Space Gun

[MIG]

If you sow the movie with the super gun for Iraq you will know what I suggest :

 

Big gun that will fire small craft’s in the orbit in the shell , at some altitude shell will break and craft will start his own engines

What are you think it will cost more or less for launch of the craft

 

Jules Vern

[CPL.Luke]

this was an idea from the times of jules vern

 

the acceleration would kill or destroy anything on the craft

[MIG]

I don’t know how much will be the initial speed

Butt this doesn’t mean that we will use craft with humans inside

We also need building material’s up there

[CPL.Luke]

you mean like a giant cannon that uses some sort of explosive to propel it right?

 

 

if this is the case than anything other than a simple electronic system would be destroyed. Also its alot quiter and cheaper to just use rockets

[insane_alien]

if you found a way around the extreme acceleration then you would still have the problem of the temperature as you leave the muzzel. you would effectively need a heatshield for going up a well as down.

[Ophiolite]

1. Only use it for transferring bulk construction materials to orbit. No worries then about the effects of acceleration.

2. Construct the barrel in the mountains, so that the bulk of the Earth's atmosphere is not encountered.

3. Naturally evacuate the interior of the barrel so that their is no air resistance initially.

4. What's wrong with having a heat shield? What's wrong with having a primary heat shield that vaporises the materials immediately behind it, these then being channeled through the rear of the projectile to add a little more velocity?

5. Forget the explosives and go for a magnetic propulsion system. That way you have manageable acceleration.

 

Or just get on with building a space elevator.Much more elegant.

[insane_alien]

yes space elevators are cooler but theres the whole problem of getting all the construction materials to build it.

[MIG]

The whole idea is to use fuel on ground it’s not necessary to lift the tons of reservoirs and fuel and the cost will be lower and you can fire much more material into orbit

 

Look at this, this is the thing that motivate

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/babongun.htm

 

This Gerard Bull was great , you must see the movie

[MIG]

magnetic propulsion system = manageable acceleration

 

I try to find prove on the web for work of magnetic propulsion system but I find it’s not yet ready for development or maybe impossible to work without some chemical energy.

Please send me a link if you think different

[x__heavenly__x]

wow, i was looking for a way to transport the systems, meterial and other needed things to orbit for building a spacestation in a much easier way. a space station in space n on the moon for future space station elsewhere.

rite?

[rocketboy]

magnetic propulsion system = manageable acceleration

 

So like a rail-gun?

[x__heavenly__x]

yup just like in mettal gear solid 1.

[CPL.Luke]

the military has been working on rail guns for years (fully declassified work)

 

the only problem with them is that they take up a room the size of a hanger :/

[flyboy]

mass driver solves the problems

 

although u would need an immense amount of electricity u could use solar panals for that

[Flunch]

The problem, as I see it is that escape velocity is what, 11,200 m/s? So even at a constant 3g acceleration your rail gun would be 2131 km long.

 

That'd be expensive... and I don't even want to spitball how much power it would require.

[calbiterol]

The problem' date=' as I see it is that escape velocity is what, 11,200 m/s? So even at a constant 3g acceleration your rail gun would be 2131 km long.

 

That'd be expensive... and I don't even want to spitball how much power it would require.[/quote']

First, I'm not sure that everyone will understand how you got that, so I'll post the math for you. Starting with the kinematic equation [math]vf^2 = vi^2 + 2ad[/math], substitute in variables and solve (your escape velocity is correct, in case you weren't sure). So...

[math](11200)^2 = 2 * a * d[/math]

[math]62720000 = a * d[/math]

[math]62720000 / a = d[/math]

 

Substitute in 3g for acceleration and you get around 2131 (mine came out to 2133, but close enough).

 

Now, the average human can take around 2-3 g before passing out. More naturally tolerant humans can take an additional 1 or 2 g before the lights go out. Most pilots in modern air forces are trained to withstand around 10-12 g with some special equipment (g - suits), in particular those filled with a liquid of constant density. I might add that this is exclusively in the headwards direction - the same direction as the constant 1g one experiences when standing. If the subject is exposed to acceleration that is equivalent to the constant 1g experienced while laying down, then the average person can withstand around 10g without any special equipment.

 

If you figure that the pilot/passenger is NOT experiencing acceleration in the headwards direction, and accelerate 10g (for the average human - plus the math is much simpler). This yields 640 kilometers, which is still very, very large. Hence the suggestion to send up living organisms seperately and by other means.

 

Alternatively, this could be used to save on fuel costs instead of completely eliminating them - in other words, burn a very small amount of fuel instead of a very large amount. This would also eliminate the need to overcome static friction, which is responsible for an incredible amount of fuel.

 

[Edit: I thought I might add that electromagnetic forces (just like a railgun) can accelerate 2,000 g (about 20,000 m/s^2) or more, and are not that expensive.]