Slashdot Mirror
Magnetic Ring Could Launch Satellites, Weapons
MattSparkes writes, "A new study funded by the US Air Force has suggested a cheaper method of sending satellites (possibly missile weapons) into orbit. A 2-km-wide ring of superconducting magnets would contain and propel a payload, accelerating it over a period of hours, before suddenly flinging the satellite into space at 23 times the speed of sound. The satellites would be engineered to withstand the g-forces encountered (2,000 g), and be cased in an aerodynamic shell. A two-year study has been commisioned and will begin within a few weeks at LaunchPoint Technologies in Goleta, California." New Scientist points out that if such a launch ring were built, it would instantly become "one of the most important targets on the planet."
Am I the only one seeing the parallel?
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
that gauss density could be fatal and/or affect instruments.
I know there's a relationship between bird migration and magnetic fields, too, as a lot of them blindly smack into the brick walls at a local MRI center.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Personally, I am not that sure I'd want anything with nuclear fuel (such as some satellites have these days) being accelerated to mach 23 on or near land, let alone trusting the casing to withstand 2000g. Is this a solution looking for a problem? I also wonder how much energy it would use to do such a thing compared to the energy expended launching the payload using a conventional solid/liquid fuel rocket.
today is spelling optional day.
First the FUD:
New Scientist points out that if such a launch ring were built, it would instantly become "one of the most important targets on the planet.
What a moronic comment.
You have a STATIC launcher.
It can toss things into ballistic trajectories.
One at a time.
With a warm-up of TENS OF HOURS.
I don't know if New Scientist realized this, but we have launch technologies that are
a) less vulnerable
b) more accurate
c) mobile
and
d) a little quicker to fire than that.
On another note, and not that this will mollify the crowd that fears a weapon in every technology, but in regards to the difficulty of punching something through the atmosphere at Mach 23, I seem to recall SDI experiments where a high-power laser was used to heat a 'track' through the atmosphere (in that case, to fire a particle beam weapon down the track with less atmospheric attenuation ). Couldn't a similar idea significantly reduce the air resistance for this sort of a projectile?
-Styopa
I can't see any drawbacks in dumping nuclear waste into space.
Indeed. Also, accelerating it in a 2km circle over several hours to 23 times the speed of sound is not fraught with peril.
There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
2000g is the expected angular acceleration.
My
You mean, like Vandenberg, and Cape Kennedy, and...
Anywhere the capability exists to put a payload into orbit is a target.
That "most important target" bit was a simple piece of scaremongering.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
You forget that it's circular. It's accelerating by changing direction as well as increasing speed.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
The article and basic approach remind me of Gerald Bull's work and his disturbing tale of doom as documented on the Doomed Engineers site:
Gerald Bull had a vision and an obsession, a vision that led to estrangement from his native Canada, prison in America, and ultimately assassination by Israel. His vision was of an entirely new way to get into space: small rockets boosted by giant guns. To achieve it he worked for some of the worst regimes on earth: South Africa, China, and ultimately Iraq. His work affected the course of two modern wars and revived the ancient field of artillery.
Nuclear waste is dangerous, but it's not magically dangerous. If we send it up in sufficiently small loads, scattering one across what is probably an isolated area isn't going to be the end of the world. We can clean it up; it doesn't magically contaminate everything it touches for ever and ever with no ability to clean it up. It's just a hazardous material.
... There's a reason I keep coming back to the word "magical". Nothing makes even normally rational, scientifically-minded people unhinge their minds like adding the word "radioactive" to the discussion.
Plus, the containers are already going to have to be strong just to survive normal stresses. I wouldn't be surprised that they already will be specced to survive most catastrophic releases.
I say this because it's important that people not think that radioactive waste is so magically dangerous that we always need to add "just one more layer" of protection before we're somehow 100% from the radioactivity bogeyman, and thus never take advantage of one of the better energy sources we have. It's an engineering problem, nothing more.
Ultimately, this point is moot, because the general public already does see radioactivity as magically dangerous and the magical thinkers are going to put themselves into the situation where they'd rather have the (magically dangerous) waste with them on the planet, but out of sight, rather than actually removed from our living space, but briefly and highly-visibly in the air.
Well, a few thousand cremated bodies would probably fit inside one single launch, so you would need millions to get that price. Because I seriously doubt the $189/kg figure assumes 1 kg payload/launch.
A few reasons... the ring is kilometers long. Angling it at 30 degrees would force you to build it deep into the ground, high into the air, or both. But more importantly you'd only have one launch trajectory. By having one ring and a mobile launch tunnel you have 360 degrees to choose from (ideally). The ability to change launch direction is probably more important than the complications it adds to the launch physics.
Developers: We can use your help.
Geez... There are all sorts of things that you might want to fling into space where you don't really care that much about being gentle. For example, use it to fling food and water up to the space station.
You don't need to fling the capsule upwards, you need to fling it horizontally such that it doesn't hit anything. To get into orbit you do not go "up", you go sideways as fast as you can. The advantages of being high up are:
Being "in orbit" is essentially falling without ever hitting the ground.
MJCAt least read the summary:
"and be cased in an aerodynamic shell"
So, yes, it's a problem, but it's one they've noticed and considered. It will have to be a very impressive aerodynamic shell to withstand travelling at escape velocity through ground level air pressures, but it's purely an engineering problem, not a physics one.
The down fall is that the privatization world will probably be a bit upset about this.
The current crop of privateers, yes. If a space-oriented VC could envisage a suitable marketing plan, this would be the ideal private space infrastructure project. Most of the existing cheaper-faster-better startups focus merely on making a cheaper tube 'o fuel. Our current crop of missile makers are still basically building their product by hand. When a launch vehicle and payload go BOOM, a good portion of the contractor's and customer's capital goes with it. It's like watching the auto industry before Ford.
If a Paul Allen or consortium were to bankroll something like this, they wouldn't be betting the farm on each test launch.
Luke, help me take this mask off