I was wondering if any studies have been done on the possible use
of a mass driver for launching acceleration tolerant supplies into
orbit for rendezvous with the ISS or a future Low Earth Orbit
construction shack for a space settlement structure. In this regard
I'm thinking of supplies like water, vacuum sealed foodstuffs, paper
products, clothing (including the non-mechanical components of space
suits), structural members, fabric "skins" such as is used for the
inflatable SpaceHab being developed by Bigelow Aerospace and similar
materials.
I'm thinking that the operational expense would be considerably less
than the several hundred million per launch cost of the Space Shuttle
or the somewhat less expensive Soyuz resupply launches.
I'm thinking that it might be possible to construct such a mass
driver (rail gun) up the side of a mountain to provide a run length
and angle that would achieve sufficient velocity for orbital insertion.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
Chris
Hi Chris,
testing can be fairly easily done in a vacuum
centrifuge. Most of the item you mention below could
probably make the high "Gee" trip, except that the
plastic film you speak of may receive a permanent
crease in it. Softer items, like plastics, circuit
boards, mechanisms, and so forth can be "hardened", by
encasing them in water then freezing to very cold
temperatures. Or in a similar but less corrosive agent
than water.
...
Another idea that would allow the electromagnetic
launch system (EMLS) to be used for a much more
general use, would be to build the tube so that it
floats in the deep equatorial ocean. That way the
launch tube could be aimed to insert the spacecraft
into any inclination and at any elevation angle. Thus
by adjusting the launch speed, any altitude (apogee).
By building in a small apogee "kick" motor, virtually
any orbit, or beyond, would be attainable.
...
I have a number of other thoughts on the subject. For
example, you mentioned re-supply of the ISS. Well,
Mike Griffin also said that if industry would build
him a "Space Gas Station" he would buy all his
in-orbit fuel from them. So the wasted packing
material, Water Ice, could be converted into LOX & LH2
and sold for a handsome profit. But the biggest use
for this launcher, because of it's low cost to orbit,
would be Space Power Satellites (SPS). I have done
some back of the envelope calculations and find that
when the cost of electricity reaches $0.25 per KW-Hr,
SPSs would be profitable with this low-cost EMLS.
...
By low-cost EMLS, I mean somewhere in the ballpark of
$2B. Right now I am optimize the EMLS for several
parameters: Initial non-recurring total cost, Final
operational cost per kilogram to LEO, Payload mass and
total spacecraft mass (including heat shielding,
autonomous navigation, and apogee kick motor & fuel).
...
Any other ideas?
Dave Handwwerk
--- Chris Smyth wrote:
question, i saw a film of the man who tested the atmosphere in space
with space suit by standing on platform only. this was to see if we
could survive such atmosphere. does anyone know how i could get
copy? this man was still living when i saw this video of him exposed
to such atmosphere wareing only this suit standing on circular
platform.
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> I think there are studies going on right now. But
> testing can be fairly easily done in a vacuum
> centrifuge. Most of the item you mention below could
> probably make the high "Gee" trip, except that the
> plastic film you speak of may receive a permanent
> crease in it. Softer items, like plastics, circuit
> boards, mechanisms, and so forth can be "hardened", by
> encasing them in water then freezing to very cold
> temperatures. Or in a similar but less corrosive agent
> than water.
> ...
> Another idea that would allow the electromagnetic
> launch system (EMLS) to be used for a much more
> general use, would be to build the tube so that it
> floats in the deep equatorial ocean. That way the
> launch tube could be aimed to insert the spacecraft
> into any inclination and at any elevation angle. Thus
> by adjusting the launch speed, any altitude (apogee).
> By building in a small apogee "kick" motor, virtually
> any orbit, or beyond, would be attainable.
> ...
> I have a number of other thoughts on the subject. For
> example, you mentioned re-supply of the ISS. Well,
> Mike Griffin also said that if industry would build
> him a "Space Gas Station" he would buy all his
> in-orbit fuel from them. So the wasted packing
> material, Water Ice, could be converted into LOX & LH2
> and sold for a handsome profit. But the biggest use
> for this launcher, because of it's low cost to orbit,
> would be Space Power Satellites (SPS). I have done
> some back of the envelope calculations and find that
> when the cost of electricity reaches $0.25 per KW-Hr,
> SPSs would be profitable with this low-cost EMLS.
> ...
> By low-cost EMLS, I mean somewhere in the ballpark of
> $2B. Right now I am optimize the EMLS for several
> parameters: Initial non-recurring total cost, Final
> operational cost per kilogram to LEO, Payload mass and
> total spacecraft mass (including heat shielding,
> autonomous navigation, and apogee kick motor & fuel).
> ...
> Any other ideas?
>
> Dave Handwwerk
>
> --- Chris Smyth wrote:
>
> > I was wondering if any studies have been done on
> > the possible use
> > of a mass driver for launching acceleration tolerant
> > supplies into
> > orbit for rendezvous with the ISS or a future Low
> > Earth Orbit
> > construction shack for a space settlement structure.
> > In this regard
> > I'm thinking of supplies like water, vacuum sealed
> > foodstuffs, paper
> > products, clothing (including the non-mechanical
> > components of space
> > suits), structural members, fabric "skins" such as
> > is used for the
> > inflatable SpaceHab being developed by Bigelow
> > Aerospace and similar
> > materials.
> >
> > I know the capital expense of such a device would
> > be enormous but
> > I'm thinking that the operational expense would be
> > considerably less
> > than the several hundred million per launch cost of
> > the Space Shuttle
> > or the somewhat less expensive Soyuz resupply
> > launches.
> >
> > I'm thinking that it might be possible to
> > construct such a mass
> > driver (rail gun) up the side of a mountain to
> > provide a run length
> > and angle that would achieve sufficient velocity for
> > orbital insertion.
> >
> > Anyone have any thoughts on this?
> >
> > Chris
> >
______________
Question, my understanding is that EMLS requires small payloads.
Small payloads for something the size of an SPS would require a lot
of launches, which means lots of tiny parts to put together once you
are in orbit.
Wouldn't this increase the amount of man hours required in orbit ?
Dave Handwerk wrote:
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Dave Handwerk wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> I think there are studies going on right now. But
> testing can be fairly easily done in a vacuum
> centrifuge. Most of the item you mention below could
> probably make the high "Gee" trip, except that the
> plastic film you speak of may receive a permanent
> crease in it. Softer items, like plastics, circuit
> boards, mechanisms, and so forth can be "hardened", by
> encasing them in water then freezing to very cold
> temperatures. Or in a similar but less corrosive agent
> than water.
> ...
> Another idea that would allow the electromotive launch system (EMLS)
to be used for a much more general use, would be to build the tube so
that it floats in the deep equatorial ocean. That way the launch tube
could be aimed to insert the spacecraft into any inclination and at
any elevation angle. Thus by adjusting the launch speed, any altitude
(apogee). By building in a small apogee "kick" motor, virtually any
orbit, or beyond, would be attainable....
It's interesting that you should mention freezing the water and
embedding other items in the frozen payload for stabilization against
high "G" forces. I was thinking along the same lines myself but I
didn't want to over-complicate my first post on the subject. I hadn't
thought about using a submerged launch tube but the idea is
intriguing. It would permit launching over unpopulated areas, which
would be not only desirable but required I think.
One of the problems I foresee with an EMLS is the need for some
sort of heat shielding skin for the payload. If it leaves the launch
tube at anything approaching orbital velocity (17,500 mph, Mach 23)
the frictional heating and aerodynamic drag in the atmosphere would be
tremendous. Although a largely water payload frozen to cryogenic
temperatures (eg liquid nitrogen, -196 C)would help to stabilize the
projectile against aerodynamic stress loads and help to minimize heat
build-up, I'm not sure that alone will do the job. Any thoughts on this?
Of course the initial velocity of the projectile can be less that
orbital velocity if an apogee kick motor is used. In this regard the
nitrous oxide/rubber motor Burt Rutan used comes to mind. Any thoughts
on this?
There is also the question of optimal projectile size. Can an
object the size of an Atlas rocket be launched or would it more likely
be the closer to the size of a Sparrow missile?
I read the item about the "gas station in space". In fact, I believe
there's an article at Space.com about a company already proposing to
provide this service using water and other materials from the moon.
That's ok for the distant future but it doesn't help much right now.
Chris
I like this ocean launch idea! For one thing, it means that the EMLS
can be located right next to the Sea Dragon launch facility (used for
things that need fewer G's and/or need to be launched in one big piece).
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophile"
>
> I like this ocean launch idea! For one thing, it means that the EMLS
> can be located right next to the Sea Dragon launch facility (used for
> things that need fewer G's and/or need to be launched in one big piece).
>
> Could the thing be powered by OTEC?
>
Chris
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_thermal_energy_conversion
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Dave Handwerk wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> I think there are studies going on right now. But
> testing can be fairly easily done in a vacuum
> centrifuge. Most of the item you mention below could
> probably make the high "Gee" trip, except that the
> plastic film you speak of may receive a permanent
> crease in it. Softer items, like plastics, circuit
> boards, mechanisms, and so forth can be "hardened", by
> encasing them in water then freezing to very cold
> temperatures. Or in a similar but less corrosive agent
> than water.
> ...
> Another idea that would allow the electromagnetic
> launch system (EMLS) to be used for a much more
> general use, would be to build the tube so that it
> floats in the deep equatorial ocean. That way the
> launch tube could be aimed to insert the spacecraft
> into any inclination and at any elevation angle. Thus
> by adjusting the launch speed, any altitude (apogee).
> By building in a small apogee "kick" motor, virtually
> any orbit, or beyond, would be attainable.
> ...
> I have a number of other thoughts on the subject. For
> example, you mentioned re-supply of the ISS. Well,
> Mike Griffin also said that if industry would build
> him a "Space Gas Station" he would buy all his
> in-orbit fuel from them. So the wasted packing
> material, Water Ice, could be converted into LOX & LH2
> and sold for a handsome profit. But the biggest use
> for this launcher, because of it's low cost to orbit,
> would be Space Power Satellites (SPS). I have done
> some back of the envelope calculations and find that
> when the cost of electricity reaches $0.25 per KW-Hr,
> SPSs would be profitable with this low-cost EMLS.
> ...
> By low-cost EMLS, I mean somewhere in the ballpark of
> $2B. Right now I am optimize the EMLS for several
parameters:...
I've searched the web for info on electromotive launch systems,
mass drivers and rail guns. Most of the info relates to weapons
development or moon launching systems. Do you know of any references
to work on earth-to-low-earth-orbit proposals?
From what I've read the main drawbacks arise from the heating and
stress loads on the rail systems, the need for mega-amp short duration
current impulses to the EMLS, and the increasing inefficiency of the
EMLS at higher velocities. My understanding is that EMLS can achieve
velocities (in theory) of about 3600 m/sec (approx 8000 mph).
You seem to be familiar with developments in this area. Do you know
if progress has been made in expanding these limitations?
Chris
Hi Chris,
Gerald O'Neil's students at MIT) wrote an article in
"L-5 News", (L-5 became the National Space Society in
the mid 80s), title called "the Telephone Pole
Launcher", later renamed "Mass-Driver Update".
Just Google: "telephone pole launcher".
Also Google: "electromagnetic launcher".
I've also noticed that a lot of the stuff the research
on this subject is now funded by DoD, Army, Navy,
DARPA and MDA, is now classified. That, like ITAR is
unfortunate, but indicative of the kind of world we
now live in.kind of like ITAR.
I'm not a EE (I'm am ME specializing in Astronautics),
or I would be able to design my own EMLS. However
from what I've read, Henry Kolm's 'Superconducting
Quench-gun' is the premier design. It was originally
designed to launch 1 T cans of LOX from the lunar
surface to LLO. But I'm sure it could be re-designed
to launch slightly heavier craft to escape (from
earth) velocity.
There are also Electromagnetic Analysis software
packages available, if you have the money...
When I attended the EML Conference in Utah 2 or 3
years ago (now you need a secret clearance to attend)
someone, I think it was the Army, almost to orbital
velocity (with a 2 Kg projectile if I remember
correctly), I think they were using a capacitor driven
rail-gun.
Anyway, I've got to get back to my tax returns, so
good night.
Dave Handwerk
--- Chris Smyth wrote:
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Dave Handwerk wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> Sure, in 1980 (not soooo long ago) Henry Kohm (one of
> Gerald O'Neil's students at MIT) wrote an article in
> "L-5 News", (L-5 became the National Space Society in
> the mid 80s), title called "the Telephone Pole
> Launcher", later renamed "Mass-Driver Update".
>
> Just Google: "telephone pole launcher".
>
> Also Google: "electromagnetic launcher".
>
Thanks for the info. After conducting my own layman's google crash
course on EMLS it seems to me that the technology for a mass driver to
LEO for 1000 Kg (or greater) payloads is not only feasible but has
already been developed by a number of researchers. Most particularly,
the possible use of high temperature superconducting materials for
magnetic coils in the driver and the projectile reaction plate seems
promising.
Having said that my next question would be: "Why don't we hear more
about developing this technology for resupply or mass transport to
LEO?". I suspect the answer is a combination of factors. First,
there's the International Trafficking in Arms Regulations (ITAR) which
I'm sure are utilized to keep unfriendly governments or groups from
making super-guns that can cause concern to their perceived enemies.
Second, there is a huge industrial complex surrounding traditional
launch techniques who have a vested interest in seeing that their
launch system infrastructure doesn't loose market share to less
costly alternatives. Third, there's good old bureaucratic inertia
which tends to stick with what already works (helped along, I'm sure
by industry lobbyists).
The question I would now pose to the group as a whole is "What can
we do to promote the development of EMLS for resupply and mass
transport to LEO?". Any suggestions or comments are welcome.
On Apr 11, 2007, at 01:23 UTC, Chris Smyth wrote:
> course on EMLS it seems to me that the technology for a mass driver to
> LEO for 1000 Kg (or greater) payloads is not only feasible but has
> already been developed by a number of researchers.
I'd like to see citations for that. Launching from Earth's surface to
LEO with a mass driver is enormously difficult. The frictional heating
involved is the same as when decelerating from orbital velocity to
zero, e.g. on reentry. But there, you're *trying* to shed energy, so
at least the heating helps you do that. In this case, you need to
reach orbital velocity *despite* sheding huge amounts of energy as heat
-- and trying not to vaporize your payload in the process.
Various ways I've seen proposed to overcome this involve launching at
very high altitude (perhaps suspended from a very long series of very
large balloons), or launching at much less than orbital velocity, but
fast enough to provide substantial benefit to the final rocket stage --
assuming some "sweet spot" exists where this makes economic sense. Or,
you could do it from the ground, for projectiles that are very
aerodynamic and hardened; the Army (or was it the Air Force?) recently
did a viewgraph study on a big circular launch ring based on that
approach.
But I think it's a far stretch to say this technology already exists.
I'd say it's in the realm of maybe-possible.
I think you can put aside any conspiracy theories about this approach
being held back by evil companies or lazy governments. It simply
doesn't make economic sense to invest the huge capital cost of
something like this, based on uncertain technology, to serve a market
that doesn't yet exist.
Best,
- Joe
Joe Strout -- joe@...
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, joe@... wrote:
>
> I'd like to see citations for that. Launching from Earth's surface to
> LEO with a mass driver is enormously difficult. The frictional heating
> involved is the same as when decelerating from orbital velocity to
> zero, e.g. on reentry. But there, you're *trying* to shed energy...
Frictional heating and aerodynamic drag are, in fact, two of my
biggest concerns for this type of launch system. Sorry if I sounded
like a conspiracy theorist - I meant to sound more like a status quo
theorist. In this regard I'm thinking of how NASA has held on to the
Space Shuttle for nearly thirty years as "the" answer for getting into
space. The Space Shuttle is a great technical achievement but NASA
seems to have come around to the idea that there may be better ways of
doing the same job.
Dave H. mentioned the use of an apogee kick motor, which is
essentially the method Burt Rutan used in his Spaceship One design.
Such a hybrid vehicle for resupply and mass transport to LEO is more
along the lines of what I had in mind.
I believe the Army built and tested a super-gun (for high altitude
research) in 1966 that achieved apogees of 180 Km using a 100 Kg
projectile and conventional artillery technology with a muzzle
velocity of 2100 m/s (www.lifeboat.com/em/chapter1.pdf).My google
search also turned up articles that indicate the Navy is trying to
develop EMLS for shipborne missile launches (I believe it was in a
public announcement by Lockheed).
So, leaving thoughts of conspiracy behind, I'm wondering how close
we are to developing a practical EMLS for resupply and mass transport
to LEO. Anyone have any thoughts on this?
Chris
I've come across the mass driver launch system several times over the
years. In Marshal Savage's book (collinizing the galaxy in 8 easy
steps), the author proposes building a mass driver in a tunnel up the
side of Mt Kilamanjaro. That mountain is close to the equator and
high enough to get above most of the dense lower atmosphere. The
tunnel would be evacuated and have high speed doors (simular doors
are used in underground nuclear tests). Lasers on top of the
mountain would vaporize ice at the vehicles base to provide the
remaining delta vee to reach orbit.
problems to a mass driver launch system. Spacecraft returning from
space dissapate alot of their energy at extreme altitudes. Running
into 1 atmosphere at orbital velocity would generate tremendous
heat. This may be able to be dealt with, missle warheads have been
able to survive reentry at high velocity for over forty years.
As for the gun launch system, look for info on project harp. In the
1960s, Gerald Bull conducted a number of tests and research using
modified naval artillery guns. There were plans for firing a shot
with rocket motors into orbit before the progect was canceled. In
the late 1980s before his death, he was constructing a supergun for
Iraq.
There is no new technology needed for the gun launch system to work.
They could have done it in the late 1960s. As for the mass driver
launch system, small projectiles have been boosted to very high
velocities, but scaling up to a usable payload may be problematic.
Leonard had a stroke and won't be on the computer for a long time.
Greeting "b",
fit into 17 ElectroMagnetic Launch Craft (EMLC) whose
payload can be up to 1 Ton metric (Tm), and with a
volume up to 37 cm. in diameter (14.5") by about 10 m
(32.8') in length. An Autonomous Robotic
Tele-Operated (ARTO) device will be assembled at the
ISS and checked out prior to moving it to its final
position in GEO. At it's geosynchronous station, the
ARTO device will assemble one SSPS each 4 hours. Each
SSPS will generate about 2.4 MW of electricity. By
the time this power enters our power grids, it is
reduced to 1.25 MW (electric), due to various losses.
Note that multiple SSPSs can be ganged together to
allow higher power beams to the various earth
receivers.
Assembling the ARTO devices at the ISS and checking
them out (again) in the low gee, space environment, is
not all the manpower required. Operators on earth
must also monitor and control the assembly process and
check that each process was accomplished properly.
However, with experience one operator should be able
to manage 4 or more ARTO assemblers concurrently. So
one person would direct the construction of 8 or more
SSPSs per 8 hour day. We expect the ultimate capacity
of 84 or so of these SSPSs per day.
This data is from calculations I have done for a paper
I am writing for some future presentation.
Dave Handwerk
--- b wrote:
Greeting Chris,
Titanium about 3/4 inch thick (more at the front)
should do the trick. Covered by a coat of an
interesting ceramic I found while searching the
Internet.
I was considering a apogee Kick motor but haven't
determined the fuels yet. Obviously the higher
Specific Impulse of Cryofuels (LOX and LH2) would be
preferable, but various trade offs need to be studied.
Incidentally, plans are being developed for recycling
the foamed metal shells, and all the other parts. A
few parts such as the avionics circuit boards may be
returned to earth for re-use.
Dave Handwerk
--- Chris Smyth wrote:
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Dave Handwerk
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Chris,
> >
> > I think there are studies going on right now. But
> > testing can be fairly easily done in a vacuum
> > centrifuge. Most of the item you mention below
> could
> > probably make the high "Gee" trip, except that the
> > plastic film you speak of may receive a permanent
> > crease in it. Softer items, like plastics,
> circuit
> > boards, mechanisms, and so forth can be
> "hardened", by
> > encasing them in water then freezing to very cold
> > temperatures. Or in a similar but less corrosive
> agent
> > than water.
> > ...
> > Another idea that would allow the electromotive
> launch system (EMLS)
> to be used for a much more general use, would be to
> build the tube so
> that it floats in the deep equatorial ocean. That
> way the launch tube
> could be aimed to insert the spacecraft into any
> inclination and at
> any elevation angle. Thus by adjusting the launch
> speed, any altitude
> (apogee). By building in a small apogee "kick"
> motor, virtually any
> orbit, or beyond, would be attainable....
>
> Dave,
>
> It's interesting that you should mention freezing
> the water and
> embedding other items in the frozen payload for
> stabilization against
> high "G" forces. I was thinking along the same lines
> myself but I
> didn't want to over-complicate my first post on the
> subject. I hadn't
> thought about using a submerged launch tube but the
> idea is
> intriguing. It would permit launching over
> unpopulated areas, which
> would be not only desirable but required I think.
>
> One of the problems I foresee with an EMLS is the
> need for some
> sort of heat shielding skin for the payload. If it
> leaves the launch
> tube at anything approaching orbital velocity
> (17,500 mph, Mach 23)
> the frictional heating and aerodynamic drag in the
> atmosphere would be
> tremendous. Although a largely water payload frozen
> to cryogenic
> temperatures (eg liquid nitrogen, -196 C)would help
> to stabilize the
> projectile against aerodynamic stress loads and help
> to minimize heat
> build-up, I'm not sure that alone will do the job.
> Any thoughts on this?
>
> Of course the initial velocity of the projectile
> can be less that
> orbital velocity if an apogee kick motor is used. In
> this regard the
> nitrous oxide/rubber motor Burt Rutan used comes to
> mind. Any thoughts
> on this?
>
> There is also the question of optimal projectile
> size. Can an
> object the size of an Atlas rocket be launched or
> would it more likely
> be the closer to the size of a Sparrow missile?
>
> I read the item about the "gas station in space".
> In fact, I believe
> there's an article at Space.com about a company
> already proposing to
> provide this service using water and other materials
> from the moon.
> That's ok for the distant future but it doesn't help
> much right now.
>
> Chris
>
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
Hi Chris,
cost. I was thinking to just rent jet turbine
electric generators and later replace them with a
rectenna and use a SSPS to power our launch system.
I used to work in the Nuclear Power Generating
industry, some 30 years ago, and realize that if OTEC
is ever demonstrated, it will be one of the most
expensive power generation methods built.
regards,
Dave Handwerk
--- Chris Smyth wrote:
Hi Chris,
might be that not many people read the L-5 News and
the idea was not very well distributed.
Recently the Air Force funded a project to a company
in Carpenteria, CA, to build a demo EMLS. There
design is not linear like mine, or rather Dr. Kolm's,
but circular. It has several advantages and
disadvantages. You'll have to search it out yourself
as I lost the link. But at least they are finally
looking at the concept.
regards,
Dave Handwerk
--- Chris Smyth wrote:
Joe - although the heating intensity is very high it
only lasts for a very short time. That is why I
mentioned a new ceramic coating, however Dr. Kolm's
original design allowed for ablation of about 3% of
the total mass during launch.
is as you suggest, momentum of the current space
industry and their fixation to rockets. A second
reason is the cost of the system. It would be pretty
high, with an unproven technology, and very limited
unit payload. In fact it would not be financially
viable without Space Solar Power Satellites. Resupply
just doesn't make it. Even adding a Space Gas Station
doesn't quite make it, although it becomes very close.
regards,
Dave Handwerk
--- Chris Smyth wrote:
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, joe@... wrote:
> >
> > I'd like to see citations for that. Launching
> from Earth's surface to
> > LEO with a mass driver is enormously difficult.
> The frictional heating
> > involved is the same as when decelerating from
> orbital velocity to
> > zero, e.g. on reentry. But there, you're *trying*
> to shed energy...
>
> Hi Joe,
>
> Frictional heating and aerodynamic drag are, in
> fact, two of my
> biggest concerns for this type of launch system.
> Sorry if I sounded
> like a conspiracy theorist - I meant to sound more
> like a status quo
> theorist. In this regard I'm thinking of how NASA
> has held on to the
> Space Shuttle for nearly thirty years as "the"
> answer for getting into
> space. The Space Shuttle is a great technical
> achievement but NASA
> seems to have come around to the idea that there may
> be better ways of
> doing the same job.
>
> Dave H. mentioned the use of an apogee kick
> motor, which is
> essentially the method Burt Rutan used in his
> Spaceship One design.
> Such a hybrid vehicle for resupply and mass
> transport to LEO is more
> along the lines of what I had in mind.
>
> I believe the Army built and tested a super-gun
> (for high altitude
> research) in 1966 that achieved apogees of 180 Km
> using a 100 Kg
> projectile and conventional artillery technology
> with a muzzle
> velocity of 2100 m/s
> (www.lifeboat.com/em/chapter1.pdf).My google
> search also turned up articles that indicate the
> Navy is trying to
> develop EMLS for shipborne missile launches (I
> believe it was in a
> public announcement by Lockheed).
>
> So, leaving thoughts of conspiracy behind, I'm
> wondering how close
> we are to developing a practical EMLS for resupply
> and mass transport
> to LEO. Anyone have any thoughts on this?
>
> Chris
>
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you