Navy Launches First Aircraft Using Electromagnetic System

[bananas]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2010/12/mil-101220-nns05.htm

Navy Launches First Aircraft Using Electromagnetic System

Navy News Service

Story Number: NNS101220-10
12/20/2010

From Naval Air Systems Command

PATUXENT RIVER, Md. (NNS) -- The Navy made history Dec. 18 when it launched the first aircraft from the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), Lakehurst, N.J., test site using the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System, or EMALS, technology.

<snip>

The Aircraft Launch and Recovery Equipment (ALRE) program launched an F/A-18E Super Hornet Dec. 18 using the EMALS technology that will replace steam catapults on future aircraft carriers.

<snip>

"I thought the launch went great," said Lt. Daniel Radocaj, the test pilot from Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 23 (VX 23) who made the first EMALS manned launch. "I got excited once I was on the catapult, but I went through the same procedures as on a steam catapult. The catapult stroke felt similar to a steam catapult and EMALS met all of the expectations I had."

The current aircraft launch system for Navy aircraft carriers is the steam catapult. Newer, heavier and faster aircraft will result in launch energy requirements approaching the limits of the steam catapult system.

<snip>

More info on EMALS:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/emals.htm

<snip>

The present EMALS design centers around a linear synchronous motor, supplied power from pulsed disk alternators through a cycloconverter. Average power, obtained from an independent source on the host platform, is stored kinetically in the rotors of the disk alternators. It is then released in a 2-3 second pulse during a launch. This high frequency power is fed to the cycloconverter which acts as a rising voltage, rising frequency source to the launch motor. The linear synchronous motor takes the power from the cycloconverter and accelerates the aircraft down the launch stroke, all the while providing "real time" closed loop control.

<snip>

So, the reactor boils water,
the steam spins a turbine,
the turbine spins a generator,
electricity from the generator spins an alternator,
the alternator acts as a flywheel accumulating energy for 45 seconds,
which is then discharged in 2-3 seconds to the linear motor.
So in a sense, they are still using steam power.

Similar systems could be used for launching spacecraft, the electricity could come from anywhere:

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-11/nasa-engineers-propose-combining-rail-gun-and-scramjet-fire-spacecraft-orbit

NASA Engineers Propose Combining a Rail Gun and a Scramjet to Fire Spacecraft Into Orbit
By Rena Marie Pacella Posted 12.17.2010 at 10:59 am

(pic) An Artist's Rendition Of The Scramjet Each space-shuttle launch costs $450 million. The rail gun/scramjet will take more than twice that to develop, but each flight would cost much less. Graham Murdoch

In April, President Obama urged NASA to come up with, among other things, a less expensive method than conventional rocketry for launching spacecraft. By September, the agency’s engineers floated a plan that would save millions of dollars in propellant, improve astronaut safety, and allow for more frequent flights. All it will take is two miles of train track, an airplane that can fly at 10 times the speed of sound, and a jolt of electricity big enough to light a small town.

The system calls for a two-mile- long rail gun that will launch a scramjet, which will then fly to 200,000 feet. The scramjet will then fire a payload into orbit and return to Earth. The process is more complex than a rocket launch, but engineers say it’s also more flexible. With it, NASA could orbit a 10,000-pound satellite one day and send a manned ship toward the moon the next, on a fraction of the propellant used by today’s rockets.

It may sound too awesome to ever be a reality. But unlike other rocket-less plans for space entry, each relevant technology is advanced enough that tests could take place in 10 years, says Stan Starr, a physicist at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center. NASA’s scramjets have hit Mach 10 for 12 seconds; last spring, Boeing’s X-51 scramjet did Mach 5 for a record 200 seconds. Rail guns are coming along too. The Navy is testing an electromagnetic launch system to replace the hydraulics that catapult fighter jets from aircraft carriers. “We have all the ingredients,” says Paul Bartolotta, a NASA aerospace engineer working on the project. “Now we just have to figure out how to bake the cake.”

<snip>

[FogerRox]

1. The Navy funds Polywell fusion

They like it because it can replace fission nukes in carriers and subs. We like it, because it can replace every coal plant on earth, Mars in 35 days and Saturn in 76 days.

2-3 1200MW plants on a carrier means you have enough electricty for 1000MW-2000MW beam weapons for defense of the carrier.

[greenman3610]

2. got anything more on that?

[bananas]

4. Back in May 2009, Nebel said they'd know in 1.5-2 years

Don't know how close to that schedule they are.
Also, commercial viability is different than military viability.
For example, naval fission reactors are not commercially viable, but that's irrelevant when building warships.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/05/dr-richard-nebel-we-will-know-if-iec.html

May 12, 2009
Dr Richard Nebel: We Will Know if IEC Fusion Will Work Within 24 Months
This site has an interview of Dr Richard Nebel who is leading the IEC/Bussard Fusion project.

Dr. Nebel commented: I believe we will know the answer for the Polywell (commercial nuclear fusion viability) in ~ 1.5-2 years. I haven't looked at MSimons design, but I know he has a lot of good ideas. We'll probably take a closer look at D-D reactors over the next 2 years.

From the Interview: The project that we hope to have out within the next six years will probably be a demo, which won't have the attendant secondary equipment necessary for electricity generation. Hopefully the demo will demonstrate everything that is needed to put a full-scale working plant into commercial production. So if the concept works we could have a commercial plant operating as early as 2020.

18-24 months : Verification if this approach is commercially viable
6 years: a full-scale demo of IEC fusion
By 2020: A first commercial IEC Fusion plant, with an estimated cost of 2-5 cents per kilowatt hour.

We've looked at the side reaction < 11B-4He -> 14N + n, 11B + p -> 11C+n, etc) that will produce neutrons,> and it is down 8 orders of magnitude from the P-B11 reaction. The reason for this is that the alpha particles are not well confined and leave the system very rapidly. The alpha-B11 reaction is the dominant side reaction. Note: This was a computational analysis.

[bananas]

3. Youtube video of the launch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euLsg_viWW0
via http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?t=1108