USArmy wants to field 100km cannons and 500km missiles

They're useful just not on earth.

So what? They look cool.

Speak burger.

Why can't our government realize that adding tech to boolits just makes more expensive. Don't fix what ain't broken..

The verne gun seems cheaper and more useful

Attached: annoyed interviewer.jpg (500x500, 29.51K)

But user, if we don't continue to break things that work perfectly fine, how will Lockheed and GD get their billions in gibs?

Spacelaunch isn't about launching things upwards, it's about launching them sideways fast enough. Things going fast enough achieve orbit, everything else falls down.
Think about it, there are rockets and ramjet artillery shells that likely went above the atmosphere long before sputnik, they just didn't count because they didn't achieve orbit.

Attached: 2121.png (7818x3458, 125.26K)

The more you know

Attached: we have the technology..png (320x240 39.74 KB, 27.18K)

Something tells me fuckhueg magnetic fields would have the potential to interfere with any sensitive electronics or bodies within the payload.

The bottom left image in the 3rd image is the electromagnetic launching system that will be used on the ford carriers, the top right image was a prototype nasa developed to launch space craft.

Compare the cross section of the two accelerators. It's pretty uncanny.

Which is fine and dandy until Ivan decides to hit the CSG with some Scalar Weaponry and laughs as he deploys MiG-29s from the Kuznetsov to go carrier hunting.

Nevermind me, I replied without taking a proper look at the whole picture. I saw the diagram in the upper left of the third image and assumed NASA's plan was to apply intense magnetic forces to the spacecraft itself and not rails underneath the spacecraft.

Nigger what? I assume you meant to reply to someone else, because I didn't say shit about the extreme fragility of carrier groups.

Also,

Attached: are you serious stalker.png (500x500, 9.34K)

Source? That seems unreasonably cheap. In the age of slashed budgets there's literally (as in literally rather than figuratively) no reason not to use this. I watched the resupply launch last night, and as much of a fist pump moment as it was to see the rocket accelerate away they could get a lot more shit up to the ISS a lot cheaper with a Bull cannon, enough shit to turn it into the first orbital shipyard even.

The space Zig Forumsolonisation thread went through this in some detail, a Gamma wave laser would be a god tier in space, but normal wavelengths would need much more weapon and a much wider aperture to preform either half as well.

Sorry my bad, I confused it with Bulls original design (in a mountain). The Quicklaunch station would cost $500 million for a few dozen of them, still a bargain imo compared to Shuttle program.

The reason why it doesn't exist is everyone is scared of it because it would give dictators cheap intercontinental delivery systems for cheap bio or chem warheads. Quicklaunch itself was shut down by governments.

What will happen to the Burger army when they run out of money?

1:10 to 1:15 he says 4 million pounds a year capacity.
Meaning that in 3 years we could send a permanent colony of 400 people to Mars.
160 people is the minimum needed to have a stable population without inbreeding (minimum viable population). We could literally start colonizing space with just one of these guns.

You still have to send the people up in rockets though, putting a person in one of these would turn them into paste.

I think these ones accelerate gently enough for that. Bongs also invented the bongplane, which is a shuttle that goes up on its own (no rocket needed) and flies down. It runs on a jet engine that turns into a ramjet, then turns into a scramjet, then turns into a rocket engine. It has a payload module for people, picrel.

Attached: 636262ba779f269467b93988e6795e77.jpg (480x656, 51.26K)

If they're very lucky there'll be a second revolution and the American people would rebuild their nation. More likely than not though they get invaded and whoever invades spends the next few decades fighting off a few thousands insurgencies.

Attached: The bits of the world that still matter.jpg (965x579, 51.93K)

Why does it say "Evacuated launch tube?" How the fuck would you make the launch tube a vacuum and still get the craft out one end? In fact why the fuck would it even need to be in a vacuum, air resistance is a solved problem in rocketry, we deal with it just fine every time we launch a rocket.

I don't know what's more shameful, that you saved that pic or that I know exactly what website and article it came from.

I don't think there's much shame involved on either side there. It's only sensible to know what the enemy is thinking and why, and every now and then they make a pic that can be put to better use than they originally planned.

I don't believe it, it would have to be a like 100 mile long linear accelerator. You can't have a circular accelerator because you'd have to spin people around at thousands of miles per hour. To make this work you have to accelerate to a much higher velocity than you would need with rockets over a much longer distance.

SSTO spaceplanes are fine though.

Evacuated doesn't mean vacuum, it just means lowered air resistance. Otherwise it would cause a subway effect, where a "plug" of air in front of the craft in the tube would be compressed and cause serious friction.

We have longer maglev train tracks.

US Army wants shit because Airforce and Navy aren't backing them up properly? Not that big of a surprise, really.

Typically missiles, tanks, and self-propelled artillery have an internal $10,000 fiberoptic gyroscope inside of them that allow them to hit accurately within about 10 meters of the target (at which point the impact will cause damage even if it's not a direct hit). Even if it's GPS guided only (it's not), once it's on the descent, the gyroscope kicks in and it's self-guided/not gonna miss its target unless said target moves really fucking fast.

Kind of. It's about making it achieve the proper trajectory so that it continuously falls towards the center of the Earth. That's not a matter of speed, that's a matter of angle and distance from the Earth to achieve this rate of falling. "Speed" gets you there, but "speed" will also slingshot you out of orbit at even faster rates if you fuck it up.

The US Army doesn't give a shit about expenses; it's the taxpayers' money, not theirs. Procurement officers are more concerned about earning a "consulting" job at Raytheon and Orbital ATK than efficient armaments during peacetime or "wars" on goat farmers.

No. Missiles generally utilize TERCOM as a secondary to GPS, not INS. Armor is equipped with an FCS, GPS is only used for navigation, not munitions, even a shell like the M943 STAFF uses a FSMWS. Arty is "GPS-assisted", it is still common practice to configured a firing solution using provided short-line grid coordinate (via MGRS or Lat/Long) an azimuth, and an approximate distance.

Northrop Grumman engineers who build them for a living told me otherwise.

TERCOM isnt common dude…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TERCOM#Missiles_that_employ_TERCOM_navigation

You mean designed? I'd also question the suppose engineers that told you INS was present in tanks or a SPG.

It is for the types of missiles being discussed. Unless it's an BM (or cruise missile) it's going to rely on visual tracking such as IR or radar.

It's an upgrade on MGM-140 from 300 to

>It's an upgrade on MGM-140 from 300 to