Mixing
Are there any advantages of rail vehicles in space?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
In my world, humanity has turned to space as a source of resources. Of course, all that stuff has to be transported back somehow. On Earth, that is usually done with seafaring ships or rail vehicles.
Is there any reason someone would choose to transport solid materials via rail vehicles (i.e. vehicles, usually several joined units, connected to a fixed rail) instead of freely traveling ships?
transportation natural-resources
asked 4 hours ago
Adrian Zhang
546311
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
In my world, humanity has turned to space as a source of resources. Of course, all that stuff has to be transported back somehow. On Earth, that is usually done with seafaring ships or rail vehicles.
Is there any reason someone would choose to transport solid materials via rail vehicles (i.e. vehicles, usually several joined units, connected to a fixed rail) instead of freely traveling ships?
transportation natural-resources
asked 4 hours ago
Adrian Zhang
546311
If we think of a space elevator as a "space rail", then there are some definite advantages to it.
– Alexander
51 mins ago
I am not sure I understand: Are you asking about setting up rail-networks planetside or about setting up magical space rails between planets?
– dot_Sp0T
50 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
In my world, humanity has turned to space as a source of resources. Of course, all that stuff has to be transported back somehow. On Earth, that is usually done with seafaring ships or rail vehicles.
Is there any reason someone would choose to transport solid materials via rail vehicles (i.e. vehicles, usually several joined units, connected to a fixed rail) instead of freely traveling ships?
transportation natural-resources
asked 4 hours ago
Adrian Zhang
546311
In my world, humanity has turned to space as a source of resources. Of course, all that stuff has to be transported back somehow. On Earth, that is usually done with seafaring ships or rail vehicles.
Is there any reason someone would choose to transport solid materials via rail vehicles (i.e. vehicles, usually several joined units, connected to a fixed rail) instead of freely traveling ships?
transportation natural-resources
transportation natural-resources
asked 4 hours ago
Adrian Zhang
546311
asked 4 hours ago
Adrian Zhang
546311
asked 4 hours ago
Adrian Zhang
546311
asked 4 hours ago
Adrian Zhang
546311
asked 4 hours ago
Adrian Zhang
546311
546311
If we think of a space elevator as a "space rail", then there are some definite advantages to it.
– Alexander
51 mins ago
I am not sure I understand: Are you asking about setting up rail-networks planetside or about setting up magical space rails between planets?
– dot_Sp0T
50 mins ago
add a comment |Â
If we think of a space elevator as a "space rail", then there are some definite advantages to it.
– Alexander
51 mins ago
I am not sure I understand: Are you asking about setting up rail-networks planetside or about setting up magical space rails between planets?
– dot_Sp0T
50 mins ago
If we think of a space elevator as a "space rail", then there are some definite advantages to it.
– Alexander
51 mins ago
If we think of a space elevator as a "space rail", then there are some definite advantages to it.
– Alexander
51 mins ago
I am not sure I understand: Are you asking about setting up rail-networks planetside or about setting up magical space rails between planets?
– dot_Sp0T
50 mins ago
I am not sure I understand: Are you asking about setting up rail-networks planetside or about setting up magical space rails between planets?
– dot_Sp0T
50 mins ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
An interesting query!
I would posit that the answer is:
NO
- Rail networks are great over continental distances: exactly the sort of transport web you say is in operation in your world.
- Rail networks require lots of moving pieces: switches, signals, sidings, multiple tracks to handle more than one train at a time.
- Rail networks require constant maintenance and direct access to every inch of the system for routine maintenance, emergency repairs, recovery of derailed vehicles and the like.
So much for planetside networks.
- Space is big. Very big. All the rail networks on Earth span about a million and a half km. The Moon is about 380,000km away. That's conceivable. But the distance to Ceres is something like 400 million km. That's not conceivable.
- Rail travel through space will be extremely slow in comparison to even a typical rocket. Consider that a rail network will necessitate vehicles having wheels of some kind. Just the friction of wheels spinning along will, I should think, cause the wheels to disintegrate, overheat and seize up or simply fall apart due to the great distance being traversed and no maintenance depots along the way.
- Flimsy rail. There being no earth to anchor or support the infrastructure, I think the motion of the vehicles would cause the track to bend and sway and rupture.
- Slow travel. Even a maglev kind of vehicle will be much slower than any kind of ordinary space vessel flying the same route.
- Gravity & rotation take their toll. Lastly, all the planets in the solar system are in constant motion around something else, and even the solar system itself is in motion. Even if you could anchor the track to the Earth, it won't line up with anything in space. The Moon moves at a different velocity, so a track anchored there as well would snap. Same goes for a track anchored to Earth and Ceres.
None of these things strike me as allowing for a viable rail network in space.
answered 3 hours ago
elemtilas
8,24121843
Related XKCD on joining two celestial bodies wiith a wire and travelling : what-if.xkcd.com/157 . Exactly all the problems on this answer are shown
– Goufalite
53 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Yes,
A simple way is that rail vehicles don't need to have engines or thrusters or actual people on them. Rather than having a space shuttle that needs all that extra room, a rail vehicle only needs to have 1 compartment dedicated to control, and if you want to be more advance, you could remove even that.
The way I envision it isn't so much a Railway vehicle, but morel like shipping containers that can be attached to a rail. The rail uses electromagnets to accelerate the container, launching it along a set path to another station further along (No rails inbetween, only at the start and end) . All the controls and power is used on the rails, and fine tuning the path and amount of acceleration. The railway vehicle as you call it simple carries goods from 1 place to another. It doesn't contain anything except what the goods inside need. (Think of it like a shipping container in space rather than a train).
Basically, it makes mass travel and goods delivery cheap. If you want to transport people, you just need to make room for oxygen, food and waste storage, no room for fuel, thrusters and a control system. If you want to deliver steel, then you might just put them into the container right away. If you want to deliver more, you might even link them together and send them in one go.
Of course, there is technically a huge margin for error on an interplanetary and higher scale, which you would add thrusters, fuel and a control system but its effectively removing all the extra fuel you need for acceleration and deceleration.
I remove the rail in the middle because its space. Space is huge and you will travel in a straight line if nothing disturbs you. Chances are, everything that can disturb you will be tracked and monitored and factored into the equations. So to save on materials, you remove the middle, and focus on the start and the end.
answered 3 hours ago
Shadowzee
5,176822
The idea of flinging shipping containers through space is interesting. But how does this answer the question? OP specifies that rail vehicles, for the purpose of the query are vehicles, usually several joined units, connected to a fixed rail, instead of freely traveling ships. Removing the rails rather defeats the purpose of have rail based transport.
– elemtilas
1 hour ago
@elemtilas I guess if you want to nitpick rail vehicles as having wheels and must be in contact with a physical medium at all time then sure it doesn't count. Neither would a maglev train. I'm proposing space trains. Its like a train, but for space.
– Shadowzee
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
An interesting query!
I would posit that the answer is:
NO
- Rail networks are great over continental distances: exactly the sort of transport web you say is in operation in your world.
- Rail networks require lots of moving pieces: switches, signals, sidings, multiple tracks to handle more than one train at a time.
- Rail networks require constant maintenance and direct access to every inch of the system for routine maintenance, emergency repairs, recovery of derailed vehicles and the like.
So much for planetside networks.
- Space is big. Very big. All the rail networks on Earth span about a million and a half km. The Moon is about 380,000km away. That's conceivable. But the distance to Ceres is something like 400 million km. That's not conceivable.
- Rail travel through space will be extremely slow in comparison to even a typical rocket. Consider that a rail network will necessitate vehicles having wheels of some kind. Just the friction of wheels spinning along will, I should think, cause the wheels to disintegrate, overheat and seize up or simply fall apart due to the great distance being traversed and no maintenance depots along the way.
- Flimsy rail. There being no earth to anchor or support the infrastructure, I think the motion of the vehicles would cause the track to bend and sway and rupture.
- Slow travel. Even a maglev kind of vehicle will be much slower than any kind of ordinary space vessel flying the same route.
- Gravity & rotation take their toll. Lastly, all the planets in the solar system are in constant motion around something else, and even the solar system itself is in motion. Even if you could anchor the track to the Earth, it won't line up with anything in space. The Moon moves at a different velocity, so a track anchored there as well would snap. Same goes for a track anchored to Earth and Ceres.
None of these things strike me as allowing for a viable rail network in space.
answered 3 hours ago
elemtilas
8,24121843
Related XKCD on joining two celestial bodies wiith a wire and travelling : what-if.xkcd.com/157 . Exactly all the problems on this answer are shown
– Goufalite
53 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
An interesting query!
I would posit that the answer is:
NO
- Rail networks are great over continental distances: exactly the sort of transport web you say is in operation in your world.
- Rail networks require lots of moving pieces: switches, signals, sidings, multiple tracks to handle more than one train at a time.
- Rail networks require constant maintenance and direct access to every inch of the system for routine maintenance, emergency repairs, recovery of derailed vehicles and the like.
So much for planetside networks.
- Space is big. Very big. All the rail networks on Earth span about a million and a half km. The Moon is about 380,000km away. That's conceivable. But the distance to Ceres is something like 400 million km. That's not conceivable.
- Rail travel through space will be extremely slow in comparison to even a typical rocket. Consider that a rail network will necessitate vehicles having wheels of some kind. Just the friction of wheels spinning along will, I should think, cause the wheels to disintegrate, overheat and seize up or simply fall apart due to the great distance being traversed and no maintenance depots along the way.
- Flimsy rail. There being no earth to anchor or support the infrastructure, I think the motion of the vehicles would cause the track to bend and sway and rupture.
- Slow travel. Even a maglev kind of vehicle will be much slower than any kind of ordinary space vessel flying the same route.
- Gravity & rotation take their toll. Lastly, all the planets in the solar system are in constant motion around something else, and even the solar system itself is in motion. Even if you could anchor the track to the Earth, it won't line up with anything in space. The Moon moves at a different velocity, so a track anchored there as well would snap. Same goes for a track anchored to Earth and Ceres.
None of these things strike me as allowing for a viable rail network in space.
answered 3 hours ago
elemtilas
8,24121843
Related XKCD on joining two celestial bodies wiith a wire and travelling : what-if.xkcd.com/157 . Exactly all the problems on this answer are shown
– Goufalite
53 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
An interesting query!
I would posit that the answer is:
NO
- Rail networks are great over continental distances: exactly the sort of transport web you say is in operation in your world.
- Rail networks require lots of moving pieces: switches, signals, sidings, multiple tracks to handle more than one train at a time.
- Rail networks require constant maintenance and direct access to every inch of the system for routine maintenance, emergency repairs, recovery of derailed vehicles and the like.
So much for planetside networks.
- Space is big. Very big. All the rail networks on Earth span about a million and a half km. The Moon is about 380,000km away. That's conceivable. But the distance to Ceres is something like 400 million km. That's not conceivable.
- Rail travel through space will be extremely slow in comparison to even a typical rocket. Consider that a rail network will necessitate vehicles having wheels of some kind. Just the friction of wheels spinning along will, I should think, cause the wheels to disintegrate, overheat and seize up or simply fall apart due to the great distance being traversed and no maintenance depots along the way.
- Flimsy rail. There being no earth to anchor or support the infrastructure, I think the motion of the vehicles would cause the track to bend and sway and rupture.
- Slow travel. Even a maglev kind of vehicle will be much slower than any kind of ordinary space vessel flying the same route.
- Gravity & rotation take their toll. Lastly, all the planets in the solar system are in constant motion around something else, and even the solar system itself is in motion. Even if you could anchor the track to the Earth, it won't line up with anything in space. The Moon moves at a different velocity, so a track anchored there as well would snap. Same goes for a track anchored to Earth and Ceres.
None of these things strike me as allowing for a viable rail network in space.
answered 3 hours ago
elemtilas
8,24121843
An interesting query!
I would posit that the answer is:
NO
- Rail networks are great over continental distances: exactly the sort of transport web you say is in operation in your world.
- Rail networks require lots of moving pieces: switches, signals, sidings, multiple tracks to handle more than one train at a time.
- Rail networks require constant maintenance and direct access to every inch of the system for routine maintenance, emergency repairs, recovery of derailed vehicles and the like.
So much for planetside networks.
- Space is big. Very big. All the rail networks on Earth span about a million and a half km. The Moon is about 380,000km away. That's conceivable. But the distance to Ceres is something like 400 million km. That's not conceivable.
- Rail travel through space will be extremely slow in comparison to even a typical rocket. Consider that a rail network will necessitate vehicles having wheels of some kind. Just the friction of wheels spinning along will, I should think, cause the wheels to disintegrate, overheat and seize up or simply fall apart due to the great distance being traversed and no maintenance depots along the way.
- Flimsy rail. There being no earth to anchor or support the infrastructure, I think the motion of the vehicles would cause the track to bend and sway and rupture.
- Slow travel. Even a maglev kind of vehicle will be much slower than any kind of ordinary space vessel flying the same route.
- Gravity & rotation take their toll. Lastly, all the planets in the solar system are in constant motion around something else, and even the solar system itself is in motion. Even if you could anchor the track to the Earth, it won't line up with anything in space. The Moon moves at a different velocity, so a track anchored there as well would snap. Same goes for a track anchored to Earth and Ceres.
None of these things strike me as allowing for a viable rail network in space.
answered 3 hours ago
elemtilas
8,24121843
answered 3 hours ago
elemtilas
8,24121843
answered 3 hours ago
elemtilas
8,24121843
answered 3 hours ago
elemtilas
8,24121843
8,24121843
Related XKCD on joining two celestial bodies wiith a wire and travelling : what-if.xkcd.com/157 . Exactly all the problems on this answer are shown
– Goufalite
53 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Related XKCD on joining two celestial bodies wiith a wire and travelling : what-if.xkcd.com/157 . Exactly all the problems on this answer are shown
– Goufalite
53 mins ago
Related XKCD on joining two celestial bodies wiith a wire and travelling : what-if.xkcd.com/157 . Exactly all the problems on this answer are shown
– Goufalite
53 mins ago
Related XKCD on joining two celestial bodies wiith a wire and travelling : what-if.xkcd.com/157 . Exactly all the problems on this answer are shown
– Goufalite
53 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Yes,
A simple way is that rail vehicles don't need to have engines or thrusters or actual people on them. Rather than having a space shuttle that needs all that extra room, a rail vehicle only needs to have 1 compartment dedicated to control, and if you want to be more advance, you could remove even that.
The way I envision it isn't so much a Railway vehicle, but morel like shipping containers that can be attached to a rail. The rail uses electromagnets to accelerate the container, launching it along a set path to another station further along (No rails inbetween, only at the start and end) . All the controls and power is used on the rails, and fine tuning the path and amount of acceleration. The railway vehicle as you call it simple carries goods from 1 place to another. It doesn't contain anything except what the goods inside need. (Think of it like a shipping container in space rather than a train).
Basically, it makes mass travel and goods delivery cheap. If you want to transport people, you just need to make room for oxygen, food and waste storage, no room for fuel, thrusters and a control system. If you want to deliver steel, then you might just put them into the container right away. If you want to deliver more, you might even link them together and send them in one go.
Of course, there is technically a huge margin for error on an interplanetary and higher scale, which you would add thrusters, fuel and a control system but its effectively removing all the extra fuel you need for acceleration and deceleration.
I remove the rail in the middle because its space. Space is huge and you will travel in a straight line if nothing disturbs you. Chances are, everything that can disturb you will be tracked and monitored and factored into the equations. So to save on materials, you remove the middle, and focus on the start and the end.
answered 3 hours ago
Shadowzee
5,176822
The idea of flinging shipping containers through space is interesting. But how does this answer the question? OP specifies that rail vehicles, for the purpose of the query are vehicles, usually several joined units, connected to a fixed rail, instead of freely traveling ships. Removing the rails rather defeats the purpose of have rail based transport.
– elemtilas
1 hour ago
@elemtilas I guess if you want to nitpick rail vehicles as having wheels and must be in contact with a physical medium at all time then sure it doesn't count. Neither would a maglev train. I'm proposing space trains. Its like a train, but for space.
– Shadowzee
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Yes,
A simple way is that rail vehicles don't need to have engines or thrusters or actual people on them. Rather than having a space shuttle that needs all that extra room, a rail vehicle only needs to have 1 compartment dedicated to control, and if you want to be more advance, you could remove even that.
The way I envision it isn't so much a Railway vehicle, but morel like shipping containers that can be attached to a rail. The rail uses electromagnets to accelerate the container, launching it along a set path to another station further along (No rails inbetween, only at the start and end) . All the controls and power is used on the rails, and fine tuning the path and amount of acceleration. The railway vehicle as you call it simple carries goods from 1 place to another. It doesn't contain anything except what the goods inside need. (Think of it like a shipping container in space rather than a train).
Basically, it makes mass travel and goods delivery cheap. If you want to transport people, you just need to make room for oxygen, food and waste storage, no room for fuel, thrusters and a control system. If you want to deliver steel, then you might just put them into the container right away. If you want to deliver more, you might even link them together and send them in one go.
Of course, there is technically a huge margin for error on an interplanetary and higher scale, which you would add thrusters, fuel and a control system but its effectively removing all the extra fuel you need for acceleration and deceleration.
I remove the rail in the middle because its space. Space is huge and you will travel in a straight line if nothing disturbs you. Chances are, everything that can disturb you will be tracked and monitored and factored into the equations. So to save on materials, you remove the middle, and focus on the start and the end.
answered 3 hours ago
Shadowzee
5,176822
The idea of flinging shipping containers through space is interesting. But how does this answer the question? OP specifies that rail vehicles, for the purpose of the query are vehicles, usually several joined units, connected to a fixed rail, instead of freely traveling ships. Removing the rails rather defeats the purpose of have rail based transport.
– elemtilas
1 hour ago
@elemtilas I guess if you want to nitpick rail vehicles as having wheels and must be in contact with a physical medium at all time then sure it doesn't count. Neither would a maglev train. I'm proposing space trains. Its like a train, but for space.
– Shadowzee
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
Yes,
A simple way is that rail vehicles don't need to have engines or thrusters or actual people on them. Rather than having a space shuttle that needs all that extra room, a rail vehicle only needs to have 1 compartment dedicated to control, and if you want to be more advance, you could remove even that.
The way I envision it isn't so much a Railway vehicle, but morel like shipping containers that can be attached to a rail. The rail uses electromagnets to accelerate the container, launching it along a set path to another station further along (No rails inbetween, only at the start and end) . All the controls and power is used on the rails, and fine tuning the path and amount of acceleration. The railway vehicle as you call it simple carries goods from 1 place to another. It doesn't contain anything except what the goods inside need. (Think of it like a shipping container in space rather than a train).
Basically, it makes mass travel and goods delivery cheap. If you want to transport people, you just need to make room for oxygen, food and waste storage, no room for fuel, thrusters and a control system. If you want to deliver steel, then you might just put them into the container right away. If you want to deliver more, you might even link them together and send them in one go.
Of course, there is technically a huge margin for error on an interplanetary and higher scale, which you would add thrusters, fuel and a control system but its effectively removing all the extra fuel you need for acceleration and deceleration.
I remove the rail in the middle because its space. Space is huge and you will travel in a straight line if nothing disturbs you. Chances are, everything that can disturb you will be tracked and monitored and factored into the equations. So to save on materials, you remove the middle, and focus on the start and the end.
answered 3 hours ago
Shadowzee
5,176822
Yes,
A simple way is that rail vehicles don't need to have engines or thrusters or actual people on them. Rather than having a space shuttle that needs all that extra room, a rail vehicle only needs to have 1 compartment dedicated to control, and if you want to be more advance, you could remove even that.
The way I envision it isn't so much a Railway vehicle, but morel like shipping containers that can be attached to a rail. The rail uses electromagnets to accelerate the container, launching it along a set path to another station further along (No rails inbetween, only at the start and end) . All the controls and power is used on the rails, and fine tuning the path and amount of acceleration. The railway vehicle as you call it simple carries goods from 1 place to another. It doesn't contain anything except what the goods inside need. (Think of it like a shipping container in space rather than a train).
Basically, it makes mass travel and goods delivery cheap. If you want to transport people, you just need to make room for oxygen, food and waste storage, no room for fuel, thrusters and a control system. If you want to deliver steel, then you might just put them into the container right away. If you want to deliver more, you might even link them together and send them in one go.
Of course, there is technically a huge margin for error on an interplanetary and higher scale, which you would add thrusters, fuel and a control system but its effectively removing all the extra fuel you need for acceleration and deceleration.
I remove the rail in the middle because its space. Space is huge and you will travel in a straight line if nothing disturbs you. Chances are, everything that can disturb you will be tracked and monitored and factored into the equations. So to save on materials, you remove the middle, and focus on the start and the end.
answered 3 hours ago
Shadowzee
5,176822
answered 3 hours ago
Shadowzee
5,176822
answered 3 hours ago
Shadowzee
5,176822
answered 3 hours ago
Shadowzee
5,176822
5,176822
The idea of flinging shipping containers through space is interesting. But how does this answer the question? OP specifies that rail vehicles, for the purpose of the query are vehicles, usually several joined units, connected to a fixed rail, instead of freely traveling ships. Removing the rails rather defeats the purpose of have rail based transport.
– elemtilas
1 hour ago
@elemtilas I guess if you want to nitpick rail vehicles as having wheels and must be in contact with a physical medium at all time then sure it doesn't count. Neither would a maglev train. I'm proposing space trains. Its like a train, but for space.
– Shadowzee
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
The idea of flinging shipping containers through space is interesting. But how does this answer the question? OP specifies that rail vehicles, for the purpose of the query are vehicles, usually several joined units, connected to a fixed rail, instead of freely traveling ships. Removing the rails rather defeats the purpose of have rail based transport.
– elemtilas
1 hour ago
@elemtilas I guess if you want to nitpick rail vehicles as having wheels and must be in contact with a physical medium at all time then sure it doesn't count. Neither would a maglev train. I'm proposing space trains. Its like a train, but for space.
– Shadowzee
1 hour ago
The idea of flinging shipping containers through space is interesting. But how does this answer the question? OP specifies that rail vehicles, for the purpose of the query are vehicles, usually several joined units, connected to a fixed rail, instead of freely traveling ships. Removing the rails rather defeats the purpose of have rail based transport.
– elemtilas
1 hour ago
The idea of flinging shipping containers through space is interesting. But how does this answer the question? OP specifies that rail vehicles, for the purpose of the query are vehicles, usually several joined units, connected to a fixed rail, instead of freely traveling ships. Removing the rails rather defeats the purpose of have rail based transport.
– elemtilas
1 hour ago
@elemtilas I guess if you want to nitpick rail vehicles as having wheels and must be in contact with a physical medium at all time then sure it doesn't count. Neither would a maglev train. I'm proposing space trains. Its like a train, but for space.
– Shadowzee
1 hour ago
@elemtilas I guess if you want to nitpick rail vehicles as having wheels and must be in contact with a physical medium at all time then sure it doesn't count. Neither would a maglev train. I'm proposing space trains. Its like a train, but for space.
– Shadowzee
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f127272%2fare-there-any-advantages-of-rail-vehicles-in-space%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
If we think of a space elevator as a "space rail", then there are some definite advantages to it.
– Alexander
51 mins ago
I am not sure I understand: Are you asking about setting up rail-networks planetside or about setting up magical space rails between planets?
– dot_Sp0T
50 mins ago