Does the planet need this venture?

Nashua Telegraph ^ | 07/07/07

[Moonman62]

Why doesn’t the author and all the others who are scared to death of the climate call Dr. Kervorkian? It would greatly lessen the stress on the planet.

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

“I was wondering why NASA doesn’t fund this...”

Funding to develop electromagnetic propulsion would be minimal. It is the stuff that powers the “saucers” affectionately referred to as UFO’s.

One of my friend’s engineers built a model “saucer” powered in this manner. He was flying it and it got away from him - crashed some miles away - created a bit of a stir.

[kinoxi]

I was referring to the rifled method. Virtually identical to numerous trains now in existence just powered and aimed a different way.

[Constantine XIII]

These guys really are reaching, aren’t they? :p

[Erasmus]

Is there some fundamental issue that makes it unworkable?

Yes.

[kinoxi]

OK What issue is that?

[Erasmus]

First, let me ask this: Are you thinking of an electromagnetic catapult, or something more science-fictional?

[kinoxi]

A scaled up version of what is already in use. The maglev. What are you referring to?

[SuziQ]

I don’t understand why the author of this piece is upset. If wealthy people want to spend their own money to head out into sapce, why should anyone care?

[SunkenCiv]

“fat cats”?

IOW, the article was written by an unreconstructed hippie loser. :’)

[Erasmus]

OK. I just wanted to make sure we were talking about a catapult: That is, a payload that doesn't have propulsion of its own (other than maneuvering rockets); it gets all of its kinetic energy from the catapult.

Now, to put something in orbit you have to get it going at around 17,000 MPH, and it has to have that speed at an altitude of at least 100 miles.

This means that you have to get something going way over 17 KMPH by the the end of your catapult.

But the top end of your catapult is still deep within our atmosphere. Even if it's at the top of Mt. Everest, it's still deep within our atmosphere.

Nobody knows how to get anything up to 20+ KMPH deep within our atmosphere and have it survive. It's going to be a meteorite in reverse.

And of course, you'll have to give it accelerations of hundreds of G's, which means it will have to be mighty damn structurally sturdy, and of course living cargos are right out.

If, instead of a catapult, you're talking about any kind of non-chemical-rocket propulsion that can lift tons or more within the atmosphere, then you're still, unfortunately, talking science fiction.

[kinoxi]

Difficulties are worked around. We are humans, we cant help it.

[KevinDavis]

The basic attitude of this article is if I can’t go into space no one else should....

[sig226]

Wahhh... I’m not given this for free, so is it really something the planet needs? Were Al Gore going up, of course, nothing would be said. Think of the pounds he’d have to shed though, to offset the carbon footprint of his launch.

If they stuffed him into the rocket motor before they fired it, I feel certain that the Earth would enjoy a net benefit from the pollution.

[sig226]

You mean Loftstrom’s Loop? As it appears on his webpage, the design still seems unworkable due to its size and complexity. Even if he did get the machine to work, the cost can’t possibly be worth it.

[EarthBound]

Thanks for these articles, Kevin. Mac, pinging you to these ‘cuz I said I would.

[MacDorcha]

Gimme my flying car!

[TChris]

Gotta love the so called “progressives” who are all for anything that opposes actual progress.

The only "progress" that interests a "progressive" is "progress" away from time-tested morality and any concept of accountability for choices.