Timeline for What is the possibility of a railgun assisted orbital launch?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
29 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 7, 2019 at 15:13 | comment | added | AdamRedwine | It's been a few years... I'm still not seeing this play out. Sadly. The advent of the re-usable rocket does certainly change the playing field though and I am also aware of the assisted launch approach of Scaled Composites. Any news? | |
| S Apr 12, 2019 at 11:33 | history | suggested | Glorfindel | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
broken link fixed
|
| Apr 12, 2019 at 11:04 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Apr 12, 2019 at 11:33 | |||||
| Jun 30, 2017 at 3:19 | comment | added | Jed Grant | I would love to see this answer updated with all the stuff Elon Musk has been doing. Boring company, Hyperloop, Space X. | |
| May 25, 2017 at 20:19 | comment | added | Chris | actually, I added a new question: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/335409/… | |
| May 25, 2017 at 19:49 | comment | added | Chris | Can you expand on the atmospheric component? I have this hypothesis from KE penetrator rounds that if you have, say, an ice (or comparable material) capsule surrounding the payload in an aerodynamic way, then, when moving at orbital speeds, the surface of the envelope will phase shift straight to plasma (gradually), and the payload inside will pass through the atmosphere without losing any velocity (just the kinetic energy associated with the mass that plasma'd off). Would this work? why or why not? | |
| Apr 21, 2017 at 5:41 | comment | added | Drunken Code Monkey | A moon based accelerator would be much more practical and realistic. You can just move the vehicle construction there. | |
| Apr 21, 2017 at 5:37 | comment | added | Drunken Code Monkey | If you could somehow inject a gas that once pressurized into the vehicle would form a solid crystalline lattice on all of the insides, that you could vent once in space and replace with air, to stabilize every single component of the vehicle, and add strong magnetic shielding in the front, and make it very very aerodynamic, you could potentially blast your payload right out of the atmosphere with a reasonably short rail. The vehicle would need to be very large and heavy though, potentially including a small fission reactor to power the EM shield. So, sending a nuke at mach 33... | |
| Dec 13, 2016 at 14:11 | comment | added | user2277550 | @user10851 Can you link me to some numbers to validate your claim, that drag at high density high velocity cases is dangerous ? I don't think that is very likely. | |
| May 27, 2016 at 4:03 | comment | added | Drunken Code Monkey | Ideally such a launch loop should be located in high altitude, and the vehicle should be completely aerodynamic, to avoid as much air friction as possible. | |
| May 27, 2016 at 3:57 | comment | added | Drunken Code Monkey | Instead of pushing the spacecraft from zero to full acceleration over 1 mile, it might be preferable to instead accelerate the craft on an electromagnetic rail loop gradually, and switch in the launch track once acceleration is complete in the loop. This way you can have a mile long loop and an angled launch rail all close to ground. Of course any payload would have to be designed very carefully, and astronauts would likely be out of the question, but it might be useful to launch satellites enclosed in small rockets. Launch the rocket on the loop and then use the fuel to achieve desired orbit. | |
| Dec 29, 2015 at 10:16 | comment | added | user10851 | -1: Blasting your way through the atmosphere at orbital velocity is feasible for exactly one thing: obliterating the spacecraft. Also, the pessimism about reusable rockets has proven unwarranted now. | |
| S Dec 29, 2015 at 8:56 | history | suggested | Dave Jarvis | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Updated disappear'ed links.
|
| Dec 29, 2015 at 6:27 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Dec 29, 2015 at 8:56 | |||||
| Apr 18, 2014 at 13:19 | comment | added | Mr_leighman | Why not propose an initial prototype project relating to 'Rail gun assisted orbital launch' and seek seed funding for this project on kick starter. | |
| Nov 2, 2013 at 3:11 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Nov 2, 2013 at 3:51 | |||||
| Sep 13, 2012 at 22:04 | review | First posts | |||
| Sep 28, 2012 at 19:28 | |||||
| Sep 4, 2012 at 21:08 | comment | added | Shaktyai | A review of the question: research.lifeboat.com/ieee.em.pdf | |
| Sep 4, 2012 at 18:41 | comment | added | Anixx | Won't air resistance make achieving high speed in atmosphere impossible? I think even if you reach 11 km/s at railgun exit, you will be quickly slowned down by the atmosphere and severly warmed up. | |
| Sep 4, 2012 at 18:26 | comment | added | Andrew Palfreyman | Great comment Jeffrey. But if you launch to the East and use it continually, you will incrementally make the day longer. I haven't run the maths, but I hope that's not a problem! (I suspect it's infinitessimal). Also, has anyone looked at the possibility of curling up the track into some sort of roller coaster geometry, so as to leave a smaller surface footprint? | |
| Aug 29, 2012 at 22:20 | comment | added | Dr. Jeffrey Berger | I'll be sure to let the internet know when this starts up - publicity is going to be quite important. As we'll be doing scale models and slowly testing things the smaller railguns will make for great viral videos :-) Air friction is actually an incredibly difficult topic because it is like hitting a wall if the nosecone is not designed properly. A lot of drag reduction will need to be done in order to survive the launch - and you are right you need to overshoot the target velocity but by how much depends on just how much you can get your air drag down. | |
| Aug 29, 2012 at 20:33 | vote | accept | AdamRedwine | ||
| Aug 29, 2012 at 20:23 | comment | added | AdamRedwine | Sweet! I knew I wasn't the only one thinking about this. If you have any open jobs, let me know. ;) Heck, I'll even work for just stock options. | |
| Aug 29, 2012 at 20:02 | comment | added | lurscher | this is way more feasible than space elevators and get us almost the same economical benefits, approved! | |
| Aug 29, 2012 at 20:01 | history | edited | Mike Dunlavey | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
grammar
|
| Aug 29, 2012 at 19:56 | comment | added | Mike Dunlavey | I have to wonder, what is the effect of air friction? It's being shot in the thickest air at what, Mach 25? Seems you need to add a nose cone and some extra speed, just to have enough speed left when you get out of lower atmosphere. | |
| Aug 29, 2012 at 19:40 | history | edited | David Z | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
add in formatting and texify formulas
|
| Aug 29, 2012 at 19:37 | comment | added | N. Virgo | This is an excellent answer. | |
| Aug 29, 2012 at 19:28 | history | answered | Dr. Jeffrey Berger | CC BY-SA 3.0 |