Andrew: Can you do a cost analysis? & estimate how much shell fragment falls back down?
At least for the Arctic-only aerosols, doubt we need it, since the refuelers can reach the necessary altitudes, and are quite efficient, well known tech, etc. Gregory Benford On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]>wrote: > More links on ram accelerator, which I think could be just the ticket for > launching sulphur. It's much better than a gun but performs similarly in > that it fires a shell. It benefits from cheap propellant, low pressures, > low acceleration, no barrel friction, etc. leading to the ability to launch > big fat payloads in a cheap, low-tolerance gun at low costs. With a long > gun, like a mineshaft, it should be able to launch big fat projectiles right > up. Alternatively, you could put it in a large plane to get shells up the > last few miles that a big heavy plane can't get up. The benefit of using a > big shell is that aerodynamic drag is lower and the 7 km/s muzzle velocity > should be easily enough to get the necessary lift. > > Anyone got any objections? > > A > > paper > > http://www.tbfg.org/papers/Ram%20Accelerator%20Technical%20Risks%20ISDC07.pdf > > video > > <http://www.tbfg.org/papers/Ram%20Accelerator%20Technical%20Risks%20ISDC07.pdf> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEIWkkTP-mg > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<geoengineering%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
