>>7640579 genuinely curious about how long you'd have to make a railgun so the G's wouldn't kill you. I'd build it in some country where euthanasia is legal and charge people big money for them to have the chance to die in space
>>7640601 regardless if it would "kill you" do you know how long such a gun would have to be? pointed directly up in the air? it would easily be the tallest structure on earth currently. and to be a rail gun that functions properly and at the speeds you want? probably wider than every mountain too
>>7640439 >There's not a single man that can build a spaceship on their own. Try this on: >There's not a single man that can build a car on their own. A single man can't build an orbital rocket or manned craft as they're conventionally built now, but a single man can't build a modern car the same way they're made in the factory either. Yet a single man could put together something that performs the essential function of a car.
This isn't the 1950s. Spacecraft and orbital rockets aren't cutting-edge new technology. Rocket engine main bodies and pipework that would have been thousand-hour welding and machining jobs are coming out of 3d printers. More capable guidance systems are routinely built into pocket-size quadcopters than were used for early orbital launches. What's going to be an insurmountable obstacle? The tanks, now that composites that are three times as strong for the weight are available?
Do you know how big a rocket has to be that can take 200 kg to LEO? About ten tons, loaded, maybe twenty for inefficiencies related to size and simple construction. It could be about the size of the lunar lander (except mostly fuel rather than cabin).
Being allowed to do the necessary testing, build it, and launch it is as much an obstacle as actually doing so.
>>7640769 This. It's a lot easier to make shit now thanks to computer controlled manufacturing. any clown could draw a turbopump in CAD and have it CNC milled. It won't work as well as one designed by professionals but it would werk.
Probably, but with the resources the average person has access to nowadays, you'd have to be one rich bastard. I think a question worth asking is if you could make a personal rocket the size of a school bus that broke off into a personal spaceship the size of a car. Fuel couldn't be too bad for something as small as that.
>>7641715 >To get to 11.2 km/s at an acceleration of 1g Why are we going directly to escape velocity, and why does your gun only accelerate you at 1g?
Human passengers have endured accelerations of over 7g on re-entry, and up to 20g in a launch abort. Astronauts on the space shuttle felt 3g on the ride up. I'm sure it's been higher with other launch vehicles. Fighter jets pull up to 12g.
Let's say we're just going to orbit 8 km/s and ~8g 80m/ss. That's 100 seconds of acceleration, and a track 400 km long.
>>7641913 They said that they wanted to get to 11 km/s, all I was doing was calculating how long the track would have to be to get to that speed. I chose 1g because I had to choose some value, nbd desu senpai
>>7641919 It's horizontal axis, eyes-in, in an acceleration couch. Tests have found that people can tolerate 10g for 1 minute or 6g for 10 minutes while remaining clear-headed and active, and suffering no harm. I think 8g for 100 seconds should be fine for people who only have to passively endure it, if not overly comfortable.
Thread replies: 20 Thread images: 1
Thread DB ID: 76767
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.