[NicknamedBob]

I was thinking about this after I saw the announcement, and wondering about where to post a response. When I saw your name, I decided.

Hi, Jacqui!! Good Afternoon.

A question for many of us is, "Straight up, and straight down, what good is that?"

I have an answer for that. Years ago, in ANALOG Science Fact and Science Fiction, a science fact article described a less expensive way to get to space.

Put an orbiting spaceport up there. When a Rutan-like vessel pops up out of the atmosphere, (timing and precise positioning being VERY critical -- snag it with an electric catapult operated in reverse.)

The spaceport would be as long as needed to get acceptable rates of acceleration and deceleration, and as long as sufficient finished goods were exchanged for an equal mass of raw materials, no additional maneuvering fuel would need to be used to maintain orbit.

Yes, it would have to be big. But it would also be useful for catching shipments coming from the moon, or sending them there. Or for sending fresh supplies to a colony on Mars.

Electrical space propulsion, and a cheaper ride to orbit. Perhaps worth analysing again to see what could be worked out with modern materials and positioning technology.

Hopefully no decimal errors, or system conversion mistakes would happen to ruin the day.

[Dominick]

Well it doesn't change the amount of energy for each mass going to orbit, we express that as change in velocity, or Delta Vee.

A capture could work but it would have to catch head on, and G forces would be immense, we may have a few k (1000s m/s) of dV, we need about 9k m/s to get to LEO. Delivering that much to the vehicle in a short time would make anything on board Jelly (IMHO).

Nice thing is a few k more of delta V and you get almost anywhere. A successful Lunar craft needs about 15km/s of Delta Vee. With that I can go most anywhere I need to around the Earth/moon system.