Wouldn't it be easier to simply catapult things into outer space?

Question

This seams like a much more viable solution than those silly blast off-s....lot quieter too.

Answer 1

Experiments have been done.  The problem is the same as meets the space shuttle on re-entry.

Consider that the speed an object needs to maintain orbit is fixed by the distance.  In other words, you need to go a certain speed to maintain a orbit of a certain height.  The reason the space shuttle or any re-entry vehicle heats up to thousands of degrees is that the earth's atmosphere causes friction on such a high speed object.

In the case of the space shuttle, it keeps accelerating as it climbs into orbit.  By the time it reaches it's maximum speed, it is outside the atmosphere.

Now, to catapult something, using a linear accelerator I assume, that object would need to reach MORE than orbital speed on the ground, so that (as it flew away) it would still be going fast enough when it got to the top of it's arc.  Since that is a lot more than space shuttle speeds, PLUS it would be travelling through ground level air thickness, the friction would be immense, and I doubt we can build any object that would take those speeds.

By the way, the sonic booms would negate that noise issue.....

Answer 2

To overcome the Earth's gravitational force, a massive force is required. A force which can only be produced by "those silly blast off-s". A catapult would never have enough energy to launch someone into outer space.

Answer 3

okay, call me when you get something catapulted at 6.95 miles per second.

Answer 4

On Earth

In contrast to a space gun, a mass driver can have a length of hundreds of kilometers and therefore achieve acceleration without too high g forces to the passengers. It can be constructed as a very long and mainly horizontally aligned launch track for spacelaunch, targeted upwards at the end, partly by bending of the track upwards and partly by Earth's curvature in the other direction.

Natural elevations, such as mountains, may facilitate for the construction of the distal, upwards targeted part. The higher up the track terminates, the less resistance from the atmosphere will the launched object receive.[1]

By being mainly located slightly above, on or beneath the ground, a mass driver may be easier to maintain compared with many other structures of non-rocket spacelaunch. If not underground then it still needs to be housed in a pipe that is constantly vacuum pumped in order to reduce drag.

In order to be able to launch humans and delicate instruments, it would need to be several hundreds of kilometres long. For rugged objects, with magnetic assistance, a significantly smaller, circular, track may suffice.[2]

A possibility for building a mass driver on Earth is a compromise system: a mass driver accelerates a payload up to some high speed which is not high enough for launch. It then releases the payload, which completes the launch under its own power. This would drastically reduce the amount of thrust that would be required for a launch, while allowing the mass driver design to use well-tested maglev components.

Answer 5

To put something in Earth orbit requires getting it to a point some 150 nautical miles up, moving downrange at some 17,000 miles per hour.  That's a pretty tall order for a catapult.

Many spacecraft require precise orbital insertions to do their jobs right.  Rockets can be steered with extremely tight precision.  Also a tall order for a catapult.

A catapult applies all the energy to its projectile in a single short-term impulse.  A rocket applies it over 10-15 minutes.  This saves have to design the payload to withstand dozens or hundreds of G's of acceleration, which would add to its cost dramatically and make some payloads unfeasible.  My office is about 10 miles from my house.  Cannons exist that can fire a projectile of my mass that far.  That doesn't make being shot out of a cannon a viable method of commuting.

There are, however, emerging concepts such as magnetic rail guns and mass drivers that are being studied for some kinds of launches of some kinds of payloads from some kinds of venues.  While not strictly a catapult, it does address some of the points you raise.  It would be cheaper (once the design expense was amortized) and perhaps quieter.  It applies the impulse over a few miles (i.e., several seconds) and thus saves payload stress.  Many theme parks accelerate roller coasters now (e.g., California Screamin') by means of a small-scale application of this principle.

A very important advantage is acoustic stress.  It's a little known fact that the dominating launch stress in conventional rocketry is acoustic loading -- the vibration of sitting atop a rocket.  That's why commercial payloads undergo shake-table testing prior to being cleared for flight.  A magnetic rail gun would eliminate much if not all of that vibration.

Answer 6

It would be easier but living things would be turned into a gelatinous  goo by the sudden acceleration.  Even most electronics would not survive.  Such a system would only be useful for raw materials

Answer 7

They do need something better than rockets to get things into space.  A space station with an elevator could be the best thing.  An electric train type of launching system may be better too.  We just don't quite have what we need for either solution yet, though the problems with these ideas do seem solveable.  

Answer 8

I don't think so because when u go against gravity for long,u could get over heated.So even any thing sent would never withstand that temperature.