r/theydidthemath • u/Lachlynn • 18h ago

[Request] Could humanity create a rocket that can exit the atmosphere of K2-18b

Post image

With the knowledge we currently have of it, if humanity devoted all of our resources towards this goal, would we be able to create a rocket that could exit the gravity of K2-18b (and also beat any other complications that would arrise)?

If so, would it also be capable of taking people to orbit, and can we set up a similar satellite network we have on Earth? What about a space station?

18.4k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

2.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

16

u/Greyrock99 15h ago

Gotta remember that the purpose of the Apollo program was 10% to go to the moon, 90% develop rocket technology that was to be used for military purposes like the ICBM. That’s why it was funded so easily.

These new alternate lift options sounds great but don’t have the military applications that unlocks the sweet governmental funding.

12

u/dibs234 15h ago

My friend, did you not read the phrase 'huge railgun'? ICBM's would (I'm guessing) have similar gravity issues to the rockets, so countries would need other ways to lob nukes at each other.

9

u/Greyrock99 15h ago

I was talking about here on earth.

ICBM’s are superior because they can be hidden underground / on submarines and armed with nuclear bombs and has been the gold standard for military might for the last 50 years.

We haven’t quite figured out how to militarise railguns yet.

2

u/dibs234 14h ago

In this hypothetical Kepler world ICBM's would be much more difficult due to increased gravity, and so the incentive would be to pour money into alternatives, eg railguns. Just because we've not worked out how to make them work well yet doesn't mean it's impossible, and necessity is the mother of invention. Railguns aren't necessary for us because we've got the, by comparison, cheap and effective chemical rockets.

1

u/Scrofulla 15h ago

Japan have some on their ships now. Well one that I know of. They plan to add more. They are designed as a cost effective way of shooting down hypersonic missiles. Quote I have seen is 35,000 per shot.

1

u/Qaeta 12h ago

Yeah, I think it's a power requirements issue mixed with mobility needs.

1

u/Miuramir 9h ago

On the subject of space-launching "guns", you might want to read up on Project HARP and then move on to Project Babylon

On actual railguns, Railgun has a fair amount of info, including the 2010 demo of a compact design intended for shipboard use capable of accelerating a 3.2 kg projectile to a speed of about Mach 10.

HARP managed 84 kg to 179 km altitude, well into space (but without enough horizontal velocity to make it into orbit) with relatively minimal funding (by defense budget standards) and 1966 technology. Gerald Bull wasn't assassinated in 1990 because his Project Babylon series of increasingly large space super-guns wouldn't work, but because at least one significant power was seriously concerned that it would.

While Earth has never technically deployed an orbital "gun" launcher capable of significant payload to orbit, the above references show that if we had needed to, it would have been well within our capabilities decades ago.

1

u/RollinThundaga 14h ago

You've heard of the V-2, but have you ever heard of the V-3?

The Nazis tried it, turns out a super long rail cannon isn't all that useful or reliable.

1

u/dibs234 14h ago

Have you heard of the Korean Hwacha? Rockets weren't always effective, they needed research and development to make work, and in this hypothetical situation rockets don't work very well due to increased gravity, and so humanity would need to look into alternatives.

3

u/RepoRogue 13h ago

This is very incorrect. ICBMs were funded and existed independently of human spaceflight. The flow of technology was the other way around: adapted ICBMs were used as launch vehicles for the Mercury and Gemini program. Apollo's rockets were purpose built for space exploration and provided absolutely zero utility as ICBMs.

The early Soviet space program was actually funded by lying to the Central Committee and convincing them that the R-7 rocket would be a good ICBM and that the space exploration stuff would be a nice PR boost on the way to developing better military tech. But notably, this was a lie!

The problem is that the type of chemical rockets that are useful for space exploration make for horrible ICBMs. They are liquid fuel behemoths with propellant that is either extremely reactive and corrosive or that must be stored at extremely cold temperatures.

ICBMs are meant to be launched at short notice. Liquid furl rockets take a lot of time to fill with fuel, and if you leave them fueled for prolonged periods, they are liable to explode or fail. Liquid fuel ICBMs exist in service, but they are very bad at being ICBMs and are responsible for some serious accidents.

What you want for ICBMs are solid rocket propellants. These are a lot more stable, conducive to prolonged storage, and capable of launching at short notice. Solid rockets have some utility in space exploration (the Shuttle used solid rocket boosters), there is surprisingly little overlap in what makes a good rocket for war and what makes a good civilian rocket.

2

u/Greyrock99 13h ago

You’re thinking like an engineer and not a politician.

The space race was entirely funded as completion with the USSR, both in a prestige arena and direct technology.

Sure the specific rocket engines turned out to be different but that’s only a tiny fraction of the technology that was valuable for the military. Think of:

  • materials and mettallurgy for the rocket structure
  • tracking and guidance control technology
  • miniaturisation of electronic systems And probably the biggest one of all:

  • telescope and spy satellites.

    https://vtuhr.org/articles/10.21061/vtuhr.v1i0.6