Posted on 04/07/2014 6:43:27 PM PDT by mandaladon
No, I believe that was the brainchild of one Greg Stillman, for whom I played flight instructor. Unfortunately, he passed away several years ago.
HF
It’ll work on land. Space is trickier, I would guess because of transfer of momentum.
Iowa - Idaho. At this point, what difference does it make?
I'll work on land just fine (and space, too, I'm sure). I can imagine, though, that if they want to test it. it's probably better to do it where an accident isn't likely to shoot the projectile into someone's house, or where they don't need to spend half a billion dollars just to get the thing into orbit.
Good catch. USS Iowa it was.
I could see a return to a sort of Monitor craft. Could a rail gun be used to launch things into space?
I carry a secret weapon with me all the time that's capable of projecting a brick into the atmosphere. My left hand. I can launch that brick well into the atmosphere - at least 5 feet.
The railgun essentially generates a big-ass EM field every time it fires. If it couldn’t withstand that, it would be useless. EMP only affects very tiny circuits which are too fragile to withstand more than a couple of volts (but are easily shielded), or really long transmission lines where the effect can really build up and pop transformers (the main threat).
On a more general note, the new EM aircraft catapults are a development of this tech.
The one thing I’ve always wondered is: the amount of saltwater these things are likely to be exposed to has to be problematic. Saltwater is not only corrosive, but also remarkably conductive. I would worry that under enough induced current, any saltwater in the projectile channel might do funny things to the propulsive field. IANAEngineer, so I might be completely wrong.
I looked the other ship up and couldn't find anything relevant to your point.
The Iowa events were nasty.
Potato, Pataatoe...
The concept is far from secret. I built one in grade school. Actually making it work, reliably without blowing itself to heck involves things that probably are.
Maybe a Space elevator would help, or a rocket port.
Thank you.
The only worry I can see is that once the projectile is launched no adjustments can be made to its trajectory,unless they have aerodynamic controls (e.g. dynamic fins).
Missiles have an advantage in that they have continuous thrust that can be directed.
Still, it would get someone’s attention to see a Volkswagen flying in their direction...
That’s what happened to my last so called smart phone.
Idiot device. Deserved the destruction it came to.
Exactly - you’d have to have a force in the opposite direction, which could mean a lot of fuel. I like the space elevator idea though :)
I'm no military tactician, but I would suspect that one of the reasons we haven't had a carrier sunk in 70 years is because they stay more than 100 miles offshore of an enemy coastline.
If they can make a big one, they can make a small one.
No reason not to replace the AA too.
And the ship behind it, and the ship behind it, and . . .
I read somewhere that launching a projectile with electromagnetism is not a problem. The problem is constructing a launch mechanism that will remain intact over enough launches to be practical. The rails push themselves apart.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.