Timeline for Minimum Delta V to a staging area in cislunar space for a vertical space gun
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://space.stackexchange.com/ with https://space.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 11, 2014 at 19:47 | answer | added | AlanSE | timeline score: 3 | |
| Feb 22, 2014 at 19:00 | comment | added | AlanSE | @JerardPuckett But why? If we only count the Delta V in order to match the tangential velocity, then the EML-2 radius is obviously larger than EML-1, and the angular velocity is the same for both. So if we're just going from stationary to matching the velocity, EML-1 wins. But then there's a gravitational assist effect... | |
| Feb 22, 2014 at 16:30 | comment | added | Jerard Puckett | Logically, your upper bound for this problem would be the 11.2 km/sec Earth escape velocity. It also seems that EML-2 is going to be slightly easier to reach than EML-1 in terms of ΔV budget. | |
| Feb 22, 2014 at 4:04 | comment | added | AlanSE | @LorenPechtel And the nuclear option would only be used for payloads in the 10s of tons at minimum. I can't even guess what the upper limit would be, if there even is one it would be due to geology. The limiting forces and heating come in the accelerating phase. SHARP and Quicklaunch wanted to send tiny things to orbital velocity. You could easily launch something 100x those masses at sqrt(2) times the velocity, particularly with the lower mass-thickness from angle and altitude. | |
| Feb 22, 2014 at 1:37 | comment | added | Loren Pechtel | You still have the problem that unless your projectile is really big you won't get it through the atmosphere, period, no matter what it's launch velocity. | |
| Feb 21, 2014 at 1:40 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackSpaceExp/status/436676831023202304 | ||
| Feb 20, 2014 at 23:02 | comment | added | Deer Hunter | An obligatory flashback to Jules Verne's Columbiad. I'm afraid that you have to add another degree of freedom to the problem, though (inclination of the shaft). | |
| Feb 20, 2014 at 21:21 | history | asked | AlanSE | CC BY-SA 3.0 |