Author Topic: EM Tube Tunnel  (Read 8761 times)

Offline Adil

EM Tube Tunnel
« on: 09/06/2015 06:56 AM »

An ideal way to send Spacecrafts and Satellites into Space with great efficiency.

From the time, the first rocket was launched into space and so, the first person walked on the moon, we human, dreamed to travel into space & beyond fairly often, and hoped it will become a realty quite soon. But due to technological and financial obstacles it is not yet practically possible to date. Mostly due to inefficient, bulky, expensive rocket propellant technology, but we have to praise this technology, which helped us to reach our space exploration into great heights in recent decades. And now, is the time to move into much efficient and cleaner technology to send spacecraft and satellites into space.
EM Tube Tunnel, an extremely lengthy electromagnetic accelerating tunnel can be built horizontally in arc shape in underground to send objects into space. Itís more like an Electromagnetic gun or Maglev Train track tunnel to accelerate spacecraft, inside the EM Tube Tunnel before it goes up.

How EM tube tunnel works
EM Tube Tunnel is a kind of an electromagnetic railway tunnel as shown in the diagram (fig.1) which runs beneath the cities, approximately about One thousand and five hundred kilometers in length horizontally (in arc shape), to accelerate spacecraft before it is airborne. It has to be designed precisely in a curved, kind of an arc shape (along a gravitational equipotential line) as diagram indicates, to stabilize gravity and to work at high velocities with safely and efficiently. And it has to be built in a way to reduce inside air pressure to create a partial vacuum, (kind of a Vactrain tunnel) to minimize air friction to accelerate efficiently. EM Tube Tunnel is like a Maglev Train track, and spacecraft works like a high speed Maglev Train. The spacecraft accelerates along the guideway of EM Tube Tunnel using electromagnets to create both lift and propulsion to work at minimal friction to attain final velocity for the launch. When the Spacecraft reaches the final velocity, it turns up in a Curved Bend from the EM Tube Tunnel track (like a roller-coaster carriage) and then it flies out from the Launching Muzzle to the atmosphere, goes up at a predefined velocity, into the space.

Note: The spacecraft will also have a small propulsion engine to control velocity, direction and for the re-entry.

Conclusion
Building EM Tube Tunnel; an immensely long tunnel, with engineering at unprecedented scale will have great difficulties, and cost of the project will be enormous. But compare to chemically propelled rocket engine technology, EM Tube Tunnel method might be quit efficient, because current Expendable Launch Systems are extremely heavy and one-time use only. And it requires huge amounts of thrust to be produced to send spacecraft and satellites into space, and therefore, it is quite inefficient and costly as every launch projects is extremely expensive. Hence such systems are quite inefficient for frequent use.
Using EM Tube Tunnel concept overcomes most of these problems. Once it is built, it can be used to send numerous artifacts into space with less energy, without burning tons of fuels to pollute environment. This might make EM Tube Tunnel, one of the most effective methods to send payloads into space. With this technology, satellites can be launched into orbit; Space probes can send to new worlds, Spacecraft can be sent to land on other celestial bodies for exploration and industrial missions, with cost effectively and efficiently. And hopefully with the help of EM Tube Tunnel, in the near future space tourism can make space industry sustainable, and affordable to all of us.

http://ismailadil.com/em-tube-tunnel/

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3521
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2076
  • Likes Given: 2416
Re: EM Tube Tunnel
« Reply #1 on: 09/06/2015 07:34 AM »
There's nothing new here.  This has been proposed and discussed many times over a period of decades.

It's not interesting as a near-term solution to anything because there's no money to pay for it.

Space launch, like many things, has economies of scale.  The more demand, the lower the unit costs even while the total costs go up (more total money spent, but less per launch).  The "EM Tube Tunnel" as you call it is way out on the end of that curve -- very, very high total costs, for lower per launch costs.  But the amount of money people are currently willing to spend is way on the other end -- only enough for a relatively small number of launches.

The only hope of increasing launch rates is to move to somewhere in the middle of the curve, to make per-launch costs moderately lower to hope to simulate demand enough to make it worth it.  That's the approach of SpaceX, Blue Origin, and others, and it makes much more sense that anything on the far end of the curve like your "EM Tube Tunnel".  That would only start to be interesting if SpaceX and/or the others are successful and demand picks up a huge amount.

And even then it's really questionable whether something like an "EM Tube Tunnel" would ever make sense.  Even if we assume an enormous number of launches, it's not clear it would actually be cheaper than fully-reusable multi-stage conventional rockets.  It has some advantages, but also some pretty huge disadvantages.

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6324
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1578
  • Likes Given: 1388
Re: EM Tube Tunnel
« Reply #2 on: 09/06/2015 08:31 AM »
Accelerating something to an enourmous speed then make it do a sharp bend?


Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3521
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2076
  • Likes Given: 2416
Re: EM Tube Tunnel
« Reply #3 on: 09/06/2015 08:36 AM »
Accelerating something to an enourmous speed then make it do a sharp bend?

It's not just that, but the bend means it ends up going up close to vertical, so it's nowhere near a circular orbit and you need a huge amount of delta-v from a rocket motor anyway to make orbit.

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: EM Tube Tunnel
« Reply #4 on: 09/06/2015 02:05 PM »
not for humans I suppose... I mean, that bend probably produces some quite high G forces. Nobody wants to become human jelly before seeing space...


also, I might have missed it, but what is the advantage of this being a tunnel instead of a tube above ground?

Offline Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 80
Re: EM Tube Tunnel
« Reply #5 on: 09/06/2015 04:18 PM »
 ;D

you don't need the bend. ...see earth is a sphere. shocking, i know; but it's true. Just go in straight line towards Albuquerque or where ever starting from underground and you will be airborne in no time.
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2104
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 988
  • Likes Given: 761
Re: EM Tube Tunnel
« Reply #6 on: 09/06/2015 05:03 PM »
When it comes out of the tunnel and slams into the atmosphere at orbital velocity it will be like crashing into the side of a mountain. Even it the vehicle survives the impact, it will quickly be vaporized due to heat. It's one thing to reenter the atmosphere as pressure slowly increases, but it a totally different situation to go from vacuum to full atmospheric pressure.

Maybe an electromagnetic rail launcher could be useful as a booster for a small cargo rocket if the economic case could be made, but I think a reusable first stage chemical rocket would be cheaper.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5144
  • Liked: 950
  • Likes Given: 340
Re: EM Tube Tunnel
« Reply #7 on: 09/06/2015 07:39 PM »
An ideal way to send Spacecrafts and Satellites into Space with great efficiency.
Bad way to start this discussion without establishing the measure of efficiency. What is it, watts/flops, dollars per square inch, liters of hydrazine per banana tree ?
Once you provide the proposed measure of efficiency, the approach can be compared against other means of current and proposed ways of accomplishing the same. Also, the relevance of your figure of merit can be discussed ..
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline hkultala

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 618
  • Liked: 157
  • Likes Given: 93
Re: EM Tube Tunnel
« Reply #8 on: 09/06/2015 08:05 PM »

An ideal way to send Spacecrafts and Satellites into Space with great efficiency.

From the time, the first rocket was launched into space and so, the first person walked on the moon, we human, dreamed to travel into space & beyond fairly often, and hoped it will become a realty quite soon. But due to technological and financial obstacles it is not yet practically possible to date. Mostly due to inefficient, bulky, expensive rocket propellant technology, but we have to praise this technology, which helped us to reach our space exploration into great heights in recent decades. And now, is the time to move into much efficient and cleaner technology to send spacecraft and satellites into space.
EM Tube Tunnel, an extremely lengthy electromagnetic accelerating tunnel can be built horizontally in arc shape in underground to send objects into space. Itís more like an Electromagnetic gun or Maglev Train track tunnel to accelerate spacecraft, inside the EM Tube Tunnel before it goes up.

How EM tube tunnel works
EM Tube Tunnel is a kind of an electromagnetic railway tunnel as shown in the diagram (fig.1) which runs beneath the cities, approximately about One thousand and five hundred kilometers in length horizontally (in arc shape), to accelerate spacecraft before it is airborne. It has to be designed precisely in a curved, kind of an arc shape (along a gravitational equipotential line) as diagram indicates, to stabilize gravity and to work at high velocities with safely and efficiently.

The velocity would be way too low, such curve could not be made in practice. And it would make the "finishing turn" much more diffiult.

Quote
And it has to be built in a way to reduce inside air pressure to create a partial vacuum, (kind of a Vactrain tunnel) to minimize air friction to accelerate efficiently.


How would you actually make the tunnel a partial vacuum while still allowing the vehicle to exit the tunnel?

Maybe the tunnel would initially be sealed and almost vacuum but the vehicle pushing air in front of it would make the air pressure equal one bar just before leaving the tunnel? and at the point when the air pressure in front of the vessel reaches 1 bar, the doors to outside would be opened?


Quote
EM Tube Tunnel is like a Maglev Train track, and spacecraft works like a high speed Maglev Train. The spacecraft accelerates along the guideway of EM Tube Tunnel using electromagnets to create both lift and propulsion to work at minimal friction to attain final velocity for the launch. When the Spacecraft reaches the final velocity, it turns up in a Curved Bend from the EM Tube Tunnel track (like a roller-coaster carriage) and then it flies out from the Launching Muzzle to the atmosphere, goes up at a predefined velocity, into the space.

You cannot reach any orbit with this as the orbit would go through the tunnel, ie ground level.

And, entering 1 bar atmosphere at orbital velocities.. the drag would be very high, wasting a _lot_ of energy and making all that wasted energy into heat which would mean a _very heavy_ heat shield would be needed.

Instead of trying to reach orbital velocity from sea level, it makes much more sense to have the exit of the tunnel high altitude(at 4km the air pressure drops to 0.6 bar), AND to only replace the first stage with the EM accelerator, still having a considerable-sized rocket stage which does many m/s of delta-v.

Quote
Note: The spacecraft will also have a small propulsion engine to control velocity, direction and for the re-entry.

It would be a more than a small one to enter a stable orbit.

Offline sghill

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1297
  • United States
  • Liked: 1427
  • Likes Given: 1974
Re: EM Tube Tunnel
« Reply #9 on: 09/08/2015 02:36 PM »
When it comes out of the tunnel and slams into the atmosphere at orbital velocity it will be like crashing into the side of a mountain. Even it the vehicle survives the impact, it will quickly be vaporized due to heat. It's one thing to reenter the atmosphere as pressure slowly increases, but it a totally different situation to go from vacuum to full atmospheric pressure.


Its a solution in search of a problem. One of these rail-gun tube launchers has never been built because they make no sense for orbital vehicle launches.    Weapons yes.  Satellites no.  The speeds are just too insane to consider in the lower atmosphere.

Here's a (sweet) Mach 7 weapons test.  The explosion at 0:35 is the air exploding as the projectile exits the rail-gun.  Orbital velocity would be 3-4 times faster!

Bring the thunder Elon!

Offline Nilof

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 885
  • Liked: 355
  • Likes Given: 535
Re: EM Tube Tunnel
« Reply #10 on: 09/09/2015 02:56 AM »
The startram concept is arguably the most fleshed out among the "mass driver to LEO" ideas, and it gets around the atmospheric pressure by levitating the last miles with a Lorentz force active structures. The study essentially acknowledges that something similar is needed for manned or nonhardened payloads. The "hardened cargo" version is a bit easier to build, it assumes a 7 km peak and 20gee deceleration during the brief section through the atmosphere.  ;D

Another issue is the matter of orbital inclinations, since unlike rockets which can launch into any inclination higher than the launch site, hundred km long mass drivers can't be aimed. This generally makes launching multiple payloads into the same orbit a pain. Launch windows become a big limiting factor.
« Last Edit: 09/09/2015 02:59 AM by Nilof »
For a variable Isp spacecraft running at constant power and constant acceleration, the mass ratio is linear in delta-v.   Δv = ve0(MR-1). Or equivalently: Δv = vef PMF. Also, this is energy-optimal for a fixed delta-v and mass ratio.

Offline ThinkerX

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • Alaska
  • Liked: 113
  • Likes Given: 59
Re: EM Tube Tunnel
« Reply #11 on: 09/09/2015 03:03 AM »
This concept would probably be better suited for the moon or possibly Mars.   

Offline sghill

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1297
  • United States
  • Liked: 1427
  • Likes Given: 1974
Re: EM Tube Tunnel
« Reply #12 on: 09/09/2015 02:13 PM »
This concept would probably be better suited for the moon or possibly Mars.

It would be ideal on the moon.

Plus, it can be used to keep pesky Earth governments from interfering with our plans for rebellion.

http://www.amazon.com/Moon-Harsh-Mistress-Robert-Heinlein/dp/0312863551/

Bring the thunder Elon!

Online groundbound

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 128
  • Liked: 92
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: EM Tube Tunnel
« Reply #13 on: 09/13/2015 12:14 AM »
Accelerating something to an enourmous speed then make it do a sharp bend?

You merely need to add a small device that eliminates the inertia of the payload for a few seconds. Easy Peasy!

Offline Bob Shaw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 959
  • Liked: 356
  • Likes Given: 334
Re: EM Tube Tunnel
« Reply #14 on: 09/13/2015 12:45 AM »
The last time anybody tried to build sort-of-orbital guns it lead to all sorts of problems, not least because Israel was in the firing line; Gerald Bull, the major technologist in this area, was murdered by 'persons unknown' (ahem).

This really isn't practical!

Tags: