http://www.ecogeek.

org/content/view/273/
Giant Electromagnetic Space Launch Ring
Written by Hank GREEN
Wednesday, 04 October 2006

Satellites are important for our gadgets. For our cell phones, GPS units, Google Earth pictures and
more. But sending satellites into space is a pretty darned unsustainable prospect. We’re talking $2000
per kilogram of payload and almost all of that goes into fossil fuels. So what’s the alternative? A
space elevator would certainly be more efficient, and would only cost several trillion dollars to build.
Well, we could just stop sending up satellites and let our gadgets crumble into museum pieces.
Or how ‘bout this. We build a gigantic ring superconducting electromagnetic track with a diameter of
2 kilometers in the desert and continuously increase the speed of an object until it reaches 10 k/s and
then shift the track to an inclined portion that rockets the object into orbit! Amazing! This has been
proposed before, but usually with a straight length of track that would have to either be extremely long,
or give the satellite a massive amount of speed in a short time. A recent AirForce study of this very
concept has concluded that this device could decrease the cost of launches (and fuel consumed) 100
fold.
The space ring shown here could increase the speed of the object over a period of hours on an infinite
length of track. The problem being, of course, that anything travelling in a circle at high speeds is
going to have to deal with unfortunate G-forces. The kind of G forces that would have any living
organism seeping into the upholstery before launch. Most communications satellites are too fragile for
this kind of treatment.

CK (06-12-2008):
No need for a track ! Use a horizontal rotating “whirligig”, atop a vertical tower, spinning a launch
canister on one end of a “rope” (or cable, or solid arm), and with a counterbalance spinning diametrically opposite.
When the canister reaches launch velocity, a trigger mechanism frees it (perhaps the plane of rotation is canted
slightly, to launch upwards) on an appropriate trajectory. At the same time, a small weight in the counterbalance,
equal to the departed canister, will quickly fold inwards to maintain equilibrium of the spinning mass. Or use a
spinning “flat disc”, with X canisters mounted every X degrees, and one by one these are released.

Which is making a lot of people wonder why the Air Force really put together the plan to study the
device. Is it really efficient satellite launches they’re after, or is it efficient and constant weapons
launches. I might have thought that we were beyond that, but I’m marking this one down under ‘cool,
but dangerous.’
Via NewScientist
Comments (17)
Subscribe to this comment’s feed
That’s really fast!!!! written by rob, October 04, 2006
If my maths is correct (school was a long time ago), the track would have a circumference of 6.28k, so at 10k/s, the
spaceship would be making almost two laps a second. That I would like to see, I wouldn’t want to be in it, but I would like
to see it.

First stage written by Paul Barthle, October 05, 2006

If a re-usable space plane were to use this concept as a first stage rather than solid fuel, o-ring equipped rockets, the g-forces
wouldn’t have to be as high and past disasters could be avoided as well. The real application might be on the proposed
moon base, using solar power to launch toward Mars. Fewer G’s necessary under less gravity and no need to ferry fuels
from here.

Tech. Ed. written by S. E. Robinson, October 05, 2006

Great idea, but a couple concerns. The constant earth rotation would create a problem for the stationary Ring on earth or
either its free floating point in space and the airspace this object would demand and tie up. Move on it, this could be
wonderful.

You’re over a bit on the cost written by Brian, October 06, 2006
So what’s the alternative? A space elevator would certainly be more efficient, and would only cost several trillion dollars to
build.

We think you’re over just a wee bit on how much a space elevator will cost. Dr. Edwards guess-timates 10 billion, we
think based on the work we’ve done this summer it will be about twice that.

garbage gun? written by SauZheR, October 07, 2006

What about a ring-garbage gun?? Is really stupid to think to shot straight into the space (or the sun) tons of grabage? i don’t
think so. bye

Never mind satellites written by John O’Leary, October 07, 2006

I’ve worked all my life in the space industry and I appreciate any progress. But this is probably only realistic if placed on
one of the lunar poles. But as a means of safely disposing of nuclear waste, by launching it into the sun, it sounds like a
good idea placed on Earth’s north pole.

problem and solution written by Fred steel, October 07, 2006

at 10k/s you can not shift any sensitive equipment of any mass grater than a few grams on to an inclined track as you
propose. The inertial forces would be far to great. However, if you instead of building your ring horisontally, build it
vertically, you would eliminate the problem intierly. Naturally, you would have to construct your ring below ground, wich
raises a new problem. Tectonic movements and other ground displacing phenomena (these problems exist for a horisontal
ring aswell but are easily solved by letting the ring move with some freedom). This could be solved by finding a solid,
dense and homogeneous mountain into which you drill your ring hole using conventional tunnel drilling equipment.

Engineer written by John, October 07, 2006

Great idea Fred, at 10k/s it really wouldnt make much difference if you were vertical. and building it underground gives
your track the strength it would need to handle the forces. I do think that 2km might be a little short, but I have seen some
jet cars on those crazy little tracks go insanely fast held only by a thin wire. I wonder if thats where this idea was spawned.
Either way, what an Idea!

Another problem written by John, October 07, 2006

If the payload is revolving around the track 2 times a second you will have to switch the tracks ‘very’ quickly.

A couple things not being taken into aco written by ElAsturiano, October 07, 2006
At the speeds you are talking pre launch, the air resistance would be significant, keeping a vacuum on the ring while
accelerating would solve that, but then, when you divert the payload to the launching ramp you would loose a lot of your
energy to air resistance (and lets not talk about the supersonic boom at the spot where the vehicle touches air for the first
time). I am sure you get my idea...
Force written by Moto, October 09, 2006
I’m not en engineer, but I would think speed and force factors are going to be very hard to overcome. The G force acting on
the projectile would be insane I know that we can make some strong components, but if you break it before you launch it
you just shot a billion dollar chunk of metal into space. It’s a good idea but they might need to revise some of the technical
specifications.

"Durable goods" written by Obvious, October 22, 2006

Sensitive electronics aren’t the only thing sent into space. What about structural components of sattelites and space
stations? What about fuels and consumables for those living in space (milk, green beans, toilet paper.)

Who says we have to send stuff up all in one expensive chunk. Anything that can’t survive this kind of treatment can be
sent the $2,000/kg way. We can send the socks and liquid 02 using this thing and go up and collect them from orbit as
needed.

Units written by Rick, October 23, 2006

10k/s 10 kilo... per second? With those units this thing won’t be launching anything. Did you mean 10 km/s ?

Power written by Govind, March 19, 2007

My question is that exactly how many Mkwh would be required considering a payload like 500 kg.Also I have a
suggestion.Its basically an update of Mr.Berthes idea.launch the payload with a small rocket motor(say it wants to go
geosynchronous) and launch another motor,make it dock with the paload in space so it can boost it from Gto to Gso

weapons launching written by Dustin, July 25, 2007

weapons have a lot of sensitive electronics in them too. we’ve come a long way from gunpowder in an iron ball. also, the
navy is already developing a railgun(http://www.popsci.com/popsci/t...drcrd.html) that they would be fitting to their ships.
so what would be the point of a stationary railgun in the middle of a desert?

What about nuclear waste? written by Perry, September 10, 2007

If this thing could be developed as a highly reliable means of delivering material to space, would it be possible to collect
nuclear waste in space and then send out of earth orbit as a low risk operation?

Let’s watch. written by Randy, December 27, 2007

I agree with Rob, this would be an awesome thing to watch, but I would hope that he would join me in the ‘center’ of the
circle. At least that way, we would have a chance to ponder the reasons surrounding a track failure, maybe.