So, with the delay of the Orion until tomorrow, the banning the use of old Soviet 60s engines, the unfortunate problem with Virgin Galactic.

It's made me wonder about the options for future ventures into space.

Specifically how to achieve orbit.

One of the things that comes to my mind comes from a old movie

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044207/

In the movie, the decision is made to use a rocket sled to help launch the spaceship into space.

Now while a rocksled might be an option, I was thinking more along the lines of this for the assist of a rocket.

http://www.wired.com/2014/04/electromagnetic-railgun-launcher/

Since we know the military already has the technology, they could modify it to help boost a ship into orbit.

They could build a launch pad at an angle and fling that rocket into the atmosphere where the ships rockets could help it achieve orbit.

Not sure if it would work for manned vehicles but maybe they could scale down the G forces for manned flights or sensitive equipment .

Just a bit of mind wandering here.

What do you all think might be good options?

So, with the delay of the Orion until tomorrow, the banning the use of old Soviet 60s engines, the unfortunate problem with Virgin Galactic.

It's made me wonder about the options for future ventures into space.

Specifically how to achieve orbit.

One of the things that comes to my mind comes from a old movie

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044207/

In the movie, the decision is made to use a rocket sled to help launch the spaceship into space.

Now while a rocksled might be an option, I was thinking more along the lines of this for the assist of a rocket.

http://www.wired.com/2014/04/electromagnetic-railgun-launcher/

Since we know the military already has the technology, they could modify it to help boost a ship into orbit.

They could build a launch pad at an angle and fling that rocket into the atmosphere where the ships rockets could help it achieve orbit.

Not sure if it would work for manned vehicles but maybe they could scale down the G forces for manned flights or sensitive equipment .

Just a bit of mind wandering here.

What do you all think might be good options?

I wouldn't worry too much about NASA and their Orion rocket, it'll get launched soon enough, in the 60's this would happen a lot to the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo rockets, holds for weather happens, any of the methods you mentioned would not be immune to a weather hold, there was also a stuck valve and some sort of vehicle wandered into the area, stuff like this happens to everyone in the space race.

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

So, with the delay of the Orion until tomorrow, the banning the use of old Soviet 60s engines, the unfortunate problem with Virgin Galactic.

It's made me wonder about the options for future ventures into space.

Specifically how to achieve orbit.

One of the things that comes to my mind comes from a old movie

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044207/

In the movie, the decision is made to use a rocket sled to help launch the spaceship into space.

Now while a rocksled might be an option, I was thinking more along the lines of this for the assist of a rocket.

http://www.wired.com/2014/04/electromagnetic-railgun-launcher/

Since we know the military already has the technology, they could modify it to help boost a ship into orbit.

They could build a launch pad at an angle and fling that rocket into the atmosphere where the ships rockets could help it achieve orbit.

Not sure if it would work for manned vehicles but maybe they could scale down the G forces for manned flights or sensitive equipment .

Just a bit of mind wandering here.

What do you all think might be good options?

The original space shuttle design replaced the solid fuel boosters with a space plane. The plane carried the shuttle much like the 747 did but the plane was able to lift the shuttle higher and would release the shuttle at several times the speed of sound. Had NASA gone with this design, they would have avoided the loss of both shuttles.
NASA decided on the solid fuel boosters because it was cheaper in the short run. With the number of launches the shuttles could fly (about 100 a shuttle), the solid fuel boosters ended up being a very expensive option.
The booster plane would deliver the craft to the release point and then fly back to the base to have another shuttle mounted on it for the next flight. This would have made it possible to maintain NASA's idea of putting a shuttle into orbit at a rate of about one shuttle every two weeks. The decision was made in the Nixon administration when Nixon was reworking the economy after LBJ. I believe that was the decision that cost us the path to space.

---

The original space shuttle design replaced the solid fuel boosters with a space plane. The plane carried the shuttle much like the 747 did but the plane was able to lift the shuttle higher and would release the shuttle at several times the speed of sound. Had NASA gone with this design, they would have avoided the loss of both shuttles.
NASA decided on the solid fuel boosters because it was cheaper in the short run. With the number of launches the shuttles could fly (about 100 a shuttle), the solid fuel boosters ended up being a very expensive option.
The booster plane would deliver the craft to the release point and then fly back to the base to have another shuttle mounted on it for the next flight. This would have made it possible to maintain NASA's idea of putting a shuttle into orbit at a rate of about one shuttle every two weeks. The decision was made in the Nixon administration when Nixon was reworking the economy after LBJ. I believe that was the decision that cost us the path to space.

You are very correct about Nixon having no idea of the future of space for this country. He also cut the budget and killed the last Apollo flights. Don't know if this was party politics, Kennedy and LBJ for NASA, ergo must be against it, or if it was due to spending so dang much on an idiotic war. In any case he killed it and unfortunately very effectively. No president since has had the vision to bring it back, civilian anyway Reagan had SDI.

As to getting into space now, rockets (of some kind) will be required for a long time to come. A rail gun is a fanciful idea because of atmospheric drag. Now it might be fine for sending cargo mined on the moon back to earth. Of course it would be cargo only, people can't stand up to the acceleration of being shot on a gun. If we can work out the materials science for the tether a space elevator might be the best bet.

---

So, with the delay of the Orion until tomorrow, the banning the use of old Soviet 60s engines, the unfortunate problem with Virgin Galactic.

It's made me wonder about the options for future ventures into space.

Specifically how to achieve orbit.

One of the things that comes to my mind comes from a old movie

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044207/

In the movie, the decision is made to use a rocket sled to help launch the spaceship into space.

Now while a rocksled might be an option, I was thinking more along the lines of this for the assist of a rocket.

http://www.wired.com/2014/04/electromagnetic-railgun-launcher/

Since we know the military already has the technology, they could modify it to help boost a ship into orbit.

They could build a launch pad at an angle and fling that rocket into the atmosphere where the ships rockets could help it achieve orbit.

Not sure if it would work for manned vehicles but maybe they could scale down the G forces for manned flights or sensitive equipment .

Just a bit of mind wandering here.

What do you all think might be good options?

The original space shuttle design replaced the solid fuel boosters with a space plane. The plane carried the shuttle much like the 747 did but the plane was able to lift the shuttle higher and would release the shuttle at several times the speed of sound. Had NASA gone with this design, they would have avoided the loss of both shuttles.
NASA decided on the solid fuel boosters because it was cheaper in the short run. With the number of launches the shuttles could fly (about 100 a shuttle), the solid fuel boosters ended up being a very expensive option.
The booster plane would deliver the craft to the release point and then fly back to the base to have another shuttle mounted on it for the next flight. This would have made it possible to maintain NASA's idea of putting a shuttle into orbit at a rate of about one shuttle every two weeks. The decision was made in the Nixon administration when Nixon was reworking the economy after LBJ. I believe that was the decision that cost us the path to space.

The 747 was used to haul the Shuttle back from California or if needed from an overseas airstrip if the shuttle couldn't land in Florida or California cause of weather, the 747 was not used to launch the Shuttle outside of the one time for a glide test of Enterprise, which except for some electronics and rocket engines was a complete Shuttle in its own right down to the tiles for reentry, NASA had wanted to redo Enterprise to be launchable, but found it was cheaper to build a new one from parts, than to rework an existing shuttle, but that's NASA and their limited budget, as set by Congress, specifically the House of Representatives in Washington DC... Once a Shuttle started to leave orbit, it became the worlds biggest glider, with the glide capability of a brick, hence the nickname: 'the flying brickyard'... A Shuttle on Reentry had one shot at landing, since it was essentially a dead stick landing, there was no power for a go around, it was either land perfectly or crash and burn...

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

Had to look around a little bit and I haven't had time to read the whole thing but this looks like a pretty good history on the shuttle development. History

---

Had to look around a little bit and I haven't had time to read the whole thing but this looks like a pretty good history on the shuttle development. History

Great article! Reading it now.

---

The mind is a weird and mysterious place

Shouldn't this be in the science section?

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

Had to look around a little bit and I haven't had time to read the whole thing but this looks like a pretty good history on the shuttle development. History

Great article! Reading it now.

Yeah that is a good read.

Oh and you'll never guess who was officially the 4th Astronaut on the Apollo 11 Mission...

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

The 747 was used to haul the Shuttle back from California or if needed from an overseas airstrip if the shuttle couldn't land in Florida or California cause of weather, the 747 was not used to launch the Shuttle outside of the one time for a glide test of Enterprise, which except for some electronics and rocket engines was a complete Shuttle in its own right down to the tiles for reentry, NASA had wanted to redo Enterprise to be launchable, but found it was cheaper to build a new one from parts, than to rework an existing shuttle, but that's NASA and their limited budget, as set by Congress, specifically the House of Representatives in Washington DC... Once a Shuttle started to leave orbit, it became the worlds biggest glider, with the glide capability of a brick, hence the nickname: 'the flying brickyard'... A Shuttle on Reentry had one shot at landing, since it was essentially a dead stick landing, there was no power for a go around, it was either land perfectly or crash and burn...

I beg your pardon, it was a BRICK with PERFECT LANDING CAPABILITY...it just never crash landed! ;)

Though it wasn't safe for reentry... :/

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU

I did some calcs once on rail gun launches. If you limit acceleration to 3g so you can carry people, you need a gun 3000 km long to get to orbital speed.

Like I said, probably not an options for manned launches but for moving material, like sections of a space station it might be an option.

I read somewhere that the amount of energy created by the railgun listed above would be equivalent to pushing 1.1 ton at 536 mph.

So if you could do several launches in a day, you could move quite a bit of cargo into orbit to be intercepted and moved to wherever you need it to go.

Just a thought. Did some more reading last night, evidently I'm not the only one that has thought about that.

I didn't link the article but there was one from 2010 where the guy was saying it might be possible to move most items including cargo, water and other things needed for continue living in space.

Again, just some pondering

Many years ago Gerald Bull was on track to make space launch gun. Things ended up badly but you have to wonder why the basic idea never matured.

For sure it would be a great way to get consumables to the ISS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxHy-Zg5MiM

The 747 was used to haul the Shuttle back from California or if needed from an overseas airstrip if the shuttle couldn't land in Florida or California cause of weather, the 747 was not used to launch the Shuttle outside of the one time for a glide test of Enterprise, which except for some electronics and rocket engines was a complete Shuttle in its own right down to the tiles for reentry, NASA had wanted to redo Enterprise to be launchable, but found it was cheaper to build a new one from parts, than to rework an existing shuttle, but that's NASA and their limited budget, as set by Congress, specifically the House of Representatives in Washington DC... Once a Shuttle started to leave orbit, it became the worlds biggest glider, with the glide capability of a brick, hence the nickname: 'the flying brickyard'... A Shuttle on Reentry had one shot at landing, since it was essentially a dead stick landing, there was no power for a go around, it was either land perfectly or crash and burn...

I beg your pardon, it was a BRICK with PERFECT LANDING CAPABILITY...it just never crash landed! ;)

Though it wasn't safe for reentry... :/

It was safe for re-entry as long as it didn't get dinged on launch. 135 launches, one failed launch and one failed re-entry. I remember reading before the shuttle ever launched that they expected a 20% failure rate. The reality was that public opinion wouldn't be that forgiving.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

The 747 was used to haul the Shuttle back from California or if needed from an overseas airstrip if the shuttle couldn't land in Florida or California cause of weather, the 747 was not used to launch the Shuttle outside of the one time for a glide test of Enterprise, which except for some electronics and rocket engines was a complete Shuttle in its own right down to the tiles for reentry, NASA had wanted to redo Enterprise to be launchable, but found it was cheaper to build a new one from parts, than to rework an existing shuttle, but that's NASA and their limited budget, as set by Congress, specifically the House of Representatives in Washington DC... Once a Shuttle started to leave orbit, it became the worlds biggest glider, with the glide capability of a brick, hence the nickname: 'the flying brickyard'... A Shuttle on Reentry had one shot at landing, since it was essentially a dead stick landing, there was no power for a go around, it was either land perfectly or crash and burn...

I beg your pardon, it was a BRICK with PERFECT LANDING CAPABILITY...it just never crash landed! ;)

Though it wasn't safe for reentry... :/

The tiles were glued in place and were a bit larger than the typical brick. I bet that this had something to do with the name.

---

BOINC WIKI

I did some calcs once on rail gun launches. If you limit acceleration to 3g so you can carry people, you need a gun 3000 km long to get to orbital speed.

I have a question why do you need a rail gun 3000 klm long at 3 g's the shuttle did not have to fly up to a height of 3000 klm to get into orbit .

Also why do you need to go at 17,000 klm what if it only exited the gun at say 3000 klm hr and then used it's own rocket to get it the rest of the way 90% of the fuel is used in the first 30 klm from lift off

---

I think the biggest problem with rail guns was that they are seen as easy conversions to weapons. The guy that was so close was supposedly getting funding from the middle east to finish the project.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

I think the biggest problem with rail guns was that they are seen as easy conversions to weapons. The guy that was so close was supposedly getting funding from the middle east to finish the project.

The U.S.A. has been testing rail guns for quite some years now (I'm sure that you can quickly Google the necessary info, but a did see a documentary not long back about it) so the technology is there and fighter pilots take way more than 3g force so it wouldn't need to be that long of a rail (just don't send people with cardiac problems on it).

Cheers.

I did some calcs once on rail gun launches. If you limit acceleration to 3g so you can carry people, you need a gun 3000 km long to get to orbital speed.

I have a question why do you need a rail gun 3000 klm long at 3 g's the shuttle did not have to fly up to a height of 3000 klm to get into orbit .

Also why do you need to go at 17,000 klm what if it only exited the gun at say 3000 klm hr and then used it's own rocket to get it the rest of the way 90% of the fuel is used in the first 30 klm from lift off

The gun would have to be long simply to accelerate the projectile to orbital speeds at a relatively low acceleration. If you were in a car accelerating at 3g you would need a road 1000 km long to reach 28,000 km/hr. (Not 3000...I mis-remembered by results).

If you didn't have to carry people you might use an acceleration of 1000 g. In that case your gun would be 3 km long. And if you put a rocket motor on it as you suggest, and you only accelerate to 1/2 of orbital speed, your gun could be "only" 700 meters long.

Well, if you go back to my original post and the movie I linked. They built the sled up the side of another mountain.

For a railgun, they could do the same.

They could angle and point it in the direction they need to help it achieve the angle into the direction of the earth's rotation.

Since they are angling it up a mountainside it could be however long it needs to be.

I think most people didn't see my comment about the the cargo being a rocket..ie..it has it's own fuel and engines to help it achieve orbit.

The railgun is only used to help it overcome the initial launch where most of the fuel is burned trying to accelerate away from the earth.

Here in this image from the movie, you can see the rocketship ontop of the rocketsled, but in my example the railgun takes the place of the rocketsled to push the rocket to the necessary velocity.




of course I think they should probably do it out in New Mexico or Utah where it's mostly desert.

That way if anything goes wrong, not too many people around to have to worry about falling debris as opposed to this pic where they build it in a nice green space with a river near by, lol