A pet interest of mine over recent years has been seeing the sci-fi tech of the movies turn into reality. Railguns, in particular, caught my eye a few years back. What's your thought on our current level of prototype railgun technology, and have you seen the info from the naval test firings from the 2008 tests? The small test railgun had a range of 13 miles, but the full railcannon planned should have enough oomph to fire a mach 7 projectile 200 nautical miles with deadly accuracy. Also interesting is that the kinetic damage dealt by the solid slug equals that of a tomahawk cruise missile. Implications abound since the missiles are much more volatile(such as when the ship is under attack) and thousands of times more expensive then the slugs themselves. Of course, wear and tear on the gun itself are likely to remain an issue for years to come. Thoughts? if you haven't read up on railguns before, you can always check the wiki here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun
I think I read the latest US Navy crusier has provisions to be equipped with a electro-magnetic rail gun in the future. The over all concept is much more mature then laser based weapons. Hell roller coasters use the same principle linear induction motors propel the cars to 100s of miles an hour.
Light-Amplified-Stimulated-Emission-of-Radation weapons can still be useful! Such as for shooting down ICBM'S. Still, this technology, I cant wait to see where it goes O. o
Light-Amplified-Stimulated-Emission-of-Radation weapons can still be useful! Such as for shooting down ICBM'S. Still, this technology, I cant wait to see where it goes O. o
They've got a test bed 747 thats designed to intercept ICBM's but the issue is price vs efficiency. Also they're having a hard time getting the laser to kill power at all times. Clouds tend to diffuse light based weapons pretty fast. The best laser defenses are the point defense stations that some tanks and armored vehicles use. I think Israel also has a stationary/Humvee mounted laser system for rocket attacks. Which kind of proves that lasers are effective short range, fast targeting and killing protection, but in the end for longer range more reliable protection kinetic kills vehicles are still the better option.
I heard about that test last year! I never saw the vid though. I think point defense lasers are an excellent idea as well, but there are always going to be problems with distance, aside from usage in space. On that note, these high tech weapons have a multitude of uses in space. By example, using the ICBM intercepting laser from space to shoot down missiles as they travel in sub-orbital flight, thus giving a small handful of such lasers in a defence platform the range to intercept most such missiles and high flying craft. Such a platform might be able to provide cover to a third or more of the earth's surface. Also, as there is no atmospherics to diffuse the potency, I don't see range ever becoming a problem for such a weapon. As for railguns in space, the most interesting use is likely as anti-asteroid (or spaceship, once we get there) defense platforms, but the similar technology for mass drivers would be an excellent way to send materials to space. Such a thing would be much cheaper then our current limiting fuel-rocket space programs.
I heard about that test last year! I never saw the vid though. I think point defense lasers are an excellent idea as well, but there are always going to be problems with distance, aside from usage in space. On that note, these high tech weapons have a multitude of uses in space. By example, using the ICBM intercepting laser from space to shoot down missiles as they travel in sub-orbital flight, thus giving a small handful of such lasers in a defence platform the range to intercept most such missiles and high flying craft. Such a platform might be able to provide cover to a third or more of the earth's surface. Also, as there is no atmospherics to diffuse the potency, I don't see range ever becoming a problem for such a weapon. As for railguns in space, the most interesting use is likely as anti-asteroid (or spaceship, once we get there) defense platforms, but the similar technology for mass drivers would be an excellent way to send materials to space. Such a thing would be much cheaper then our current limiting fuel-rocket space programs.
I remember seeing a concept of a circle track of linear induction motors (Electro Magnets) accelerating a payload around till it reaches orbital velocites and then angling upward to launch the object into orbit. A great idea, but I can't imagine the power required for it.
a mass driver for launching things to orbit really would take massive amounts of power, likely a dedicated nuclear power plant. Our only real viable option as an alternative is an Orbital Elevator, but we have a lot of work before our tech becomes of a viable level to make such a thing. I remember hearing something of carbon nanotubes thought to be the optimum material for building an Orbital Elevator. An elevator would be optimum, but the engineering feat of actually building one without risking disaster would be a mammoth undertaking to say the least.
A great idea, but I can't imagine the power required for it.
Neglecting atmospheric drag, and assuming 75% efficiency (doable), about 48.98 kWh per kilogram for escape velocity (So a nuclear power plant is not needed), or $5.87 worth of commercially produced electricity. Actual orbital velocities are lower, but you'd have to account for work done by atmospheric drag, the weight of a shell to minimize atmospheric drag, and the weight of the fuel you need to send up to correct the orbit into a shape that doesn't crash back into the planet.
Still, that's actually really practical for lowering launch costs. Especially when you consider, say, a Delta-II rocket. It costs $36.7 Million to launch up to 6100 kg, that's $6016.39 per kilogram.
Brome Teks's Signature
________________________________
"Any technology, no matter how primitive, is magic to those that don't understand it." - Florence Ambrose
"Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from Science!" - Agatha Heterodyne
Neglecting atmospheric drag, and assuming 75% efficiency (doable), about 48.98 kWh per kilogram for escape velocity (So a nuclear power plant is not needed), or $5.87 worth of commercially produced electricity. Actual orbital velocities are lower, but you'd have to account for work done by atmospheric drag, the weight of a shell to minimize atmospheric drag, and the weight of the fuel you need to send up to correct the orbit into a shape that doesn't crash back into the planet.
And math and real know how comes to save the day
Still, that's actually really practical for lowering launch costs. Especially when you consider, say, a Delta-II rocket. It costs $36.7 Million to launch up to 6100 kg, that's $6016.39 per kilogram.
Hmm, I'd the issue is materials then. Building a track and motor system to be handle that much velocity. Also calibrating the track to reach the orbit for what ever it is your launching. Naturally the vehicle will have its own means of navigation once in orbit to settle into the correct path and adjust as needed.
It would be pretty cool to see space ports actually look like roller coaster parks though
Well, I'm basically envisioning a giant linear roller coaster, though another solution could be to attach scramjets and use those through the atmospheric ascent, then at a certain altitude detach from them and just coast the rest of the way to orbit. Scramjets are pretty efficient compared to rockets, and they'd help negate the effect of atmospheric drag, thus reducing the speed the mass launcher needs to achieve. It could be made to be almost entirely reusable too, and use far less fuel than the space shuttle.
Brome Teks's Signature
________________________________
"Any technology, no matter how primitive, is magic to those that don't understand it." - Florence Ambrose
"Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from Science!" - Agatha Heterodyne
Well, I'm basically envisioning a giant linear roller coaster, though another solution could be to attach scramjets and use those through the atmospheric ascent, then at a certain altitude detach from them and just coast the rest of the way to orbit. Scramjets are pretty efficient compared to rockets, and they'd help negate the effect of atmospheric drag, thus reducing the speed the mass launcher needs to achieve. It could be made to be almost entirely reusable too, and use far less fuel than the space shuttle.
The concept I saw was a circular track to reduce the whole system's total foot print. A linear one works too. Having it boosted with jets or rockets would probably reduce the foot print even more.
most things that appear in movies tend to have been kicking around in literature for close to a decade before they do. no matter how "origeonal" movie makers may sometimes claim to be.
themnax's Signature
its not what stands or falls, but what its replaced by or evolves into, that we actually have to live with.
Railguns, Fiction made fact!
Reply With Quote
linear induction motors propel the cars to 100s of miles an hour.
Originally Posted by BIos_Reaper
