Zach: Railgun or Guass Rifle principles;
The military as well as others have looked at these concepts for some time. The major draw back is as weight of the projectile increases so does the need for more current to run the magnetizing coils. I see that only two coils are used by most, Increasing the coils to all away around the circumference of the object to allow for less current in each has the same effect as the large coils. I think that a rotating projectile would also be more stable on exit from the gun as well. So fire the coils in sequence as the projectile is raised though the coils to produce spin.

here are a few links

http://www.powerlabs.org/railgun.htm
http://www.scitoys.com/scitoys/scitoys/magnets/gauss.html
Blog site
http://www.rollette.com/railgun/

Happy reading

Maybe off subject but I see that Bush to call for hydrogen car, tax-free broadband in new initiative as posted on yahoo.
I would rather see the investment in solar energy and fuel cells. But even if you wanted to buy a Hydrogen fuelled car where would you ever fill it up. Also the cost of the car would make it not affordable to offset the reduction in fuel cost over the term of any loan.
It's back to pedal power if we want low cost of energy to get to work with. Hell of a commute for me 33 miles, one way if I could use the highway.

Harold: about the railgun. Ok lets assume that our factory is set up to lob 9.5-10.5 pounds accurately and a 12 pound huge of ice gets in our launcher. The object will either arrive at its destination a little later or miss altogether assuming that the juice per shot is maintained.

So the advantages of a rail-gun are clear.
1)Payload can vary widely because it is so small that it would burn up in the atmosphere.
2)For slightly more you could include a small factory to spilt water into it's components and the comet becomes a mobile fuel station.
3)Alternating charges are not needed. Power usage can stay constant further simplifing the design and lowering the cost.

Zach: good morning, Sometime ago I promissed to send the space un concept to the moon to mar commission well here is what I put together.
I hope it meets with your satisfaction. reference id #5928

It is time for a unified space nation.

I went to the space.com site and saw what I think would make a great International space Flag. I think all the international partners should advocate such a process to make space for all nations with peaceful intent recognized as if it were the new UN but of space and for Space. Since the UN is here in America then let’s make the International Space Exploration union in Russian for all space faring nations to join.

I think De-militarization of space is a good "ideal" so long as all countries look at space for peaceful ends. I feel that there will never be a problem with the use of Satellites but when the first real weapon is there, now then that will open up a whole new cold war. This one will be in outer space rather than around Berlin. This way the space missions could bring Earth I feel a big step closer to World Peace.

A great step for mankind would be if the USA, Europe, Russia and China would cooperate with their missions in such a way that shared budgets, probes and anything else. I feel it would benefit everybody as well to be sharing of data from probes and other resources. Not to mention the budget that the world powers could generate together would be better unitized.

With so many space agencies popping up, now is the time to unify them. I have been saying for years that the space agencies of the world need to standardize parts and measurements. Everyone needs to be using the metric system for distance and volume measurements. Also, similar computer components need to be used. Recently I thought of the importance of astronauts on the surface of Mars being able to use dead spacecraft for spare parts or for that fact on the ISS. If identical parts were used as often as possible it would also make space travel cheaper since there would be more competition in the market. As things are now we have very little that is reusable and compatible from rocket to rocket. When you constantly have to have special made parts it is of coarse more expensive. Spare parts also brings to mind the need for back up systems, this is why I've been saying that the international community needs to standardize all parts going into Mars missions so that rovers, landers, etc can be used for their parts when we do send people.

In closing an interplanetary UN will be needed to settle land disputes when people are living on the Moon or Mars. It might also be helpful in preventing LEO (Low Earth Orbit) from becoming the next battle field.

It is time for a unified space nation.

The railgun system sounds like a neat idea for teraforming Mars with needed resources from nearby astoriod, comets and such.

Right now nasa is looking at repair techniques, or replacement, wrap over panels and other such as neccessary repair options for the fleet if the unthinkable should happen again. Main reason for why no Hubble repair mission and for no other journeys accept to the ISS.

Here is an idea for the shuttle leading edge RCC panels. How about a leading edge shock ubsorbing bumper or metal foil cripple zone. Instead of repair it is prevention of damage. Also you would not care if it burns up in the atmospher since it's job of protection is complete after reaching orbit.

Zach: I have been doing some more reading on railguns from the past. This idea has actually lifted objects into LEO... from some of the liks that I have found. here is one of the pages info:
I find this very interesting for a means to get small payloads into orbit.

Smaller projectiles were launched from 127 millimeter and 178 millimeter (5 and 7 inch) guns to altitudes of about 75 kilometers from Yuma and the US National Aeronautics & Space Administration's (NASA's) launch facility at Wallops Island, Virginia. A total of about 570 ballistic projectiles were launched in the course of HARP.

While HARP blasted projectiles into space, the McGill group was driving the development of cannon-launched rockets to put payloads into orbit. Their Martlet 3 design was a discarding-sabot solid-propellant rocket with a diameter of 190 millimeters (7.5 inches), and was to be launched from a 406 millimeter gun.

The Martlet 3 was to lead to the Martlet 4, which was to be a multistage cannon-launched rocket with a launch mass of 1.2 tonnes and a payload capacity of 90 kilograms to low Earth orbit (LEO); it would be given a muzzle velocity of 5,400 KPH. The McGill group also considered a three-stage rocket design that could put 295 kilograms into a 185 kilometer orbit using all solid fuel, or 590 kilograms into a 1,100 kilometer orbit using all liquid fuel. This vehicle would be launched from a 813 millimeter (32 inch) gun.

expedition 9 crew patch or emblem good idea fopr international flag
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_146.html

Zach: The only draw back to a Railgun system that is explosive in nature is the applications has to do with newtons laws of physics, with regards to equal but oposite reactions. I am not sure how one can escape this on smaller planetiods if we are sending the valuable resurce to the Moon or Mars or for the fact back to Earth since the mass of the object that any system rests on for mounting purposes, must over come the repulsion force when fired.
I hope I got my thought out right...

I am thinking that gryo's and possibly a rocket engine mounted to the oposite side of the planetiod to equalize the change in thrust from firing the railgun might work if timed correctly inorder to hold position in space for the mounting location.