---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Andrew Lockley" <[email protected]> Date: 10 Nov 2010 08:17 Subject: Re: [geo] Ram accelerator - please comment To: "Gregory Benford" <[email protected]>, "geo-engineering" < [email protected]>
It would be hard to cost at this stage because I can't work out the limits on projectile size. However, it wouldn't be unrealistic to assume an order of magnitude cheaper than a gun as it uses cheap fuel, lightweight shells and low wear barrels Hopefully the savings would be even higher if you could launch I high mass projectile the size of a bus or even a rail car It's also possible you could parachute the casing down for re use, as they will all land in roughly the same place. A On 10 Nov 2010 02:39, "Gregory Benford" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> <geoengineering%[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.
