What is Digg?98 Comments
- junk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16"Project leader Jim Fiske, an expert in magnetic levitation, believes that the magnetic forces would counteract the pulverizing G-forces generated by radial acceleration and prevent the sled from touching the tunnel wall."
That's the key to making this tech work. I hope somebody does figure it out, I think low cost launch systems such as this one could be the start of a whole new wave of "a couple of diy geeks in their parents garage" coming up with kick ass technology and services that change the way we do everyday things. - JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Slingshot? More like a rail-gun.
- merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12The acceleration involved would turn you into a puddle.
- kevinmotel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I want a space elevator. Where is my space elevator?
- solidhubris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Maybe what you're advocating is completely logical and the reason I'm deeply confused right now is my own fault, or you need a bit more sleep.
- Ramble, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Any living matter sent up with this system would be centrifuged into it's constituent parts.
- fernando26, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Forget radial acceleration, what about the suddent shock suffered when the device moves from the vacuum tunnel described to air. At speeds like that, moving through air is like moving through water. Wouldn't the object disintegrate as soon as it emerges from the barrel?
Anyone seen that Mythbusters episode where they fired bullets into water? Faster bullet = more pulverized. In that scenario think of the air as the thinner medium (the vacuum in the tube) and the water as the thicker medium (the air in the atmosphere the projectile encounters when it emerges from the barrel) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Space Ship One is a start, a very good start, at breaking away from the convention of using gobs of fuel and thrust to escape the atmosphere. That doesn't mean there are better solutions, though. Space elevator is an awesome idea but it has a lot of problems. This idea is cool, but obviously problems. We're at a point where it can't hurt to consider ideas, though.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I think we should just work with an existing model, and scale it up 100x.
http://www.joyrides.com/sfmm/superman1.htm
Who's with me? - JohnnyZito, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5What's wrong with the Space Ship 1 method?
- joearcher, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Thats not a new idea...any Robert A. Heinlein fan will tell you that.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"As for the system’s cost, its low power requirements would allow spy micro-satellites to be slung into orbit for $50,000, a small fraction of the current $5-million launch cost."
sounds pretty fair to me. - SickMonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I was thinking the same thing. It would make a pretty good system for launching 220 lb. satellite guided smart bombs at pretty much at any target anywhere in the world.
- DubbedOver, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Right next to the Hovercraft and personal jet-pack we're supposed to have.
- blandrys, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3the slingshot method would be a good way to get initial
raw materials for a space elevator ejected into orbit - Namco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Wile E. Coyote's been doing this for years. His vendor - ACME.
- antoniojvr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Soon.
- Videlicet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This system is totally ridiculous. Think of the extreme temperatures (several thousand degrees Fahrenheit) that the space shuttle and every other space vehicle have to endure upon re-entry into the atmosphere at 60 km above the Earth's surface. Remember Columbia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_reentry
Now imagine the frictional heat at sea level (or even on top of a mountain) in the lower atmosphere that is many times more dense than the upper atmosphere. The temperatures encountered by such a projectile would be too great to withstand, immediately vaporizing anything launched through the system. This is ignoring the fact that the friction creates an extreme amount of drag, which would mean that the projectile would have to have a final velocity of much greater than 6 mi/s to achieve escape velocity.
Sounds like a great use of $500k in taxpayer money, huh? - sideshowRAHEEM, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2They should have expected these kind of ideas when thet put Professor Dennis the Menace in charge of the space program.
- ringo380, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The Far Side instantly came to mind when I read this comment.
- thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Right next to your ultanium.... (ask some aerospace engineers)
- jrefenes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yeah, this won't be practical for launching any kind of personell or large objects into space.
"To survive the ride on Launchpoint Technologies’s invention, the payload has to be able to survive a brain-splattering 10,000 Gs. The design calls for a high-speed accelerator that whips a projectile as heavy as 220 pounds around a circular 1.5-mile-radius vacuum tunnel. Powerful electromagnetic motors inside the tunnel will accelerate the unit, strapped to a magnetic sled, in circles until it reaches a velocity of six miles per second and then will eject the projectile from a launch ramp into space."
They mention using it to launch satellites. I doubt satellites weight under 220lbs, not to mention all the magnetic shielding you'd have to put around the electrons so they don't fry in the launch process. It's a cool idea, but I doubt it will go anywhere or be very cost-effective. - venicerocco, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10But.. but.. Where does the Flux Capacitor go?
- michael1406, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Well it's Christmas in 5 days, you never know...
- Otto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The idea of using a big circular tunnel to get up to escape velocity before tossing the payload out has some benefits and some drawbacks.
Benefits: You can build it cheaply. It's reasonably small by comparison to some other approaches. It doesn't take a lot of power.
Drawback: Any object unable to handle the G's gets crushed into tiny, tiny pieces. Radial acceleration is a bitch. Can't send up humans. Can't send up anything more than a few hundred pounds.
Better idea: Build a perfectly straight and flat maglev track that's about 100 miles long. Use it to accelerate payloads in straight lines up to escape/orbital velocity + a bit extra to account for air resistance. When they fly off the end, they go up into orbit.
Benefits: You *can* launch people in the thing. And huge payloads, if you've got enough power to put them on the maglev track and send them along it. The g-forces would be under 4G all the way, and you'd be in free fall after you leave the track, all the way to orbit (minus wind buffeting, of course).
Downsides: You'd have to build it in a non-populated area, due to sonic booms from the high speed projectiles. It would be a massive and expensive undertaking to build a 100 mile long track. You'd have to have large scale R&D to develop the systems to synchronize the electromagnets as they pull loads along from 0 to 11 km/sec. The thing would likely have to be large and enclosed to reduce air resistance. There would have to be lots of testing. It would have to be built so that aborted loads could drop into a handy ocean instead of on some local population.. However, there's lots of places in New Mexico and Arizona that would be perfect for it, not to mention South America. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Viva la Space Elevator!
- rapier8, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is just a giant rail gun. I wanted to make a rail gun for my 8th grade science project. My teacher wouldn't let me... bitch.
- anagoge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2A sled you say?
Santa's gonna be pissed. - idonthack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's not a rail gun, it's a Gaussian gun. Sort of.
- mightymouse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1We should just go with Jules Verne's idea of making a giant gun.
- Velireon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Otto & Videlicet -- A mountain would be completely necessary given frictional heat, if it wouldn't make the whole idea unworkable. It would be interesting to see calculations for said problem.
However, as far as using NM or AZ -- launching over an ocean would be good, but the pacific wouldn't work for the US. Earth rotates West to East, so you have to launch toward the East in order to use Earth's rotation to your advantage. We don't have any tall mountains on our East coast sufficiently close to the equator and in relatively unpopulated areas, so N. America isn't a good candidate. - intangible, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Coil-Gun.
- idonthack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You were doing good until that last sentence.
"I doubt satellites weight under 220lbs, not to mention all the magnetic shielding you'd have to put around the electrons so they don't fry in the launch process."
1. Lots of satellites weigh under 220 lbs. They're simple, single-purpose satellites.
2. You could change the maximum load by using stronger magnets or a wider ring.
3. I'm pretty sure there's no such thing as "magnetic shielding".
4. Electrons are subatomic particles. And they don't "fry", ever.
5. Electronic equipment is usually unaffected even by strong magnetic forces. - rabidg00se, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Maybe I'm misinterpreting your comment, but it looks like it just slings in around in circles until it gets fast enough, then diverts it to a ramp to launch.
- Otto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@CoffeeNut:
Sorry. Yes, I made a power of ten error when converting meters and kilometers and thus my answer was off by a factor of 10. The *correct* answer is 4G's and a track 1000 miles long (instead of 100 miles).
If you are starting from rest, then v^2 = 2*a*d. In our case, v = 11.2 km/s, a = 4G's = 4 * 9.8 m/s and d is what we want to know. Do your own math to get d = 1,600,000 meters, or just under 1000 miles.
I don't know what errors you made, but you were way off, both times. - Namco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Is he related to Mr. W. Coyote?
- starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1it was invented by Gerard O’Neill who is commonly known as the father of the modern space colonization movement. its called a mass driver. he designed it to move mined materials off the moon to one of the lagrange points. of course he tried to get funding for it and couldn't get any. after he built it of course the military turned it into a weapon... called the railgun.
"Although the idea of using an electric catapult in space applications had been discussed in science and science fiction literature for some years, the first practical device was constructed by Dr. Gerard K. O’Neill and Dr. Harry Kolm in 1977. O’Neill and Kolm, working with a team of graduate students at MIT, constructed Mass Driver I from about $3,000 worth of scrounged electronic parts. In its initial tests, this push-only machine achieved over 33 gravities."
http://ssi.org/?page_id=6#mass-drivers - Manhigh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"It's the easy answer. It works. But it's expensive, non-renewable and grossly inefficient."
LOX/LH2 propulsion is renewable. - AdamTReineke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1And you were doing "well".
- Ludwig, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You're forgetting one very important thing, Otto. If we're using unobtanium for the track, we can use shiny tinfoil suits which will make G force a non-issue.
- perkonis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This whole thing sounds fishy to me. This is the third time I've read an article about this launch ring. A quick search finds 2 New Scientist articles and now Popsci. And they all read like a bit of PR fluff. If I were a bit more cynical, I might think this is a PR stunt or a quest for more venture capital.
- Manhigh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1We can do it with artillery shells but they don't have to unfurl antennae, solar arrays, or radiators afterward.
Not to mention this thing still needs to perform a circularization maneuver with a propulsion system once it gets to apogee to keep it in orbit. Otherwise, this IS just artillery. - visvivalaw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Bad title. This is not even close to being a new idea. This and many variations on firing things to orbit have been floating around the aerospace community for decades.
Must have been a slow news day. - JesusIsSatan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Someone at NASA has been watching the Justice League. Vandal Savage built a rail gun in space that attracted iron-rich meteors, accelerated them through his magnetic induction coils, and hurled them at targets on Earth. Green Lantern, Flash, and Martian Man-hunter with help from Batman and Wonder Woman thwarted his evil plot.
BTW, what ever happened to the $2 trillion in magic beans that Ronald Reagan bought after he watched Star Wars in 1977? I heard it's still just an idea on paper. - rocketryguy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Micro-sats down to 35Lbs have been launched via conventional rockets, usually in the spare space between a major payload and the aeroshell protecting it at launch. Cheep, and some of the tiny satellites can do some amazing things.
- Valarauka, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Heh, that reminds me of "How I lost a billion dollars in my spare time" - Arthure C. Clarke, who basically thought up the idea of geostationary satellites, and invented satellite communication as we know it...
- Velireon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@dcbebop: I'm having to scrape way down in the ol' brain for this one, but if I recall correctly (not a guarantee): Because of the Coriolis effect. Basically, if the track is long enough, Coriolis forces act on an object moving on a "straight" path. We assume that moving objects, unless acted upon, continue moving in a "straight" line, but it's important to remember that on the Earth's surface, we're acted upon by the Earth's revolution, and it's much more noticeable over large distances (& large mass & high speed). Thus a long linear accelerator would have to fight Coriolis forces unless it was curved in such a way as to counteract them.
- Valarauka, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@jrefenes: Well, they just got half a million dollars in funding, so obviously the USAF thinks it's worthwhile... no offense, but I think I'll go with their assessments over yours. ;)
- Valarauka, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1220kg at a time, at a cost of $50,000 per chunk? It'd have to get a whole lot cheaper before we could use it for waste disposal, right? About how much nuclear waste do we produce in a year?
- Valarauka, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@neuroticus: there is. It's called gravity. The flinging will just put the satellite into orbit; once there, maneuvering thrusters can move it to wherever it has to be.
And Johnny - nothing wrong, it's just way more efficient to fling something directly into space than to have a ship carry it up there, release it and come back down. -
Show 51 - 98 of 98 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is