Why don't we put a giant nuclear powered linear accelerator in orbit and aim Earth-launched rockets through it? This way you can get the extra delta-v for deep space without needing to carry the extra fuel so long term this would be cheaper than keeping on building superheavies for every Mars mission.
Everyone has been chasing the mass driver idea the wrong way, trying to use them to get into orbit is a long way off because that needs a ridiculous amount of power. It would be much more immediately useful as a booster after you've reached orbit. On the Moon is even stupider because you need a superheavy to get there in the first place. My way would remove the need for superheavies completely. You could land men on the Moon in a Falcon 9.
Advanced option, have one in orbit around Mars as well to get a delta-v boost for outer solar system missions. It will be like a "delta-v fuel station"
If Veeky Forums can't say why my idea wouldn't work then I guess it's time for me to write a letter to NASA
Ryder Flores
I feel like getting it into orbit would be pretty tricky. Then what happens once you launch something off it, you'd change the inertia of the thing pretty drastically.
Andrew Anderson
every action has an equal and opposite reaction, after so many launches, the launcher will change orbit. Also we don't have nukes that work in space.
But, we could build a momentum exchange tether with materials we have today.
We could even build one that could accelerate a suborbital spacecraft to orbital velocities.
If you make the tether electrodynamic, you can reboost it without using any fuel.
Sound like a very good idea. A spacial gun that uses rockets as bullets, what could go wrong?
Charles Davis
Newton's third law of motion
Isaac Lewis
because this, you fucking idiot.
Joseph Perez
The delta V of the accelerator will be small enough to cancel out with some small thrusters because it would weigh over 500 tons while the spacecraft going through it weighs only 10 tons. So you would need some extra fuel but it's not on the thing your trying to accelerate therefore the advantage still exists.
Hudson Gonzalez
>Also we don't have nukes that work in space Wait what? Really?
Nathan Flores
he's full of shit, nukes and nuclear reactors work fine in space. Why do you think nuclear rockets are a thing?
Easton Mitchell
What is inertia?
Josiah Hughes
That's what I thought...
Noah Richardson
You know what. Have two parallel linear accelerators joined together. launch a pair of rockets in opposite directions and have them pass through the two tubes at the same time. then it all cancels out thus putting the Veeky Forums haters to bed and making me the next Einstein.
Cooper Peterson
Forgot pic
Hudson Bailey
Then it would be spinning.
Jordan Sanchez
This >small thrusters You'll still need the same amount of impulse. Do you understand how hyperbolic orbits work?
Chase Cook
Both don't need to be going to Mars.
Hudson Martin
the bait is strong with this one
Juan Cruz
We launch everything eastbound, so it gets a boost from the Earth's rotation. A westbound launch would be going against the flow of everything already in orbit. Much higher chance of catastrophic collision.
Levi Miller
not certain but isn't there a treaty banning nukes in space
Nolan Long
Weapons, yes. Reactors for power, no. However the general population will be very unhappy whenever something with the word nuclear is about to be launched. There is a lot of hassle. Also a reactor needs some shielding which is rather heavy.
A nuclear powered launcher on the Moon is better and you will not have problems in orbital maintenance everytime you fire it up.
Zachary Murphy
>The delta V of the accelerator will be small enough to cancel out with some small thrusters because it would weigh over 500 tons how the fuck did you get it into space?
