Will a Space Cannon Fuel the Next Moon Landing?(foxnews.com)
foxnews.com
Will a Space Cannon Fuel the Next Moon Landing?
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/25/space-cannon-fueling-moon-landing/
4 comments
There was a google tech talk given by Quicklaunch (that this article is about) that was reasonably interesting which also covers other methods and why they are insufficient if you want more details: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IXYsDdPvbo
"I know the astronauts are going to come after me for this, but fortunately they are all elderly so they won't be able to catch me."
I wouldn't underestimate Buzz Aldrin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOo6aHSY8hU
I wouldn't underestimate Buzz Aldrin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOo6aHSY8hU
How could you use this for manned flight? Assuming a (best-case) linear acceleration, accelerating to 25000 mph over 1 km would be 12736 g.
You would use it just to lift the rocket fuel for manned flight. It would lift rocket fuel which would be stored in depots in orbit.
The astronauts would come on conventional rockets. But then they would be able to refuel from the orbital depots for the later stages of their flight instead of having to carry all fuel with them. Thus, you make the mission cheaper.
You still need really stable rocket fuel in order to handle those accelerations without exploding.
The astronauts would come on conventional rockets. But then they would be able to refuel from the orbital depots for the later stages of their flight instead of having to carry all fuel with them. Thus, you make the mission cheaper.
You still need really stable rocket fuel in order to handle those accelerations without exploding.
Ah okay, thanks for the explanation.
It's not detailed in the report, but I wonder if they've considered the "watermelon seed squeeze" method (wherein the projectile flies through a combustible gas mixture in a weakly-sealed barrel tube, compressing the mixture with its nose cone, creating a combustion zone about two-thirds of the way along a "spitzer" type projectile, thus applying the expansive force inward against the tail cone). That would either create one hell of a high-speed projectile, significantly reduce the barrel length required -- or even allow tolerable accelleration from, say, a linear electric motor's initial shove by simply stratifying different gas mixtures along the launch tube to control the combustion velocity. (Cheap 1-mil poly film would maintain the separation of gasses well enough and fail safely.)
Man, I has to go into rocket surgery. Or maybe double-nought spying.