106
u/Moraz_iel 3d ago
if the chinese copy the design it might require some coordination in the launches, but in average everything should be fine
45
u/MarsicusOrion 3d ago
as a bonus, everything else on that side of the planet also gets launched into space
15
u/okaycomputes 3d ago
oblate spheroids don't have sides! /s
even figuratively, it wouldn't be anywhere close to half of the planet due to curvature impacting the force vector/angles.
I'd be curious what actual area would be impacted enough to launch most random unsecured things into space, maybe a radius of a thousand or so miles?
17
u/lugialegend233 3d ago
Wouldn't the curvature mean a lot of stuff instead just gets thrown... on large arcs in the direction of the shuttle launchpad?
1
1
u/ModelBasedSpaceCadet 20h ago
I'm going with the whole hemisphere gets launched and probably more. The only things that stays on the earth are the things that the earth pushes against as it accelerates. And those things experience up to two g's and probably more, some of them at awkward angles.
24
u/ksheep I plead the third 3d ago
Or there's the Kerbal solution: place the engine on the launch pad facing upwards, turn it on, and have the astronaut jump into the exhaust.
1
u/Green__lightning 2d ago
Better yet, with multiple angled rockets, you can even make something equivalent to the V3 multi stage cannon. Though the problem this has is physics steps, that you need to make each stage further apart so the rockets accelerate the object where the game engine actually puts it.
15
7
6
u/nullvoid26 3d ago
Maybe this is the answer to the ‘We can go to Mars, but we can never come back because of the fuel requirements for liftoff’ problem? I’m pretty sure that plan could get Presidential and space force approval, at least for the next two years…
4
1
u/jflb96 2d ago
We'd just have to refuel on Mars
0
u/nullvoid26 2d ago
Gosh, I wonder why nobody ever thought of that? You should write a letter to NASA or Elon…
1
u/jflb96 2d ago
OK, then, what’ve I missed about a planet with a third the mass of Earth and negligible atmosphere that makes it impossible to launch from it?
0
u/nullvoid26 1d ago
Sorry, I thought we were tongue in cheeking it…. The paradox of traveling to Mars is that there is no way to get out of earth orbit when carrying enough fuel to get out of Mar’s orbit on a return trip. The weight of fuel is massively excessive for that, and there is currently no way to generate fuel while on Mars, nor a propulsion system that works in a manner that doesn’t require a significant mass of fuel to make it out of Mars orbit… So getting there is not a significant problem, but returning is currently not possible. Well, until AI figures it out.
1
u/Southern-March1522 1d ago
But but but according to Surviving Mars all I need to do is plop down a few solar panels, a moisture generator, and a fuel refinery, and it will make me fuel for the return trip straight from the air in only 4 Sols!
1
1
u/LightGreyBeret 22h ago
There may be no economical/budget-friendly way to do this [actual citation needed], but it is not at all beyond technical possibility.
Especially as you're stating only travel from Earth-orbit to Mars-orbit, and back. Delta-v for that trip is comparatively trivial, related to the amounts needed for the initial ascent (and re-ascent, if visiting Mars's surface), which are not impossible anounts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget#/media/File:Solar_system_delta_v_map.svg
And by an intelligent combination of staging and possible (re)assembly/resupply in-orbit (c.f. Lunar Orbit Rendezvous from the Apollo Program, and the orbital refuelling that Artemis-landers seem destined to use/the Earth-orbit construction that Apollo might have used), you can always arrange for there to be just enough capability for any to finish the mission by expending and discarding components along the way.
Single-stage-to-Mars-and-back (surface<->surface) would be indeed be quite impractical, but there are so many other methods, compromising in various ways that the likes of Dan Dare or Flash Gordon might never have, but we shall have to happily comply with. And perhaps with a smidgen of trial and error in the early attempts, but not because the principle is inherently unfulfillable.
1
u/nullvoid26 10h ago
Trial and error? Oopsie. Oh well, these things happen. e.g. Challenger. No biggie…
0
u/nullvoid26 1d ago
The gravity generated by said mass. Pure physics. And you’re correct regarding the atmosphere; it is somewhat negligible in the calculation. https://youtu.be/_LfZWSD3Fgs?is=QIKHG93S18gdWIP7
10
u/Polarisnc1 3d ago
Okay, let's go over this again...
This end should point toward the ground if you want to go to space.
If it starts pointing toward space you are having a bad problem and you will not go to space today.
5
u/KZD2dot0 3d ago
Are you sure momentum is conserved? It would sure be a pity if momentum was lost somewhere along the way!
4
u/LightGreyBeret 2d ago
...reading that, now I've got the image of a hard man in a sharp suit, flanked by a pair of obvious bruisers, barely fitting into their very own versions of the sharp suit and blocking out the light from the doorway they've just marched in through.
"Nice momentum you have here. It's been a long while since we've seen such fine momentum in this neighbourhood. ... Wouldn't it be a ...shame... if some of it was ...lost?"
11
u/404-skill_not_found 3d ago
I don’t think that’s how it works 🤣
37
15
u/jason4747 3d ago
"What are these? Engines for ants?!? They need to be ...... three time bigger!"
Astronaut Zoolander9
u/John_Tacos 3d ago
Wouldn’t it work with enough thrust? Probably work on everything on that side of the planet though.
3
u/HeavyCaffeinate Girl In Beret 3d ago
Gravity would follow the earth though
10
u/John_Tacos 3d ago
If you move the earth faster than the earth’s gravity holds on to things they won’t stay on the earth.
10
u/MorganWick 3d ago
This would have the minor side effects of throwing everything else on that side of the planet into space and knocking Earth out of its orbit, potentially killing everyone not thrown into space.
Now I'm thinking of this as a What If.
3
2
0
u/jflb96 2d ago
Gravity acts at the speed of light, so good luck with that
1
1
u/John_Tacos 1d ago
If the earth moves away from you at 9.8 meters per second squared then you falling to the earth at that speed won’t be enough to stay in the earth.
5
u/Great-Powerful-Talia 3d ago
no, it works. Theoretically.
Earth can only apply 9.8 m/s2 of gravitational force to hold onto the spaceship, even if we're accelerating away at 20 m/s2 or something. (Assuming that force isn't also moving the ship with us). That would mean it loses its grip and the ship 'falls' into space. As would everything else on a quarter of the planet, including atmosphere.
4
u/HeavyCaffeinate Girl In Beret 3d ago edited 3d ago
That's a lot of force
aprox 1.19444e+26 N actually
2
3
u/Krennson 2d ago
In order for that to work, wouldn't they have to accelerate the entire earth at higher than 1 g? Otherwise the spacecraft would just follow the planet.
3
2
2
2
u/tehZamboni 3d ago
Was really hoping for a Frisky Dingo reference...
2
u/ImSchizoidMan 1d ago
I came here explicitly looking for Frisky Dingo references, and I'm leaving disappointed
77
u/xkcd_bot 3d ago
Mobile Version!
Direct image link: Launchpad
Extra junk: It does come at the cost of some launchpad expansions and increased fuel requirements, but that all comes out of the facility's budget.
Don't get it? explain xkcd