High Efficiency Launch Unit

There has been a lot of recent talk in regards to the development of space beyond earth's mesosphere, several plans have been proposed by the scientific community and the most popular, or rather, the most debated plans are the deployment of a system of space based solar power plants, a plan to send mining missions to the moon for Helium-3 ore, and the time tested space based ballistic missile defense plan.

As absurd as some of these plans sound, there is merit, or the public believes there to be merit in all of them. We've all seen the James Bond movie where the bad guy puts a giant mirror into space and beams down the suns energy by reflecting and concentrating it. NASA has recently smashed a probe into the moon to create a cloud of lunar dust for analysts, a stunt which revealed that the moon does indeed have deposits of potentially valuable Helium 3 ore, and the United States have been dreaming of a "Star Wars" orbital missile defense system since the cold war.

The reason that these plans are not already becoming reality is not that they will bring no benefit, but the sheer economical cost alone to implement them far outweighs the results. All 3 plans call for large amounts of material to be launched into space, and the most efficent launch rockets we have right now costs about $5,000 per POUND of payload. This means that a mining probe, a solar panel, or a laser would cost millions to launch apiece, and even if we get a significant amount of these things into orbit, we still need to send stuff up, most likely human astronauts (which are very prone to dying), to repair and resupply them.

The scientific community has some good stuff going with the whole development of space thing, but what it needs to do is to take a step back and realize that before we can build castles in the sky, we have to get our feet off the ground. The absurd amounts of funding going towards prototype defense satellites and mining probes are much better used to develop new launch vehicles, some of which I hope to propose in later articles.

Infantry Mobility Suite

Despite modern combat becoming more and more mechanized, infantry is still a vital element in securing and fortifying a position taken by machines. The offensive potential of infantry has nevertheless decreased drastically. Personally I don't think this is due to a lack of infantry weaponry, as man portable weapons can still take down the most advanced war machines, and I also don't think the fragility of infantry has much to do with their demise. I believe the only reason that a man with a rifle is no longer an offensive battlefield threat is due to his lack of mobility, and as such he is usually transported by machines.

There are already several existing methods that seek to remedy this issue, the Armored Personnel Transport for one proves that infantry still has potential on the front lines, but the death of one loaded transport is the loss of quite an asset, and by itself the transport is of little use compared to other vehicles. I'd say that right now, the average marine needs a way to move himself from place to place fast and without the help of other machines.

The perfect solution would be a man portable jet pack or some jet powered device that will enable a man to fly, but I'd say that its painfully obvious that a jet used continuously would burn off a man's legs and most of the lower torso. At the time i don't believe there is any material that can dissipate the heat fast enough for such a device to be remotely possible.

But how much does it actually take to lift a man? Your average marine weighs about 200 pounds with all equipment attached, your average jet weighs a few tonnes with all its weapons and fuel. Why use something used to lift tonnes to lift 200 pounds? Using a jet to lift something as light as a single man seems like overkill.

My solution, a small but powerful air compressor, a propellent tank, an enhancement tank filled with water or loose dirt, and some very heavy protective pants. The amount of thrust generated is closely related to the amount of propellent expelled, and by adding water or dirt into the compressed air stream we increase the mass of the propellent and ensure that the temperature of said propellent dosent reach harmful levels. Such a device is not meant for sustained flight, but should hold enough charge for two bursts, one takeoff burst to blast the user into the air, and another landing burst to soften the impact of landing. In combat the device can be used to jump from cover to cover, making the user extremely hard to engage, and "parachuting" with this device would require no parachute.

Nuclear Powered Flight and its Practicality

Ever since the world entered the atomic age predictions were made that one day just about everything would become nuclear powered. Today, the world sees wonders such as nuclear powered aircraft carriers and many other naval engineering marvels.

Despite all that, there has yet to be any sort of nuclear powered devices on land, and for good reasons. Any military vehicle to be powered by nuclear power will require huge amounts of shielding and armor around the reactor to make a possible tank capable to withstanding damage. The raw power of a nuclear reactor could not be directed for offensive purposes unless such a vehicle carries a large arsenal of conventional or a very bulky directed energy weapon. And at the end of all this, the speed of such a thing is limited due to the huge amount of weight it has to carry, making it out of place in a modern battlefield where speed is key. For civilian uses, conventional power is simply much cheaper and much more reliable, not to mention much more safe. The thought of a literal thermonuclear train wreck alone should discourage the use of nuclear power on land for transport.

But in the skies, I believe, lies a different future for the fruits of the Manhattan Project.

Say we built the smallest safe reactor the modern world could build, and around it built a engine which takes magnetized or electrically charged conventional fuel pellets, accelerated them into the combustion chamber of a normal ramjet engine, and pressurized even further the combustion chamber itself with intense magnetic fields powered by a small nuclear reactor. Such a hybrid jet engine, even if it can only provide the thrust of a normal rocket motor, would use up much less fuel compared to a liquid fueled rocket and would be able to lift a relatively large fixed wing aircraft and accelerate it to immense speed.

At this point, assuming such a device is capable of flight, one could argue that all we have created is a very large and bulky target practice drone which can be seen by even the most primitive of radar, and shot down by even more primitive weapons. Even if we stealth-coated such a beast, which would no doubt be several times larger than most aircraft due to the sheer bulk of a nuclear reactor, this aircraft would not be maneuverable enough even for commercial use as a cargo plane, assuming it is even capable of taking on cargo.

Well, once such an aircraft gets off the ground, I would like to remind everyone that there is no speed limit in the skies. Using the same electromagnet-boosted engines we continue to accelerate the aircraft past the efficient speeds of conventional aircraft, and eventually reach a speed where the plane is constantly falling towards the horizon, or extreme low earth orbit. At this point, the engines can be shut off, and the plane is essentially invulnerable from surface threats as it would be moving so fast relative to the ground that no weapons system could react to it. From this immense speed, one could observe, command, and even fire ordnance onto virtually the entire globe without fear of retaliation.

Railway Launcher

11.3 kilometers per second, that is the velocity a ballistic projectile must attain to leave the gravity of the Earth. That's about three times the speed of a rifle bullet, thirty times the speed of sound.

So far the only method of leaving earth comes from large rocket engines which burn fuel by the tones and could only lift a few tonnes of weight into orbit, hardly efficient if you ask me.

Then there is the proposed launch method of basically firing a payload into orbit by an explosion/jet-assisted rail/coil gun. This method, if ever a practical example of it was built, would be only able to send a solid projectile into space due to the fact that the immense acceleration that takes the projectile from 0km/s to over 11km/sec will destroy any electronics, not to mention anything alive on board the payload. Perhaps this will be useful for launching explosives into some part of the planet, but I doubt that even something as simple as a nuclear warhead will survive the acceleration.

Instead, what I suggest is a very long piece of magnetic levitation track about 300 or so kilometers long. Multiple conducting rails below, on top, and to the sides of a "train car" will serve as rails to both levitate the vehicle, reducing friction, and accelerate it in a rail gun like manner. For those who do not know how a rail gun functions, two or more conducting rails complete a circuit with the projectile in between them. The opposite magnetic fields on the rails and in the projectile send the projectile speeding down the track.

To further accelerate the "train car", a tunnel of coils that are magnetized will pull on the train as it approaches, and push the train away as it passes through the tunnel, much like a coil gun. The final sections of the rail will gradually curve skywards, and rockets on board the train will only have to maintain a velocity that is already close to escape to reach orbit.

This device will be much more gentile with its payload, as it has 300 km in which to accelerate to the highest attainable speed, meaning the acceleration is gradual, and no unlucky astronauts are flattened to a pulp.

Sky Liners

We know we can float a really heavy cabin and engines with nothing but a sack of helium or hydrogen gas, but sadly, we also know that doing so is very impractical when you want to go somewhere. But it seems to me that, floating around on a cruise liner for months just to get across the ocean is still pretty inefficient, and yet people still do it just for the heck of it. What if airship travel could be made simple and efficient again? How much would people pay to be aboard a floating piece of heaven?
Instead of a cigar shaped blimp, we make a balloon with dynamic shape so that it can both round out into your standard "cigar" shape or flat out into a massive sail, which would "sail" itself. Attached to the contraption would be a medium barge sized passenger cabin that can be made totally out of a fiberglass outer hull and a not so opaque inner hull which can be pulled back to give riders a magnificent view. Such a device will sail in the jet streams, probably going faster that it would on engines, and its own motors will only be used during takeoffs and landings.