Video: Railgun Blasts an Aerodynamic Round Seven Kilometers Through A Steel Plate

Oh.

My.

God.

Aaaawwwwesome!

That thing went 2 times as far as any tank shot ever. I can't wait to see how far it gose when they change the angle. "hypersonic brick" i don't really care if its going end over end as it's coming at me it's still a "hypersonic brick" mean its going at least 5 times faster than sound.

awesome sauce !

Crazy cool, just over 4 miles in a straight line *after* punching throw some armor plating! Sounds like the perfect accessory for that *Orbital Peace Maker* satelite.

That was simply beautiful.

I also enjoy how the round is shaped like a rocket.

Kind of gives you ideas doesn't it...?

Wow...thats really all I can say. Between this and the new lasers the navy is researching the battleship of the future is simply going to be a floating power plant to have enough juice to power all this stuff. Not that they don't already but its just interesting to imagine the size of the capacitors they are going to need to be able to discharge that fast if they plan on scaling up.

And we can't use something like this to shoot stuff (not people, of course) into space because...why?

Make it bigger. Bam! You're done. I can't imagine it costing more than rockets...

it does require a tremendous amount of electricity, rather that just a tremendous amount of fuel, and all that electricity really is, is fuel that was burned more slowly, ahead of time.

Just don't get it wet. And more importantly keep the Chinese 17km away from it.

@DirtySquirties

It would have to go six times faster to get to space, insistingly that requires you to put thirty five times more energy in the projectile, aint physics great. To be useful you need to be able to spit out a couple hundred kg at least. This thing is on the beading edge of science and its not nearly powerful enough to orbit something. I am in no way saying it cant be done but it would be hard and expensive.

If it can do that then this would be a cheap way to supply future orbiting space stations orbiting earth, the moon or Mars.

NASA must really be excited about this. This rail-gun can never be scaled large enough to propel humans into space, to many g forces at takeoff, it would kill humans. However with that being said it may some day, if scaled large enough launch small payloads into space from earth -- at mach 5 it is already moving fast enough to launch a payload into Lunar orbit from the Lunar surface. It would be easier to do this on the moon because there isn't any atmosphere, your launching it in a vacuum.

This is the only beginning, If we can use it to launch small satellites and payloads into orbit it would be a cheap way to supply future orbiting space stations orbiting earth, the moon, and Mars.

Ron Bennett

I'm with DS on this. Why not make a more powerful one that can launch objects into space. I'd rather see the science that went into this go in that direction rather than see it go into a weapon of war. Haven't we learned anything as a species yet or are we going to continue to kill each other. It's insane.

BTW why can't something like this be developed in orbit around the moon. On a much greater scale where they can have a nuclear powered system. Would it be possible to say set up a massive magnetic drive system similar to how a cyclotron pushes particles to almost the speed of light, but instead we push a probe, and shoot it toward the nearest star system. If we could get it to approach near the speed of light, say just short of it, the probe could feasibly get to the star Alpha Centauri within a few years. Of course once it gets there, we'd have to figure out how to slow it down, and put it in orbit...but with a little grey matter energy I think we could figure something out. ^_^

@AirshipGirl:
unfortunately, insanity is byproduct of geniusness. and like moon born said, it would have to be way way way more powerful just to get a one man capsule into orbit.

also, if you had this in orbit it would shoot the opposite direction of the payload, possibly as fast or faster than the payload, depending on the mass of each, not good, it would have to be used from the surface of a planet or moon...Newton's 3rd law of motion

Again folks the acceleration on earth or in orbit from a rail gun device would kill humans, humans can't use this. Acceleration is acceleration no matter where you are, if you accelerate an object, that object has inertia. The Rail gun acceleration of an object in such a short distance would have a tremendous g forces anywhere from 100 g to 1000 g's. Humans can only take up to 7 g's for a short time, the space shuttle g forces is around 3 g's for over miles of distance. All bets for humans riding this device is off until we can find a way a way to counteract this force.... 
 
Ron Bennett

Of course Newton's third law stops us from building such a device as is, that doesn't mean we cannot come up with some means to counter act the force to hold the projectile emitter in place. Also, if we built this on the moon, it's mass might be great enough to forgo any need for such a counter.

As for shooting people up in such a device. Of course not, that is insane. They'd be crushed instantly. But certain scientific devices could be packaged and sent into orbit with such a device. :)

That's the beauty of using this to mine the moon, asteroids, or comets most things we would ship can take that amount of g forces. It is already fast enough at mach 5 to shoot into orbit around the moon if used on the lunar surface. Also note that the projectile doesn't need to be aerodynamic shape to travel in a straight line in the vacuum of space:)

Ron Bennett

This is completely AWESOME!

Before putting it on the moon, try to make a usable, reusable mass product, and then, when it is tested many times in real life scenarios, then we can shoot for the moon.

@ Airshipgirl

The reason why no one is designing a railgun to put humans into orbit is because the technology is still in its infancy.

Months ago, scientists were still figuring out how to keep the railgun from falling apart/breaking up after each shot because of how violent each shot is.

Newton says, "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction," correct?

You're pushing a projectile with the force of X, so the apparatus that is launching would have to be able to sustain the force of X back onto itself.

Give them some time, and they'll find cool, clever ways to absorb that energy so the gun doesn't destroy itself after each shot.

Also, a railgun in space would require a system to keep the gun stationary during/after each shot.

Obviously, in space, there's nothing to hold you down, a railgun would push itself backwards with the same force as the projectile it just shot out.

So, unless you want to re-use the railgun, you would need to find out how to stabilize it in orbit.

I WANT IT
I WANT IT
I WANT IT
I WANT IT
Even the round looks bad-ass

Does no one else find it funny how the steel plate was only 1/8 inch thick and 100 yard range? Apparently someone was excepting something less impressive it seems lol.

They solved a lot of the heating/gun breakdown issues by downsizing - but at a cost of versitility. This is a line of sight weapon, and we are not facing that many line of sight targets anymore.

This looks like it would put a hole through a tank - and leave the tank right on rolling until it punctures a key component (like shooting a car with a .50BMG FMJ - potentially devestating, potentially meaningless). Could you soften the jacket on a round like this or would it mushroom against the air?

Now, a flechette system delivered like this would be interesting.

I'm also interested in time between shots. Is there a long cooldown?

@Quakspar,

All this round has to do is punch a small hole in a tank! The amount of preasure that round creates when it enters the tank would be unreal. Any living person inside the tank would be pulled out the exit hole, which would be about an inch or two in circumference. This is what happens a sabot round hits a tank with depleated uranium.

It may be a line of sight weapon right now but thats how artillery started out as too. Eventually this will turn into a precision indirect fire weapon(sounds counter intuititive)that is used to hit targets that are many many miles away. With so much kenetic energy you wouldn't even need an explosive, just land the round close enough to the object or even better in the middle of a bunker, and it will cause serious damage. Same principal with a .50 cal round. It doesn't have to actually hit a person to hurt them. Just passing by close enough can tear off skin.I can see soldiers calling in railgun rounds on targets while the ships are 50+ miles away.

As for the others suggesting using this technology for launching things into space you also have to consider the extreme amount of electricity this thing needs. All that electricity would likely fry any electronics on board the object and probably melt a human on the inside. Then there is the G force aspect that many have mentioned. It's not going to happen. Cold fusion would be a better advancement to further the developement of our space program and the planet for that matter. Thats where the next big human milestone will be.

@oakspar...the development plan for this entails much more power, mounting it on a ship and desimating targets over the horizon, many miles away, with a quick turn around for follow up shots, the kenetic energy invovled may sink ships with one hit, great potential, add this to the free electron laser and other lasers being developed should make the navy unstoppable, need to take care of those pesky diesil/electric subs the chinese have, with some AUV's we can couter these subs, a deployed ground weapon would knock out a tank with one round, wouldn't be much left of the tank

@zip55...nope, just an early test

I wouldn't use a railgun to launch things into space. I would make a giant elevator made of buckminister fullerine balls and have it extend to an orbiting platform that is in geosynchronous orbit. The station would be not directly over the elevator base, it would have to be a bit behind it. Rockets would boost it only to get off the ground, maybe to 5,000 feet in the air. Then the momentum from the orbiting space station would pull it up. You'd have a low cost method of getting into space.

Well just from the basic trajectory equation, maybe 160 miles.

for people who are talking about using a rail gun to launch things into space: it WILL NOT HAPPEN.
it has nothing to do with speed.
It has to do with G force. Plain and simple.
A current artilery round experience 100g when it is launched. I have no idea what these rail guns are producing in terms of outward initial Gs but its more than your current artilery I can tell you that. They are only now making smart round, you can obviosuly see the biggest obstical was making IC chips and circuit boards that can withstand 100g. For a human it is instant death. your brain will liquefy. "slow" acceleration is the only way to get to space with out Star Trek style inertial dampening. But if for cargo it would be un realistic. Maybe. and a big maybe, we could use it for lunching RAW materials into space, but you have to get a calculator and and see if the energy expenditure would be worth it.

I think people are forgetting to read the rest of the comments. WE HAVE ESTABLISHED THAT G FORCES STOP US FROM LAUNCHING OURSELVES INTO SPACE AT 3 GAZILLION MPH. Now, how about a nice game of chess?

While i do like a nice game of Chess, G forces would not be a problem for a rail gun space launch system. the only issue is the length of the track, instead of the 15-20' track for the gun it would need to be 2-3 miles long. The beauty of a electro magnet launch system is that you can precisely control the acceleration so that the same system could launch a massive payload to the moon could then launch a light weight low earth orbit satellite later that day.

Why would we even want to shoot stuff into space, other than to knock down enemy satellites? Let's use this for what it was designed for - to kill people and break things.

Space, schmace. The easiest, cheapest way to find little green men is to wait for them to find us.

The Meteor Cannon, the ray guns (microwave and laser),
the superconducting electric motor/generator for propulsion,
all require massive amounts of electrical power, scheduled
to be delivered by the Polywell fusion power generator now
nearing the end of proof-of-principle testing.

What ? You have not heard about it ? Can't imagine why,
unless TPTB did not think it would work, and are trying
to put the cat back in the black bag now that it may.

They need to use this to develop deep earth penetrators. The bad guys aren't attacking with tanks, they're building nukes underground.

Somebody should tell him that tankers in the Army pronounce sabot as SAY-bo. It may not be the way that the French say it but who cares.

A three mile acceleration would subject a human to 100 g for 6 seconds. Humans have survived crashes at 100 g, but the duration was less than one second. It seems to me 6 seconds at 100 g would cause some permanent damage.
I wonder how many g’s the human body can survive for 6 or 10 seconds. Any one want to volunteer as a test subject?

Also, I seem to remember that powerful railguns such as this are good for one shot only and then must be rebuilt. Apparently, the projectile has to stay in physical contact with the barrel or “rails” causing some extreme friction. Will this be the nature of all railguns or can it be overcome through engineering?

Put them on the moon to launch resources toward Earth. Catch them in Earth orbit.

Imagine if they made one the size of the Schwerer Gustav:

www.facebook.com/pages/Schwerer-Gustav/41795922551

It was the largest rifled weapon ever built, and could fire a seven ton shell 23 miles downrange.

@Carlos: why would you want a railgun for peaceful launch purposes ??

Hmm. . . cheap boost of things like liquids, powders, etc: any payload you need that could survive the initial acceleration without damage. Because the only mass you need to get to orbital velocity is the payload and it's container, and any associated electronics (like a homing beacon, for instance. . .) MUCH cheaper than a full-up launch vehicle, once you have the launch facility built. . .

For more fragile payloads, like people, we need to put more work into laser launch systems.

@nonsequitur: Yes, a beanstalk WOULD an excellent way of moving people and cargo to orbit. Of course, you'd need some fairly massive infrastructure in orbit FIRST. . .one of the possible uses of both electromagnetic and laser launch systems. . .

People saying we can't use a railgun to launch people into orbit need to remember that its not about speed, its about acceleration. As long as you keep the acceleration down, you keep the G forces down (G forces are simply the result of acceleration and inertia). Then you just need a longer track (perhaps circular) to get the payload up to speed.

The real problem is that if you get the payload up to the right speed (which will have to happen in a vacuum), it will have to hit the atmosphere. This makes a working ground-to-orbit railgun launch system impractical. A better plan is to use the railgun to get the payload going fast enough so it can use a scramjet to get the rest of the way up, with perhaps a small rocket engine to get you the last bit of the way there.

HAH! Chuck Norris can throw it faster and farther!

We don't need more weapons. How about they spend the money on space programmes instead of on how to kill people!

Dig up an old copt of "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress".
I figure if a rail gun can push my fat butt along the Superman ride @Tragic Mountain, why can't they use it for Space.
When asked a few months ago to find the cheapest way to get cargo into space, this was it! Not really a rail gun, more like a hypersonic sled. And if they make the track a little longer, you could loft people without turning them into Jello.

AMAZING

I hope its not used for a weapon but we all know humans will never change their violent nature.

Of course it CAN be used to put you into space.
However, we would require a much longer 'track' or 'barrel' in order to accelerate much more slowly, since the human body can't take that much acceleration.
This has been written about in SF for generations.

Slightly off topic: To those that brought it up, the sky elevator is a great idea. It would be one thing to create such a system, another to keep it intact. We live in a dangerous world, and no matter who builds it, no matter what the noble purpose, somebody will want to tear it down! Thus it would require more defenses than Fort Knox or the DMZ in Korea. Even so, it sounds exciting! Perhaps utilizing nanoconstructed materials? When such tech is available and affordable on such a scale of course... it would be an excellent method of delivering payloads to space.

Wow, reading this article gave me goosebumps.

Ok so i've been saying for a while now...

Build a nuclear fission reactor near a large mountain. Use it to power a large scale rail-gun stationed a couple hundred feet from the peak. Point the gun straight up, and see where we get. I also envision a sort of payload design that harnesses ramjet technology to be truly effective in the cheap delivery of raw materials to zero gravity.

anyone anyone?

this is great! unless your at the end of the barrel...i don't think you have time to feel the impact before you die. but otherwise its great go hypersonic bricks!!!

First question: How do I get one of these?

I think the only way you could use something like this to launch people would be to perfect a way to freeze and thaw people without killing them. You could freeze the person then launch them, that way you end up with flying popsicle-guy rather than flying chunky salsa. Then you thaw him while he's enroute to where it is he's going.

Maybe this could be a way to deal with especially nasty criminals in the future? Make them involuntary space exporers.

I think everyone saying space launch system is referring to a MagLev system only those have yet to reach supersonic speeds much less hypersonic.

I say throw more money at it. Think about the massive investment in the Hadron Collider just to research particle science. I am not trying to downplay the importance of the discoveries made there but trying to point to what is possible with crazy sums of money. 27 km and all those magnets should be enough. Just build one in a straight line with a replaceable bore. Done (not really but as a concept).

Make it more powerful. But then, you know the saying "What goes around comes around". So maybe, in the end, you'll get shot in the as* once the shot flies around the earth.