A launch loop or Lofstrom loop is a proposed system for launching objects into space orbit using a moving cable-like system situated inside a sheath attached to the Earth at two ends and suspended above the atmosphere in the middle. The design concept was published by Keith Lofstrom and describes an active structure maglev cable transport system that would be around 2,000 km (1,240 mi) long and maintained at an altitude of up to 80 km (50 mi). A launch loop would be held up at this altitude by momentum of a belt that circulates around the structure. [clarification needed] This circulation, in effect, transfers the weight of the structure onto a pair of magnetic bearings, one at each end, which support it.
Launch loops are intended to achieve non-rocket spacelaunch of vehicles weighing 5 metric tons by electromagnetically accelerating them so that they are projected into Earth orbit or even beyond. This would be achieved by the flat part of the cable which forms an acceleration track above the atmosphere.
In 1982, Paul Birch published a series of papers in Journal of the British Interplanetary Society which described orbital rings and described a form which he called Partial Orbital Ring System (PORS). The launch loop idea was worked on in more detail around 1983–1985 by Lofstrom. It is a fleshed-out version of PORS specifically arranged to form a mag-lev acceleration track suitable for launching humans into space; but whereas the orbital ring used superconducting magnetic levitation, launch loops use electromagnetic suspension (EMS).
A launch loop is proposed to be a structure 2,000 km long and 80 km high. The loop runs along at 80 km above the earth for 2000 km then descends to earth before looping back on itself rising back to 80 km above the earth to follow the reverse path then looping back to the starting point. The loop would be in the form of a tube, known as the sheath. Floating within the sheath is another continuous tube, known as the rotor which is a sort of belt or chain. The rotor is an iron tube approximately 5 cm (2 inches) in diameter, moving around the loop at 14 km/s (31,000 miles per hour).
Although the overall loop is very long, at around 4,000 km circumference, the rotor itself would be thin, around 5 cm diameter and the sheath is not much bigger.
Ability to stay aloft
When at rest, the loop is at ground level. The rotor is then accelerated up to speed. As the rotor speed increases, it curves to form an arc. The sheath forces it to follow a curve steeper than the rotor's natural ballistic curve, which [clarification needed] , in turn, exerts a reactive centrifugal force on the sheath, holding it aloft. The loop would be anchored to the ground to remain at a fixed height.
Once raised, the structure requires continuous power to overcome the energy dissipated. Additional energy would be needed to power any vehicles that are launched.
To launch, vehicles are raised up on an 'elevator' cable that hangs down from the West station loading dock at 80 km, and placed on the track. The payload applies a magnetic field which generates eddy currents in the fast-moving rotor. This both lifts the payload away from the cable, as well as pulls the payload along with 3g (30 m/s²) acceleration. The payload then rides the rotor until it reaches the required orbital velocity, and leaves the track.
If a stable or circular orbit is needed, once the payload reaches the highest part of its trajectory then an on-board rocket engine ("kick motor") or other means is needed to circularize the trajectory to the appropriate Earth orbit.
The eddy current technique is compact, lightweight and powerful, but inefficient. With each launch the rotor temperature increases by 80 kelvins due to power dissipation. If launches are spaced too close together, the rotor temperature can approach 770 °C (1043 K), at which point the iron rotor loses its ferromagnetic properties and rotor containment is lost.
Capacity and capabilities
Closed orbits with a perigee of 80 km quite quickly decay and re-enter, but in addition to such orbits, a launch loop by itself would also be capable of directly injecting payloads into escape orbits, gravity assist trajectories past the Moon, and other non closed orbits such as close to the Trojan points.
To access circular orbits using a launch loop a relatively small 'kick motor' would need to be launched with the payload which would fire at apogee and would circularise the orbit. For GEO insertion this would need to provide a delta-v of about 1.6 km/s, for LEO to circularise at 500 km would require a delta-v of just 120 m/s. Conventional rockets require delta-vs of roughly 10 and 14 km/s to reach LEO and GEO respectively.
Launch loops in Lofstrom's design are placed close to the equator and can only directly access equatorial orbits. However other orbital planes might be reached via high altitude plane changes, lunar perturbations or aerodynamic techniques.
Launch rate capacity of a launch loop is ultimately limited by the temperature and cooling rate of the rotor to 80 per hour, but that would require a 17 GW power station; a more modest 500 MW power station is sufficient for 35 launches per day.
For a launch loop to be economically viable it would require customers with sufficiently large payload launch requirements.
Lofstrom estimates that an initial loop costing roughly $10 billion with a one-year payback could launch 40,000 metric tons per year, and cut launch costs to $300/kg. For $30 billion, with a larger power generation capacity, the loop would be capable of launching 6 million metric tons per year, and given a five-year payback period, the costs for accessing space with a launch loop could be as low as $3/kg.
Advantages of launch loops
Compared to space elevators, no new high-tensile strength materials have to be developed, since the structure resists Earth's gravity by supporting its own weight with the kinetic energy of the moving loop, and not by tensile strength.
Lofstrom's launch loops are expected to launch at high rates (many launches per hour, independent of weather), and are not inherently polluting. Rockets create pollution such as nitrates in their exhausts due to high exhaust temperature, and can create greenhouse gases depending on propellant choices. Launch loops as a form of electric propulsion can be clean, and can be run on geothermal, nuclear, wind, solar or any other power source, even intermittent ones, as the system has huge built-in power storage capacity.
Unlike space elevators which would have to travel through the Van Allen belts over several days, launch loop passengers can be launched to low earth orbit, which is below the belts, or through them in a few hours. This would be a similar situation to that faced by the Apollo astronauts, who had radiation doses 200 times lower than the space elevator would give.
Unlike space elevators which are subjected to the risks of space debris and meteorites along their whole length, launch loops are to be situated at an altitude where orbits are unstable due to air drag. Since debris does not persist, it only has one chance to impact the structure. Whereas the collapse period of space elevators is expected to be of the order of years, damage or collapse of loops in this way is expected to be rare. In addition, launch loops themselves are not a significant source of space debris, even in an accident. All debris generated has a perigee that intersects the atmosphere or is at escape velocity.
Launch loops are intended for human transportation, to give a safe 3g acceleration which the vast majority of people would be capable of tolerating well, and would be a much faster way of reaching space than space elevators.
Launch loops would be quiet in operation, and would not cause any sound pollution, unlike rockets.
Difficulties of launch loops
A running loop would have an extremely large amount of energy in the form of linear momentum. While the magnetic suspension system would be highly redundant, with failures of small sections having essentially no effect, if a major failure did occur the energy in the loop (1.5×1015 joules or 1.5 petajoules) would be approaching the same total energy release as a nuclear bomb explosion (350 kilotons of TNT equivalent), although not emitting nuclear radiation.
While this is a large amount of energy, it is unlikely that this would destroy very much of the structure due to its very large size, and because most of the energy would be deliberately dumped at preselected places when the failure is detected. Steps might need to be taken to lower the cable down from 80 km altitude with minimal damage, such as parachutes.
Therefore for safety and astrodynamic reasons, launch loops are intended to be installed over an ocean near the equator, well away from habitation.
The published design of a launch loop requires electronic control of the magnetic levitation to minimise power dissipation and to stabilise the otherwise under-damped cable.
The two main points of instability are the turnaround sections and the cable.
The turnaround sections are potentially unstable, since movement of the rotor away from the magnets gives reduced magnetic attraction, whereas movements closer gives increased attraction. In either case, instability occurs. This problem is routinely solved with existing servo control systems that vary the strength of the magnets. Although servo reliability is a potential issue, at the high speed of the rotor, very many consecutive sections would need to fail for the rotor containment to be lost.
The cable sections also share this potential issue, although the forces are much lower. However, an additional instability is present in that the cable/sheath/rotor may undergo meandering modes (similar to a Lariat chain) that grow in amplitude without limit. Lofstrom believes that this instability also can be controlled in real time by servo mechanisms, although this has never been attempted.
Competing and similar designs
In works by Alexander Bolonkin it is suggested that Lofstrom's project has many non-solved problems and that it is very far from a current technology. For example, the Lofstrom project has expansion joints between 1.5 meter iron plates. Their speeds (under gravitation, friction) can be different and Bolonkin claims that they could wedge in the tube; and the force and friction in the ground 28 km diameter turnaround sections are gigantic. In 2008, Bolonkin proposed a simple rotated close-loop cable to launch the space apparatus in a way suitable for current technology.
Another project, the space cable, is a smaller design by John Knapman that is intended for launch assist for conventional rockets and suborbital tourism. The space cable design uses discrete bolts rather than a continuous rotor, as with the launch loop architecture. John Knapman has also mathematically shown that the meander instability can be tamed.
The Skyhook is another proposed launch system. Non-rotating Skyhooks are not Space Elevators. The non-rotating Skyhook is a much shorter version of the planetary surface to geostationary orbit Space Elevator that does not reach down to the surface of the parent body and is much lighter in mass. It works by starting from a relatively low altitude orbit and hanging a cable down to just above the Earth's atmosphere. Since the lower end of the cable is moving at less than orbital velocity for its altitude, a launch vehicle flying to the bottom of the Skyhook can carry a larger payload than it could carry on its own. When the cable is long enough, Single Stage to Skyhook flight with a reusable launch vehicle becomes possible.
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to Space elevators.|
- Megascale engineering
- Non-rocket spacelaunch
- Orbital ring
- Mass driver
- Space elevator
- Space gun
- Space fountain
- Space tourism
- cyclotron - the magnetic fields necessary to deflect the loop are similar to a cyclotron
- Belt (mechanical)
- Reactive centrifugal force - the force that would hold up the loop against gravity
- Cable transport
- Tether propulsion
- Magnetic levitation
- Robert L. Forward, Indistinguishable from Magic, chapter 4.
- PDF version of Lofstrom's 1985 launch loop publication (AIAA conference)
- Paul Birch • Orbital Rings - I 12
- December 1983 Analog magazine
- Launch Loop slides for the ISDC2002 conference
- New scientist: First floor deadly radiation
- Bolonkin, A.A., Non-Rocket Space Launch and Flight, Elsevier, 2006, 488 pgs.
- Paper IAC-2-IAA-1.3.03 by A. Bolonkin at the World Space Congress – 2002, 10–12 October, Houston, TX, USA.
- Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Vol. 56, 2003, No.9/10 , pp.314-327
- Bolonkin A.A., New Concepts, Ideas, and Innovations in Aerospace, Technology and Human Science, NOVA, 2008, 400 pgs.
- Space Cable
- H. Moravec, "A non-synchronous orbital skyhook". Journal of the Astronautical Sciences, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 307–322, 1977.
- G. Colombo, E. M. Gaposchkin, M. D. Grossi, and G. C. Weiffenbach, “The sky-hook: a shuttle-borne tool for low-orbital-altitude research,” Meccanica, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 3–20, 1975.
- .M. L. Cosmo and E. C. Lorenzini, Tethers in Space Handbook, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala, USA, 3rd edition, 1997.
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to Launch loop.|
- SpaceCable Another similar idea for launch assist/short range travel/recreational extremely high altitude trips
- Space Elevator Stage 1: Through the Stratosphere, John Knapman, Keith Lofstrom, presentation at Microsoft conference center, August 2011.