I am wondering has anyone considered using an in space rail to accelerate objects? Say 100g acceleration along 1k miles of track to 100kmph, maybe?
Thanks for the reply wolfshadw. However, I think that the need for an anchored rail system is not necessarily a limitation such a limitation can easily be overcome, if it is in fact a limiting factor. Firstly, the design engineer would probably take this possibility into consideration and create a design which addresses it. Secondly, I am not sure that I agree with this assessment, as the expellation of rocket fuel is essentially the same thing an exercise in newton's 3rd law I think, with the massive rail being the fuel that is ejected figuratively speaking as the rocket projectile is sent forward. Or, one might consider that given a need for a stationary launch system, if that proved to be true, it would simply be necessary to fire a projectile with equal force in opposite direction to create a stationary launch platform, the second projectile could use regenerative braking to recapture the energy of its launch after the spaceship was free of the monorail. Thirdly, as for the energy used to launch the rocket, the whole point of my original question is that solar energy in the inner solar system is plentiful and quite easily accessible making it an ideal source of energy to accelerate a spaceship to mars or beyond at speeds which would greatly reduce flight time without its having the need for a better engine. As an aside to address the return trip, a smaller rail at the destination helps, it would probably have to store power over time in a battery of some sort coupled with some type of ion engine on the spaceship. The most compelling point here is no need for an engine to cut flight times to mars from 2years to 3mos as a vasimr or nuclear engine would. A system like that would greatly increase the number of trips to the outer planets from a few in a small launch window every two years to virtually whenever NASA or Spacex wanted to go there.Unless the rail is anchored to something, you're not getting anywhere. The energy spent to move forward is pushed; moving the rail in the opposite direction. If it is anchored to something, the energy cost of acceleration is increased.
-Wolf sends
Thanks, COLGeek. I have seen the data at this link, however, my point is that maybe this should be an active topic of research for space propulsion, deserving of more funding possibly from an increased NASA budget, and not developed as just a space weapon. By the way this Railgun research could possibly benefit from the new superconducting magnet technology which is enabling the SPARC reactor research originating with MIT. In particular pay attention to how the magnetic field coils are being manufactured. Much cheaper and easier to produce, much greater field strength something like 10x or more than the current crop of super conducting magnets, all resulting in much more powerful magnets and ease of use & maintenance.
One more interesting link.Thanks, COLGeek. I have seen the data at this link, however, my point is that maybe this should be an active topic of research for space propulsion, deserving of more funding possibly from an increased NASA budget, and not developed as just a space weapon. By the way this Railgun research could possibly benefit from the new superconducting magnet technology which is enabling the SPARC reactor research originating with MIT. In particular pay attention to how the magnetic field coils are being manufactured. Much cheaper and easier to produce, much greater field strength something like 10x or more than the current crop of super conducting magnets, all resulting in much more powerful magnets and ease of use & maintenance.
SPARC | Research | MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center
Validating the physics behind the new MIT-designed fusion experiment | MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Superconductor technology for smaller, sooner fusion | News | MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center