Slashdot Mirror
Navy Gets 8-Megajoule Rail Gun Working
prototypo writes "The Free Lance-Star newspaper is reporting that the Navy Surface Warfare Center in Dahlgren, Virginia has successfully demonstrated an 8-megajoule electromagnetic rail gun. A 32-megajoule version is due to be tested in June. A 64-megajoule version is anticipated to extend the range of naval gunfire (currently about 15 nautical miles for a 5-inch naval gun) to more than 200 nautical miles by 2020. The projectiles are small, but go so fast that have enough kinetic punch to replace a Tomahawk missile at a fraction of the cost. In the final version, they will apex at 95 miles altitude, well into space. These systems were initially part of Reagan's SDI program ("Star Wars"). An interesting tidbit in the article is that the rail gun is only expected to fire ten times or less per day, presumably because of the amount of electricity needed. I guess we now need a warp core to power them."
But I was thinking, is this a possible way to launch orbiting vehicles? I first think no, as the initial force necessary to 'shoot' something into orbit would probably destroy any delicate instruments needed for a working satellite.
However, this seems very interesting as an Anti Satellite/"Star Wars" platform. If they can get the software working to intercept, this should (scaled up version) be able to knock out satellites, ballistic missiles, etc - shouldn't it?
It could be worse, it could be Monday.
I'm a member of the NRA, I didn't see this in the last catalog.
An interesting tidbit in the article is that the rail gun is only expected to fire ten times or less per day, presumably because of the amount of electricity needed.
If only we knew when lightning was due to strike some sort of a clock tower? Surely, then, we could harness the power needed.
If that doesn't work, perhaps some new technology involving trash?
by June they'll get the quad-damage powerup working?
So, do the electrical power requirements for this mean that the Navy will once again be building nuclear-powered ships?
Insisting on "correct" English is like saying that there is only one, definitive recipe for chili.
if you can only fire 10 per day.
I'd be very careful accounting for winds over a distance of 200 miles, particularly where chinese embassies are located. Must be a hell of a job to be spotter for this kind of weapon.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
It will allow the US Navy to miss targets from much further away.
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
The Navy isn't estimating a price tag at this point, with actual use still about 13 years away.
I think they mean deployment, unless the Navy knows something Congress doesn't. Which wouldn't surprise me.
Basically, its a magnetic rail gun for launching space-craft into orbit. And in order to avoid the crushing G-forces involved, it has to be hundreds of miles long. So, while it may not be economically or politically viable, it is technically feasible. We know how to build a launch loop, as opposed to a Space Elevator, which can't be constructed with current technology.
-Sean
A 32-megajoule version is due to be tested in June. A 64-megajoule version is anticipated to extend the range of naval gunfire (currently about 15 nautical miles for a 5-inch naval gun) to more than 200 nautical miles by 2020.
Nobody will ever need more than a 64 Megajoules rail gun.
Come on, if you could fire a projectile 200 miles, you could just mount these on coastlines, serviced by ground-based power plants. True, it wouldn't replace navies ENTIRELY, but it would suddenly become extremely UN-economical to have one with even the slightest capability to get near a shoreline. Pushing back aircraft carriers 200 miles would severely reduce the flight time of the planes, which now have to fly a lot farther just to get to the coastline, let alone targets inside countries.
On the plus side, land-locked countries can now hunt whales for food. :)
I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
Well, a little googling turned up this which seems to explain it better without of the nasty physics technobabble. And this is how to do it yourself.
During a 5-second 'shot', when the stored energy was released, the motor, generator and flywheel would go from 480 to ~100 rpm, and dump 960 mega joules of energy into the coils of the experiment. You could feel the vibration in your feet anywhere you stood at the site, all the CRT's images would collapse due to the intense magnetic field generated. Then it was another twenty minutes before they could do it again.
Slashdot's name? When my compiler sees
From the above, I'm assuming they have a reasearch project underway that would directly translate into launch survivability for the hardware. I'm not a electrical or mechanical engineer, but I'm going to guess that electronics embedded in high-impact composite ceramics (a la tank armor) might be the ticket here. The rocket engine and the fuel are another story. My understanding is that solid rockets are relatively simple construction (compared to liquid) so they would be the best candidate for survial. Pretty much every weld or joint I can think of would come apart under those kind of forces, so the fewer parts the better.
Use the rail gun to launch a big, heavy projectile into orbit.
Attach projectile to giant bungee cord.
Attach giant bungee cord to object you want in orbit.
Give object giant scissors.
Expanding on this, you could tie one object with several rubber bands to several projectiles.
paintball