Well, I don't think it's compatible with manned missions...and don't miss the centrifugal hole!!
Uh but how do they "cancel" the centrifugal force when detaching the rocket from the centrifugal arm ???
If the atmosphere was absent, it would be perfect.
Nevertheless it is present, and the cosmic speeds are of the order of 10 km/s. Eg the first cosmic speed (grazing orbit) on Earth is 8 km/s
The sound only going at 340 m/s, we are on Mach 23, even Mach 30 for a serious orbit.
At these speeds, even the centrifuge could burn from air friction just after venting. I'm not even talking about the "missile".
Probably the missile should carry a magnetohydrodynamic system to remove the air around it, you should ask the Russians...
Now can a catapult at lower speed bring gains by carrying less fuel... open question!
We already naturally use "catapulting" thanks to the proper rotation of the Earth by placing the launcher sites at the equator.
I still have an idea to test the prototypes: put Macron and his infamous ministers there.
Christophe wrote:Uh but how do they "cancel" the centrifugal force when detaching the rocket from the centrifugal arm ???
once the missile detaches, it has its initial velocity and is no longer subject to centrifugal force. It is only when analyzed in the rotating reference frame that this inertial force is present. As a first approximation in the vacuum chamber, it will advance in uniform rectilinear motion with its initial velocity.
But there are other technical issues:
1) Already to release the missile exactly in the axis of the launcher tube... hello ultra fast sensors and actuators!
2) when the missile detaches, the centrifuge launched at full speed is suddenly unbalanced with a big imbalance, it would be funny to see... from afar!!
I should watch an episode of Thierry la slingshot...I don't think the slingshots go tangentially!
ps: when I said don't miss the hole that's what I was thinking!
As for the unbalance, I hadn't actually thought of it, but it can be managed...with, for example, a monstrous oversizing of the bearings...
Remundo wrote:Now can a catapult at lower speed bring gains by carrying less fuel... open question!
It is certain that yes and if you watch the entire video there is still a chemical propulsion system...which is activated at high altitude...
It would be necessary to search there are surely figures communicated at the stage where they are!
Remundo wrote:I still have an idea to test the prototypes: put Macron and his infamous ministers there.
Stupid question: There you are talking about a "catapulting" like Thierry-la-fronde.
But in a car accident with frontal impact, the rear passenger goes straight into the windshield?
One can imagine a very powerful momentary braking on the launcher (therefore not complete).
Disengage the missile, and slow down the centrifuge so that it frees itself.
Well, it's complicated...
The video talks about 8000 km/h
In reality, a satellite system needs 8 km/s, i.e. 28800 km/h .
It is not obvious that the energy balance is very good because of the friction of the air from takeoff.
A conventional rocket rises more gently, its fuel is used more to work against weight than against aerodynamic friction.
Once in the high layers with a rarefied atmosphere, you can afford to go very quickly without consuming too much.
Physics is a subtle matter.
- Econologue expert
- posts: 13248
- Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
- Location: picardie
- x 1452
- Contact :
We are used to this kind of announcements which as the precision of the data progresses to more luck at all...
Who is online ?
Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 79 guests