exists.

There are those who would say that it is too expensive, and that it would take too long. We've got all the time we need, provided that the will exists. Let's briefly examine the cost objection.

The ground anchor implies many missions. It would take a multi-decade commitment and most likely a large influx of funds to complete the project. As for costs, Hunter says he could put the fuel for a Mars mission up in LEO for 5 billion dollars, if I am not mistaken. This would probably cost twice that or more for the anchors, plus the other missions could easily double that figure.

A cost comparison to the lunar base Paul Spudis envisions would likely be comparable. There may be a case made that this may cost more than what Spudis' proposal, but that wouldn't take into consideration cost savings from the Quicklaunch method. Spudis' moonbase's cost was projected at about 90 billion dollars. I'm guessing that this proposition wouldn't cost any more than that. Even if it did cost more, it would still be worth it.

So much for the objections, what about the benefits?

The potential returns would be enormous. If platinum resources could be found on the moon, it could spark the hydrogen economy on the Earth. In addition, space solar industry could be enabled by manufacturing the panels in space or on the moon. Easy access to cis lunar space would make deployment cost effective. Overall, this could open up the vast resources of space, and if I may speculate boldly- it could be lead to an entirely new era of peace and prosperity for all mankind.

Update: 11/19/2001

This post gets a new label of Quicklaunch and Mass Driver Concepts plus it also gets the category label of Sidebar Entry.  Sidebar Entry post labels are attached to all posts that introduces an important concept or topic that I want to keep track of on a historical basis.  Putting that label tells me when I started to think about it in more in depth and allows an examination of my thinking as on a timeline.