Coil gun space launch system. Will it work?

File: bubbling.jpg (21KB, 623x275px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 623x275px

>>8294525
Maybe?

All the designs I've seen for this are usually floating tubes in the ocean attached to anchored facilities that look kind of like an oil rig. Coiled around the mountain is a new setup.

People might be able to survive the g-forces inside a pressurized breathing liquid.

>>8294525
>Would it be worth it
What do you mean by "it", Peasant?

>>8295550
He means at what point would the system pay for itself vs conventional launch methods

>>8294525
Yes, but that's not the question to ask.

You need to ask if its economically feasible.

>>8295580
quote is it worth it quotes space he literally did

>>8294525
http://simulationsllc.com/pdfs/resources/electromagnetic%20launcher%20propulsion/Launch%20to%20Space%20with%20and%20Electromagnetic%20Railgun.pdf

Regardless of it being a railgun or coilgun, it'll be extremely long to get to escape velocity at an acceleration that won't crush cargo.

>>8294525

Didn't Iraq try to build this in the 1980s??

>>8295849
no.

>>8294525
>dat curve
>constantly loosing energy
shit idea

>>8295849
Lrn2cannon fgt pls

>>8294525
no, it would not. I will have to find the study, but the added weight to making payloads capable of withstanding launch and hypersonic speed through the atmosphere offsets most of the cost savings.

IIRC one of the biggest problems for sats was that lithium batteries couldn't withstand the high acceleration meaning that shitty nicads had to be used.

>>8294961
>pressurized breathing liquid

your brain fucking disintegrates before your lungs collapse, anon

>>8295602
For reference, this paper suggests a launcher of 1.6 km generating an acceleration of about 2000 g

It would get shit into space, but said shit would need its own propulsion systems to make it into orbit after initial launch (or firing in this case).

At the rate we launch shit into space now it would not be economically feasible, but we can safely assume that if someone decided to build a goddamn mass driver then space launches would be more frequent.

Rather than spending money to process fuel, build/design engines and fuel tanks, we would only need initial construction, maintenance, and energy to propel the shit. Paying for the energy will suck until we harness nuclear fusion/some other awesome energy source.

This guy explains it more in-depths and much better than I could though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSimYARyL2w&list=PLIIOUpOge0LtW77TNvgrWWu5OC3EOwqxQ&index=3

>>8296018
>At the rate we launch shit into space now it would not be economically feasible

There were 87 rocket launches in 2015, here's 86 of them:
https://vimeo.com/150281471

That seems pretty frequent to me.

>>8295940
Ok found the study: http://techdigest.jhuapl.edu/td/td2003/gilreath.pdf

So the issue is that it's hard to fit enough of a telecommunication satellite in a projectile. The main issue being power.

Was wrong about the batteries, Nicad has to be used because of the number of charge discharge cycles.

Overall, the analysis says it's not that competitive with conventional launchers. It may be worth it, just not that competitive

>>8294525

Suicide roller coaster?

>>8295849
t. Tony Blair

>>8294525
To be honest, I think that the thermal loads are going to make it a pain in the ass, I'd say better off with other crazy concepts like airship to orbit. Unless you're talking about a launch loop in which case you're already outside of the atmosphere.

Don't railguns get fucked after a couple uses? If this is similar then the maintenance costs are a non-starter.

>>8298790
In configurations where the projectile makes contact with the barrel walls, yes

>>8298782
Airship to orbit is pants on the head retarded. They are counting on magical drag reduction technologies being developed that reduce drag to zero.

Startram?
startram.com
No atmospheric drag, only minor onboard propulsion needed for manoeuvring and re-entry, looks like a live project...
I'm disappointed /sci/ don't talk about it more.

>>8299045
Source? Is there a paper somewhere?

>>8299161
Difference between this and launch loop?

File: WNYXC.jpg (196KB, 880x1051px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 880x1051px

>>8299884
It's on the airship to orbit website. They are heavily dependent on drag reduction tech

File: Why___.png (63KB, 173x180px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 173x180px

Humans start passing out at 7G
Start suffering organ failure at 9G
Dies horribly at 11G
Then this idea:
>Get launched into space with RAILGUN

>>8299957
Oh yeah I remember reading about that system. I'd say it's maybe possible, but yeah I wouldn't want to design a vehicle using currently non existing tech

>>8299892
No loop; sustained maglev propulsion up an inclined evacuated tube reaching outer atmosphere at least.
More details on project site.

coil guns are shit.

you have to use a multi stage gun to avoid the low velocity cap. if the timing isn't perfect you don't get the necessary speed. You have to shield the cargo from the huge magnetic fields.

the only problem with rail guns, compartively, is the rails like to immolate themselves. So rail life is short.