Why are we not spending our time on this (Below) to get to deep space really fast?

Space Vehicle Launcher
The application of mass drivers for lunar launching and for use as
reaction engines in orbital transfer has already been studied
extensively[7]. However, the possibility of electromagnetic
earth-based launching, proposed by science fiction writers since the
forties, has never before been considered seriously. On the basis of
computer software developed by NASA in connection with the Venus
lander[21], it appears quite practical.

A telephone-pole shaped vehicle 8 inches in diameter and 20 feet in
length, weighing 1.5 tonnes, accelerated to 20 km/s at sea level would
traverse the 8 km atmosphere in half a second, emerging at 16 km/s,
which is enough velocity to escape the solar system. It would lose 3
to 6 percent of its mass by ablation of a carbon shield. Initial
projectile energy would be 300 x 10^9 joule, one third of which would
be lost in traversing the atmosphere.

The launch energy may seem formidable, but it amounts to only 83
MW-hrs, which represents several minutes of output by a large
metropolitan utility plant. The required launcher would be 20 km long
at 1,000 g acceleration; it would be only 2 km long, less than a small
airport runway, at 10,000 g, which should be easily attainable. Such a
launcher could be installed on a hillside, or in a vertical hole made
by an oversize rotary well drilling rig.

One potential application is the disposal of nuclear waste. 2,000 tons
of waste will be generated between 1980 and 2000. This waste could be
launched out of the solar system by using off-peak power from a
utility plant at a cost corresponding to only 2 cents per kw-hr of
generated power which produced the waste. Considering that the average
cost of power during the period will be 22 cents per kw-hr, this waste
disposal cost is very low.

It's still an engeneering problem.

Also who want's the worlds biggest cannon in their back yard... Or
aimed over their house.

Obviously humans can't tolorate those kinds of accelerations either.
Also lot's of the scientific equipment you would want once you get out
of the atmosphere couldn't handle those accelerations.

A better question is, "Why do I keep asking essentially the same question?"

What would happen if the launch was faulty and the nuclear waste
dispersed all over the earth and contaminated our oceans even more
than they already are? Solar Power, Wind Power, Tidal Power and many
more are better forms of power we need to just use those instead. And
leave our nuclear waste where it is until we find a way to molecularly
dispose of it safely and reintroduce it into the world.

Well someone posed the question how do we travel at speed through the
deep universe -

so why not build a launcher of this magnitude on earth for a couple
million bucks then send up stuff to the moon to build another launcher
and a supply shop on the moo?  Then we could launch into deep space at
what to day we consider phenomenal speed - but it is all relative and
a matter of scale... so Why?

Create non explosive nuclear waste form and then seal it like a black
box in a plane so if the unit explodes no downfall...trust the
engineers and see what happens...??

If it were the same question as before then how come we have numbers
now that describe the launcher???

On another note...How does one pay the answerer here the money anyway?

There are two answers to your question I can see.

The first is a question of feasibility, although I haven't looked into
railgun research in a while, (which is what I am assuming you're
thinking of) there aren't any good railguns around right now. They
suffer from two defects, they're either relatively low powered or they
experience a lot of wear and tear.

As you increase the power of the railgun they get much much hotter as
the armature (the launching device that travels along the rails) goes
faster. This is due to both friction and the powerful energies
involved in high-energy physics. The results are either that after
only a few shots from the railgun the rails are so worn that they need
to be replaced. This is if you're lucky. If you're unlucky it's likely
that your railgun's armature will become so hot that it can fuse to
your rails mid-firing. Needless to say, you have a big lump of useless
metal when this happens, and you're likely to have destroyed whatever
it is you want to launch.

There is another answer too, using Newtonian physics we can determine
that a launcher that accelerates a 2Kg object at 10,000g (10,000g is
from your article)will experience approximately 200,000 newtons of
force. A 3Kg object would experience 300,000 newtons of force, ect.
However, let's assume your object is a relatively large, flat object,
for simplicity, let's say the area touching the launcher is .5 meters
squared. We get the total pressure on, say, a 500Kg (about 7 150-160Lb
people) object to be approximately 100 million pascals. The ultimate
compressive strength of steel is about 500 MegaPascals, or 500 million
pascals. Usually, engineers use 1/5 or 1/6 of the ultimate strength as
the maximum expected load any given system. Thus, the most steel you
could safely launch into space would be 500Kg. If you assume the
denisty of steel to be 8 g/cc, then you get that we can launch .0625
cubic meters of steel safely, or a box of steel about .4 meters (about
16 inces) on each side. Not a whole lot.

The problem compounds when you think of real systems. That aren't
likely to me made of solid steel (a very strong material, relatively).

Consider concrete, it has an ultimate compressive strength of 20-30
MPa, on the high end we get that we can only safely use 6MPa of that
strength. Thus, we can only launch 20 Kg of concrete on our launcher
without having it fracture. The ultimate shear strength of concrete is
approximately only 2MPa, so unless you were absolutely sure that your
launcher was straight vertical you could only launch a couple of
kilograms of material.

the possibility of electromagnetic
earth-based launching, proposed by science fiction writers since the
forties, has never before been considered seriously. On the basis of
computer software developed by NASA in connection with the Venus
lander[21], it appears quite practical.

A telephone-pole shaped vehicle 8 inches in diameter and 20 feet in
length, weighing 1.5 tonnes, accelerated to 20 km/s at sea level would
traverse the 8 km atmosphere in half a second, emerging at 16 km/s,
which is enough velocity to escape the solar system.


Small Mass?   Consider that all things are a matter of scale.

Second - I am pissed that this technology has been attacked by people
such as Jon Caldera, Marilyn Muscgrave, and Governor Bill Owens. 
Owens and Muscgrave said it was a disneyland fantasy and caldera said
the same people that voted for the colorado monorail were high and
probably the same ones that voted for Medical Marijuana use.

Funny this group is so against taxpayer money when Owens decided to
take the Tabor refunds from the Colorado Citizens - how much does that
cost the taxpayers??

He says this project is a fantasy...is the holy graal of science just fantasy?
Did Chuch Yeager really break the sound barrier?  People like owens
and Muscgrave are the kinds of people that thought if we broke the
sound barrier we would turn into sound.  Discgusting isn't it - the
ignorance of the Liberal Artists that play politics without any
scientific training.  They are playing god with our money and our
science - they have no dreams and no education.  Do you really think
if we travel the speed of light squared we will turn into energy? - No
- the important factor is the rate of chenge of acceleration.slow that
down and you can get going as fast as you want - even Einstein was
wrong.

Now build me a rail that will send supplies to the moon - including
unset concrete (and by the way does concrete set in space?)  and then
send up some water and build a rail on the moon so we can rail launch
into deep space from the moon.  Then send out another rail so we can
launch deep probes and return them safely.....the possibilities are
endless - don't tell me something can't be done.  If man can conceive
it it can be done.  Don't let the wars win.

And as for your statement the craft could come crashing down - well
yeah space is a risk ask any astronaut.  But how many people die here
on earth because of the unstable nature of the planet?  And what
happens when the sun burns out?  Staying here is the end of mankind -
don't be fooled by the money hungry politicians talking of disneyland
and how it benefits them.  Try putting people before you guys.

As for max accelerations just because you can go 20,000km/s doesn't
mean you have to go that fast.  Slow it down to accelerate just enough
to break the earth's atmosphere and gravitational field then fire up
the rockets and thrust to the moon and land then build another rail
and a supply station and launch from the moon using the shuttle as a
people carrier and let's get some deep space probes sent to the edge
of the universe so we can map the crap out of it.

Then we will see some cool things happen for mankind.

How fast can we launch from a moon rail launch?

Doesn't anybody think forward in this forum?

Why think back???

When we have a group that violently opposes a weed and abortion where
is the freedom?

And to think I was scared to write this because opposing the status
quo can get goons after you - where is the freedom when there is fear
of morons that violently attack science - and leave your prayers at
home - why teach a specific prayer at school when there are so many
religions....

and as for melting the craft to the rails - you won't with the
magentic levitation system.  The vehicle never touches the rails so no
friction.

How about answers and ideas instead of problems?

THINK