Electromagnetic Railgun

Yep you could has been looked at a fair bit. Any resonable sized one wouldn't be able to launch humans. Due to g-force. But resources and building equipment doesn't really have a g-force limit. 1km barrel would still need around 1000G of acceleration.
http://research.lifeboat.com/ieee.em.pdf




Yeah they aren't fast fast enough ~1km/s exit velocity. Where you need around ~7km/s for launch.
Rail guns however have reached the 7-9km/s range, but only for a couple of gram projectiles.

Do you reckon they might start using rail-guns in the future to get equipment such as add-ons for current space station etc into space/orbit?I know it costs so much to get things in to orbit at the moment which is something like $10,000 for each pound?
Humans could start using Richard Bransons Companies aircraft to dock with said equipment in orbit?
 
I doubt it, sheer cost To build and inflexible. Even once youve shot it, you need engines on it to enter orbit or manoeuvre.

It's also little saving over skylon sky plane.
Rail gun $600 per KG
skylon £650 per KG

Don't get me wrong in old love. Them to build one, that we you could shoot loads of fuels and materials up for massive orbit build. I just can't see the corporation needed.


Also I think the shuttle was double that at $20,000
Suppose it very much depends on orbit height.
 
Capability, cost etc.

Not only can it do far more, distance, power and so on.
The "ammo" takes up far less room, as you don't need explosives and are very cheap.

As Glaucus says.

It's intrinsically safe unlike modern cannon. Because all the damage is done by the kinetic energy of the round no dangerous explosives need to be stored on the ship making the ship much more damage resistant.

Also making the rounds will be cheaper than making shells because the complexity of the design and the number of components will be far less.

The problem as has been stated in the thread several times is making a rail gun that will last for many shots without needing significant maintenance. This is an engineering refinement and materials issue. The basic theory is simple.
 
Surely just the pure kinetic force of a heavy solid object of that size would cause considerable damage as it is? Are they really looking to add explosives to the projectiles?
 
Good piece here with a bit of info

A theoretical dream for decades, the railgun is unlike any other weapon used in warfare. And it's quite real too, as the U.S. Navy has proven in a record-setting test today in Dahlgren, VA. Rather than relying on a explosion to fire a projectile, the technology uses an electomagnetic current to accelerate a non-explosive bullet at several times the speed of sound. The conductive projectile zips along a set of electrically charged parallel rails and out of the barrel at speeds up to Mach 7. The result: a weapon that can hit a target 100 miles or more away within minutes. "It's an over-used term, but it really changes several games," Rear Admiral Nevin P. Carr, Jr., the chief of Naval Research, told FoxNews.com prior to the test. For a generation raised on shoot-'em-up video games, the word "railgun" invokes sci-fi images of an impossibly destructive weapon annihilating monsters and aliens. But the railgun is nonetheless very real. An electromagnetic railgun offers a velocity previously unattainable in a conventional weapon, speeds that are incredibly powerful on their own. In fact, since the projectile doesn't have any explosives itself, it relies upon that kinetic energy to do damage. And at 11 a.m. today, the Navy produced a 33-megajoule firing -- more than three times the previous record set by the Navy in 2008."It bursts radially, but it's hard to quantify," said Roger Ellis, electromagnetic railgun program manager with the Office of Naval Research. To convey a sense of just how much damage, Ellis told FoxNews.com that the big guns on the deck of a warship are measured by their muzzle energy in megajoules. A single megajoule is roughly equivalent to a 1-ton car traveling at 100 mph. Multiple that by 33 and you get a picture of what would happen when such a weapon hits a target. Ellis says the Navy has invested about $211 million in the program since 2005, since the railgun provides many significant advantages over convention weapons. For one thing, a railgun offers 2 to 3 times the velocity of a conventional big gun, so that it can hit its target within 6 minutes. By contrast, a guided cruise missile travels at subsonic speeds, meaning that the intended target could be gone by the time it reaches its destination. Furthermore, current U.S. Navy guns can only reach targets about 13 miles away. The railgun being tested today could reach an enemy 100 miles away. And with current GPS guidance systems it could do so with pinpoint accuracy. The Navy hopes to eventually extend the range beyond 200 miles. "We're also eliminating explosives from the ship, which brings significant safety benefits and logistical benefits," Ellis said. In other words, there is less danger of an unintended explosion onboard, particularly should such a vessel come under attack. Indeed, a railgun could be used to inflict just such harm on another vessel. Admiral Carr, who calls the railgun a "disruptive technology," said that not only would a railgun-equipped ship have to carry few if any large explosive warheads, but it could use its enemies own warheads against them. He envisions being able to aim a railgun directly at a magazine on an enemy ship and "let his explosives be your explosives." There's also a cost and logistical benefit associated with railguns. For example, a single Tomahawk cruise missile costs roughly $600,000. A non-explosive guided railgun projectile could cost much less. And a ship could carry many more, reducing the logistical problems of delivering more weapons to a ship in battle. For these reasons, Admiral Carr sees the railgun as even changing the strategic and tactical assumptions of warfare in the future. The Navy still has a distance to go, however, before the railgun test becomes a working onboard weapon. Technically, Ellis says they've already overcome several hurdles. The guns themselves generate a terrific amount of heat -- enough to melt the rails inside the barrel -- and power -- enough to force the rails apart, destroying the gun and the barrel in the process. The projectile is no cannon ball, either. At speeds well above the sound barrier, aerodynamics and special materials must be considered so that it isn't destroyed coming out of the barrel or by heat as it travels at such terrific speeds. Then there's question of electrical requirements. Up until recently, those requirements simply weren't practical. However, the naval researchers believe they can solve that issue using newer Navy ships and capacitors to build up the charge necessary to blast a railgun projectile out at supersonic speeds. Ellis says they hope to be able to shoot 6 to 12 rounds per minute, "but we're not there yet." So when will the railgun become a working weapon? Both Ellis and Carr expect fully functional railguns on the decks of U.S. Navy ships in the 2025 time frame.
 
np;cr

(No paragraphs; couldn't read).

1330551939939.jpg


1330551969896.jpg
 
I don't care for when then U.S. Navy has them :p God knows the US spends half their GDP on it's military anyway (slight exaggeration :D)

Interesting diagram!
 
Righto, makes sense. So the Royal Navy can expect these when..? 2050? Just when we're scheduled to be getting our new destroyers.

2025 is the expected US date, and as it's BAE making them we'll probbaly have access to them too.

Whether we'll have a ship with a power plant capable of supporting them is another issue.
 
2025 is the expected US date, and as it's BAE making them we'll probbaly have access to them too.

Whether we'll have a ship with a power plant capable of supporting them is another issue.

Slap a great big reactor in an Iowa class battleship and remove the massive turrets :) Sorted.

This is based on my vast experience playing games :D
 
Back
Top Bottom