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."

Comments

"Moon is a Harsh Mistress" anybody??

[Churla]

Am I the only one seeing the parallel?

Re:"Moon is a Harsh Mistress" anybody??

[Bob-taro]

Just fill the passenger compartment (and passenger's lungs) with an 02 saturated liquid and accelleration ceases to be an issue.

Sounds good at first, but look what happens in a lab centrifuge -- you'd probably wind up with all your tissues separated into layers of equal density (with the "O2 saturated liquid" somewhere in the middle)!

Re:"Moon is a Harsh Mistress" anybody??

[theshowmecanuck]

Only if your bouyancy is zero and there are no external forces acting on your system. Take blood cells in blood for example: put the blood in a centrafuge and spin it up to speed. The blood cells end up in the bottom of the test tube. That would be you in the launch ring. Except at many thousand Gs, you would look more like the blood cells in the bottom of the test tube than like you.

A few points

[argStyopa]

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?

Re:Lost in space

[mypalmike]

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.

Re:a_c = - \omega^2 r

[MConlon]

Of course, there's going to be a bit of bump when the capsule hits the atmosphere, and there's also the bit of a trick about getting the thing oriented so the capsule if flung upward...

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:

1. the atmosphere is thinner which means there is less aerodynamic drag on your vehicle, and
2. there are less things to hit.

Being "in orbit" is essentially falling without ever hitting the ground.

MJC