news
Welcome to c/news! Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember... we're all comrades here.
Rules:
-- PLEASE KEEP POST TITLES INFORMATIVE --
-- Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed. --
-- All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. --
-- If you are citing a twitter post as news please include not just the twitter.com in your links but also nitter.net (or another Nitter instance). There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/libredirect/ or archive them as you would any other reactionary source using e.g. https://archive.today . Twitter screenshots still need to be sourced or they will be removed --
-- Mass tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken markov chain bot will result in a comm ban--
-- Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.--
-- Neglecting to use content warnings or NSFW when dealing with disturbing content will be removed until in compliance. Users who are consecutively reported due to failing to use content warnings or NSFW tags when commenting on or posting disturbing content will result in the user being banned. --
-- Using April 1st as an excuse to post fake headlines, like the resurrection of Kissinger while he is still fortunately dead, will result in the poster being thrown in the gamer gulag and be sentenced to play and beat trashy mobile games like 'Raid: Shadow Legends' in order to be rehabilitated back into general society. --
view the rest of the comments
Uhhh
Can someone tell me what velocity you need to launch an object at in order to reach orbit? And what accelerative forces you need in order to achieve that?
How big is this railgun? How are they handling heat from atmospheric friction? You have the same problem going up too quickly as you get coming down too quickly.
NASAs version of this is called StarTram, it's feasible but there are some major technical hurdles.
In the prototype stage, the launch velocity at the end of the gun would not be anywhere near the 10 km/s you would need to achieve orbit. But you could reach a sizable fraction, say 3 km/s. Becuase the velocity gained during rocket flight is not linear with mass, having that 3 km/s inital boost would reduce your overall rocket mass by like 80%. The rocket would clear the atmosphere and then fire its motor to gain a stable orbit.
We can achieve 3 km/s with current technology, it would require like a 100 km long maglev in a very low pressure tube, likely built on the side of a mountain. It could probably reduce space flight costs by a factor of 10 if completed.
Building the proposed goal of a human rated version capable of reaching near 10 km/s at the end point would be much more difficult. The tube would have to span over 1,000 km and I don't believe we have the technology yet to maintain the vacuum or supply enough power quickly enough to power it.
China is likely proposing to build a testbed system to start researching the concept. Probably on a larger scale than NASA has but nowhere near a complete system.
It's probably a high speed launch assist, not the entire source of escape velocity.
That sounds so funny though.
How would you even do that? Build something like a particle accelerator except it's a launching railgun the size of China?
I mean yeah why not if it means you can partially reach escape velocity with like solar powered electricity vs going the entire way 100% on burning rocket fuel
I don't know the answer to your question (unfortunately) but I've run into this idea before, and it seems that it's an idea that has been passed around for many years now including by NASA. As I understand it, one of the perks is that you don't have to carry your fuel and engines - so you don't have to move nearly as much mass. You could launch a satellite with just a protective shell around it. So the magnets don't have to instantaneously exert as much force as the rockets do during their entire burn. I assume these planes would be drones so they might be rather small.
If the idea is that they're sending up people with railguns then it's simply bullshit afaik. It would have to be rail-assisted and the output would be marginal. (edit: super long barrels have apparently been discussed for human launches [with rockets for later stages], but it appears to be generally considered unfeasible right now.)
The acceleration even for drones would be mind-numbing. Definitely some bleeding-edge engineering challenges on making something that can survive that. I'm not really well-informed on it so I won't speculate in detail, but I do get the impression that most of those challenges are theoretically solvable with today's science. However it would be a breakthrough for many applied science fields.
If any nation could do this, imo, it's China. They're really taking the lead in almost every measure right now (including the most important outside of welfare imo - research). It's not their fault if the 5eyes want to fear-monger about falling behind. (It is incredibly aggravating, though.)
You'd still need engines and fuel onboard, or you couldn't circularize the orbit. The idea is more just get something out of the atmosphere with something that doesn't itself have to be dragged along for the ride, then do the rest of it once you don't have atmospheric drag and you aren't fighting directly against gravity anymore.
It's kind of the same as the idea of "what if the first stage was a big air-breathing plane that just, like, flew really high and really fast?" that keeps cropping up, just finding a way to make the first part of the process less absurdly expensive.
But no matter what you can't put something into orbit with a single input of velocity unless that was enough to remove it from the Earth's sphere of influence entirely, because you can't make the lowest point in an orbit higher than the point you're currently at.
I think you could theoretically angle it so that the trajectory leads it to fall into orbit, no?
Presumably these planes would have some means of propulsion once they were out of the atmosphere, otherwise their usefulness would be very limited. I did say "rockets [...] during their entire burn" but I should have said the lift rockets, which iirc is most of the weight so it's still a big deal. However I agree that in no way would this circumvent the need for propulsion outside of the atmosphere for most intents and purposes.
Anyway, it's all probably a pipe dream with the upcoming climate change challenges. But the science is fun and apparently some experts consider this more-or-less feasible.
Absolutely impossible. The problem isn't the angle, the problem is that orbits are circular. The "orbit" would have to go around in circular motion until until it reaches the point where it exited the railgun (after accounting for the rotation of the earth and all the other nonsense you need to account for).
What you said, but the orbits are elliptical. The periapsis (lowest orbital altitude) would be the point where the craft exits the rail launch - located within earth's atmosphere.
I think the next evolution after the raillaunch would be a hybrid engine that breathes air and functions in a vacuum so we could have small SSTO craft.
What if the interior of the railgun accelerator was all a vacuum and the exit point was really really really really tall? So that impact with atmosphere at the exit of the gun was lower.
This is what StarTram is, the launch system maintains a vacuum. The system won't work without that feature.
The problem is that you still need an additional acceleration in order to get into an real orbit. In any theoretical orbit (without an acceleration) you'll always go around in a circular motion until you reach your starting point, if your starting point is in the atmosphere then you'll go around your orbit until you hit your starting point in the atmosphere again. This will obviously cause your orbit to decay. There are a few solutions.
I love the idea of combining the rail launch with a skyhook. Skyhooks always sounded like they would fail due to atmospheric concerns which this would alleviate.
I'm not sure if that makes it any more practical, but the principles seem sound enough. More importantly, it sounds awesome.
The Delta-V (change in velocity) to reach the ISS (400km) in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) is 9.4km/s. This is the absolute minimum so it doesn't include things like drag or other inefficiencies. Getting to space takes only about 1.4km/s, just about all the rest of that delta-v is used to accelerate the spaceship to 7.6km/s. This is about the minimum speed, altitude, and delta-v to get into orbit and stay there. Going much lower than the ISS will have your orbit decay too much to stay in orbit for more than weeks or months. I think it would take about 8000km/s to orbit right at 100km but your orbit would decay really quickly at that altitude, you would only get a few hours or orbiting.
I think I answered you below about why you can't to orbit using only a railgun.
Edit: Going from earth orbit to other places doesn't take as much delta-v as you might think. Going from earth orbit to lunar orbit only takes about 3km/s and going from earth orbit to mars orbit takes 5.7km/s.