this post was submitted on 20 May 2024
136 points (95.9% liked)

Technology

59653 readers
2854 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] School_Lunch@lemmy.world 13 points 6 months ago (10 children)

I wonder how much more energy it took to accomplish that compared to just shooting a rocket. Last I had heard railguns weren't really feasible because of the absurd amount of energy they would require even with perfect efficiency.

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 18 points 6 months ago (3 children)

It's not the absurd amount of energy that's the problem. It's the absurd amount of energy that has to be STORED AND RELEASED within a fraction of a second in a controlled fashion.

If you wanna go electric, you would need a stupendous amount of capacitors and a gun that won't get destroyed due to the immense energy release.

If u wanna go chemical (like an actual gun), u r faced with the same problem of the gun exploding.

The only approach that MIGHT work is the Spinlaunch thing, where u essentially store this energy as angular momentum in a THICCC carbon fibre rod. Spinlaunch is still yet to demonstrate anything remarkable, so there's that.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)