Recent Comment
Share
Or how 'bout this. We build a gigantic ring superconducting electromagnetic track with a diameter of 2 kilometers in the desert and continuously increase the speed of an object until it reaches 10 k/s and then shift the track to an inclined portion that rockets the object into orbit! Amazing! This has been proposed before, but usually with a straight length of track that would have to either be extremely long, or give the satellite a massive amount of speed in a short time.
A recent AirForce study of this very concept has concluded that this device
could decrease the cost of launches (and fuel consumed) 100 fold.
The space ring
shown here could increase the speed of the object over a period of
hours on an infinite length of track. The problem being, of course,
that anything travelling in a circle at high speeds is going to have to
deal with unfortunate G-forces. The kind of G forces that would have
any living organism seeping into the upholstery before launch. Most
communications satellites are too fragile for this kind of treatment.
Which is making a lot of people wonder why the Air Force really put together the plan to study the device. Is it really efficient satellite launches they're after, or is it efficient and constant weapons launches. I might have thought that we were beyond that, but I'm marking this one down under 'cool, but dangerous.'
Via NewScientist
{mosgoogle} Hits: 48109
Comments (17)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Paul Barthle, October 05, 2006
If a re-usable space plane were to use this concept as a first stage rather than solid fuel, o-ring equipped rockets, the g-forces wouldn't have to be as high and past disasters could be avoided as well. The real application might be on the proposed moon base, using solar power to launch toward Mars. Fewer G's necessary under less gravity and no need to ferry fuels from here.
-
- +0
-
-
written by S. E. Robinson, October 05, 2006
Great idea, but a couple concerns. The constant earth rotation would create a problem for the stationary Ring on earth or either its free floating point in space and the airspace this object would demand and tie up. Move on it, this could be wonderful.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Brian, October 06, 2006
So what's the alternative? A space elevator would certainly be more efficient, and would only cost several trillion dollars to build.
We think you're over just a wee bit on how much a space elevator will cost. Dr. Edwards guess-timates 10 billion, we think based on the work we've done this summer it will be about twice that.
We think you're over just a wee bit on how much a space elevator will cost. Dr. Edwards guess-timates 10 billion, we think based on the work we've done this summer it will be about twice that.
-
- +0
-
-
written by SauZheR, October 07, 2006
What about a ring-garbage gun?? Is really stupid to think to shot straight into the space (or the sun) tons of grabage? i don't think so. bye
-
- +0
-
-
written by John O'Leary, October 07, 2006
I've worked all my life in the space industry and I appreciate any progress. But this is probably only realistic if placed on one of the lunar poles.
But as a means of safely disposing of nuclear waste, by launching it into the sun, it sounds like a good idea placed on Earth's north pole.
But as a means of safely disposing of nuclear waste, by launching it into the sun, it sounds like a good idea placed on Earth's north pole.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Fred steel, October 07, 2006
at 10k/s you can not shift any sensitive equipment of any mass grater than a few grams on to an inclined track as you propose. The inertial forces would be far to great. However, if you instead of building your ring horisontally, build it vertically, you would eliminate the problem intierly. Naturally, you would have to construct your ring below ground, wich raises a new problem. Tectonic movements and other ground displacing phenomena (these problems exist for a horisontal ring aswell but are easily solved by letting the ring move with some freedom). This could be solved by finding a solid, dense and homogeneous mountain into which you drill your ring hole using conventional tunnel drilling equipment.
-
- +0
-
-
written by John, October 07, 2006
Great idea fred, at 10k/s it really wouldnt make much difference if you were vertical. and building it underground gives your track the strength it would need to handle the forces. I do think that 2km might be a little short, but I have seen some jet cars on those crazy little tracks go insanely fast held only by a thin wire. I wonder if thats where this idea was spawned. Either way, what an Idea!
-
- +0
-
-
written by John, October 07, 2006
If the payload is revolving around the track 2 times a second you will have to switch the tracks 'very' quickly.
-
- +0
-
-
written by ElAsturiano, October 07, 2006
At the speeds you are talking pre launch, the air resistance would be significant, keeping a vacuum on the ring while accelerating would solve that, but then, when you divert the payload to the launching ramp you would loose a lot of your energy to air resistance (and lets not talk about the supersonic boom at the spot where the vehicle touches air for the first time).
I am sure you get my idea...
I am sure you get my idea...
-
- +0
-
-
written by Moto, October 10, 2006
I'm not en engineer, but I would think speed and force factors are going to be very hard to overcome. The G force acting on the projectile would be insane I know that we can make some strong components, but if you break it before you launch it you just shot a billion dollar chunk of metal into space. It’s a good idea but they might need to revise some of the technical specifications.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Obvious, October 22, 2006
Sensitive electronics aren't the only thing sent into space. What about structural components of sattelites and space stations? What about fuels and consumables for those living in space (milk, green beans, toilet paper.)
Who says we have to send stuff up all in one expensive chunk. Anything that can't survive this kind of treatment can be sent the $2,000/kg way. We can send the socks and liquid 02 using this thing and go up and collect them from orbit as needed.
Who says we have to send stuff up all in one expensive chunk. Anything that can't survive this kind of treatment can be sent the $2,000/kg way. We can send the socks and liquid 02 using this thing and go up and collect them from orbit as needed.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Rick, October 23, 2006
10k/s 10 kilo... per second? With those units this thing won't be launching anything.
Did you mean 10 km/s ?
Did you mean 10 km/s ?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Govind, March 19, 2007
My question is that exactly how many Mkwh would be required considering a payload like 500 kg.Also I have a suggestion.Its basically an update of Mr.Berthes idea.launch the payload with a small rocket motor(say it wants to go geosynchronous) and launch another motor,make it dock with the paload in space so it can boost it from Gto to Gso
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dustin, July 25, 2007
weapons have a lot of sensitive electronics in them too. we've come a long way from gunpowder in an iron ball. also, the navy is already developing a railgun(http://www.popsci.com/popsci/t...drcrd.html) that they would be fitting to their ships. so what would be the point of a stationary railgun in the middle of a desert?
-
- +0
-
-
Write comment
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
That I would like to see, I wouldn't want to be in it, but I would like to see it. ;D