Here's what it looks like to get flung from a centrifuge at 1,000 mph


Posts: 1,507   +1,449
Not only that, but you're fighting air resistance at its densest at your highest velocity.
True. However that is outweighed a hundred times over by the fact that the launch payload doesn't have to carry its own fuel. A traditional rocket spends from 90% to 99% of its fuel lifting other fuel, rather than payload. In this design, 100% of the energy imparted lifts payload. And the energy in this case is from cheap electricity, rather than much-more expensive rocket fuels.

As for the G-force argument, the dynamic forces imparted are a factor of the launch platform diameter. The larger your system, the lower the force required.


Posts: 1,041   +773
7Km - I would still go with a super gun - 2km barrel ( start underground in low vacuum barrel ) - with acceleration along the whole barrel - even have 2 propulsion methods - advantages - less damage to missile , lower G forces - allows more chance to have a rocket - with fuel , guidance systems etc .
maybe some Kerbal specialists here- why not jet plane to fly straight up and launch one powerful missile - my 2 minute reading F22 goes to 20Km - need to get to say 400km Space Station - at space station gravity is 90% so on surface . So only real benefit is low drag- apparently drag is dwarfed by gravity - plus fuel spend - ie the missile still has 100% fuel at the release and maybe velocity if released by secondary method - there are formulas to use - as I said 2 minute read

Anyway only a fraction of power - well so what- it's not a linear relationship


Posts: 1,027   +724
NASA has been backing a lot of failed projects.
And they have backed a lot of successful projects too. Perhaps you've heard of the latest, The James Web Telescope? Or maybe the LOOOOONG list of successful planetary missions?

When a projectile falls onto your house, you'll see the merit.
And I'll bet you thought that pithy response was clever. It was not.
Last edited: