4 ms·
Re: "no rails" - perhaps it reduces friction by not touching the ground, via a combination of a railgun propulsion + airfoil. Thus, not needing continuous magle
by 6ren 14y ago
Re: "no rails" - perhaps it reduces friction by not touching the ground, via a combination of a railgun propulsion + airfoil. Thus, not needing continuous maglev for levitation. Also explains the "concord" comparison.
- Swannie 14y agoI'm thinking: - Air based, but near the ground - The vehicle is concord shaped - Vehicle is launched into the air via rail gun (like a fighter jet on a ship: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_Aircraft_Launch_System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_Aircraft_Launch...) - Lots of boosting strips a few KMs apart. - Based on the rail gun concept, the same "boosting" strip could also slow down or speed up a vehicle - It removes the need for anything between the stations except open space. - Minimal on-vehicle propulsion - otherwise I imagine the constant accelerate/decelerate would be a little unbearable for human flight - Failure mode of the vehicle is to glide to a landing (though could magnetic eddy currents be used for breaking in a rail gun with minimal/no current?) - The loop could refer to the idea of a continual loop of boosters, in opposite directions, removing the need for large "turn around" stations at either end