Could somebody tell me whats physically, mathematically, realistically, etc, wrong with this idea I've been playing around with?
For the longest time, I've always wondered why NASA didnt scrap rocket launched shuttles, and instead used an efficent means of initial launch.
Like a Rail Gun.
A rail gun is essentially a launching platform, made out of electromagnets, which would activate in sequence, and rapidly faster in succession. It
would repell, and push upwards the bolt of the rail gun out of the barrel, with each push of the next electromagnet increasing the speed and velocity
of the bolt, untill it expelled itself from the rail gun system.
So why not just use it for a shuttle launch?
Its cheaper then using the fuel needed for a launch.
Its more eco friendly
Its safer, with less risk of an explosion or an accident onboard of the craft.
Is there something majorly wrong with this concept? because I'm not the sharpest spoon in the drawer, and it seemed to come to my mind instantly. And
obviously, electromagnetic propulsion works, look at Japans Electromagnet Rail train system. It just seems like something so easy, so much cheaper,
and just, simply, so muchsafer, that to me, it would be a sure bet to use.
In addition, it would make a great way to travel to our neighbor planets, like mars. Instead of using all that fuel to get there, you have a station
orbiting earth, just like the Hubble does. Have a computer lock onto where mars will be at the end of a trip, and have the shuttle dock, load up, and
launch out on its way.
I mean, we're spending all the money now on a "space elevator" project as a means to get into space safer and cheaper. 18 billion dollars later,
our first phase is a large thether rope, tied to a ballon, floating in space, to earth...
So whats wrong with this idea? It just seems so simple, a rail gun launch system...
..Maybe I'm just not getting something.