posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 12:22 PM
That doesnt make any sense. It would take more energy than a linear launch system.
1st off rotary motion has to components to its motion at 90 deg angles to each other. One in the direction of motion and at a right angle to it is
the first. A body in rotary motion wants to moves in a straight line, ie the concept, but in order to have rotary motion something has to act the the
body to force it into a circular path. Gravity is the holding force in the case of a planetary body. The cord on a sling counteracts the centepidal
acceleration of the rock in the pouch, and forces it into a circular path, until the cord is released. Then the rock wil travel in a straight line at
velocity equal to the sum of the sum of the component velocities.
Now in order to contain the projectile and force it into a circular path the walls of the coil will have to resist the the tendency of a body in
motion to stay in motion. That means frictional losses, and tremedous forces on the containment ring.
Even if using magnetic forces to "suspend" the projectile and keep it from physical contact with the containment tube, it will use more energy than
moving a projectile the same mass to the same velocity.
The other engineering concerns would be the heat generated, and the tremendous magnetic fields involved. Niether electronics or biologicals much like
magnetic fields of those strenghts.
It would have to be built flat, so that you didnt add the force of gravity to 1/2 the rotation and subtract it from 1/2 the rotation. But now instead
of launching straight up and through the minimum amount of atmosphere, you have o lauch almost hoizontallly through the maximum amount of atmosphere,
still more energy required.
The advantage the "idea" has it that you can acheive very high velocities with lower accelerations.
It offers no real advatages, but has some almost unsurmountable engineering challenges, that would take lots of money and time to work.
The quote from the darpa person said it all.