Nice pfp lol

it's uninspired and might as well be lazy copying.

@@harrywang3098 well, valve hasn't been coming up Aperture Science vids for a VERY FKING LONG TIME. Its better to be an inspiration for others so that others can enjoy. It's not he's stealing all previous asset, just the feel and humor of Aperture Science. I get pissed when someone else just steals people's content but not this.

@@hunde2430 it doesn't matter how long something has been out. if they did nothing to add to the style which they haven't, they only used it to repackage their thing, and it's not a parody, then they didn't do anything in that realm, so it's just copying

@@harrywang3098 is only game, why everybody hef to be mad?

I always thought that the atmosphere was the only problem but now I can see that the track length is another big issue.

Sounds like a fun ride. Maybe Disney will help sponsor it. I mean they already own Star Wars. It's not such a stretch

have the track spit you out at the top of Mt. Himilaya and you're through most of it.

I was here to say that. There is no material that can withstand that temperatures at ground level. This is just fantasy. He think he could stop his raiil rocket by cutting electricity.

@@Aqzaqa Even at top of Mt. Everest with only 33% of the air density, a capsule moving at that speed will cause avalanches and bring the whole structure down

Not to mention the ending. "Subject Zero, we're done here."

9:09 "the cake is not a lie"

"I will burn down your house ... WITH THE LEMONS!"

Or The Lab 2016, game of Valve in Steam.

i think that's intentional

So I wasn't the only one...

"This is subject zero, we're done here"

@@DxBlack lol

yeah the grids, and just the graphics scream those portal 2 adverts from cave johnson. Plus the ending lol.

was looking for this comment

That is exactly what Heinlein proposed in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"

As nice as this sounds, 1000 m/s really isn't that much in orbital terms. From sea level, you need around 10 km/s of acceleration to get into low Earth orbit. Railguns are still a perfectly viable near-future means of getting material into orbit, it's just that it'd probably only work for very light payloads, or on other bodies with lower gravity.

@@mwhito3o292 The real benefit is in not having to carry the fuel to get that first 1000m/s of acceleration. This is just napkin math anyway, if people actually sat down and figured this out for real, I'm sure the system could be tuned to be much faster.

There's a reason that launches are conducted next to the ocean. In the event of a failure...the launched vehicle doesn't fall on a populated area.

@@Sara-L It's a well known fact that nobody actually lives in Wyoming.

GLaDOS is awesome!

Thank you, I'm gonna go reinstall portal

I found the video a bit chaotic

The whole video is inaccurate even the most basic calculation is not correct... 6:00 5100 m/s speed goal. 9G = 9*9.81 = 88.29 m/s2 Time to accel to 5100 ms = 5100/88,29 = 57.76 sec and not 44 sec. Also it is not clear that how you wish to reach the speed at very high alt because a horizontal velocity vector does not help, at all at sea level. Because rockets are slow under 10-20 km alt THEN they start really accelerate. How you wish to build a 10-20 km high sloped magnetic accel? LOL

@@molnibalage83 I too noticed there was no mention of air resistance in this video.

@@molnibalage83 I thought of this idea over a decade ago. Way before I heard of Musk or Hyperloop. Vacuum tunnel in Mt. Everest! Released at 6 miles in to thin atmosphere with a reusable 2nd stage push it the rest of way. I don't remember all the calcs, but I thought it was possible. I even remember telling my roommate and he rolled his eyes. So close to starting SpaceX & Boring. :D

0:11 is that a purple stripper with a floaty tube ... hot

Remember to sell the resulting Jebediah Smoothie for extra funds 😋

Acceleration: 140G

@@sethdrake7551 who needs bones anyways?

Kerbals don't care about Gs

Dude this comment is godly. Send me the link when it's done.

Same

Might want to check out the Aperture science videos from Portal, it's very close to those.

@@Stormcrow_1 solid point, forgot about them, definitely similar.

Nah, it's heavily portal 2 influence. The ending just proves it lol.

Reminds me of the Aperture Science videos from Portal 2.

yes cause billionaires keep billions of dollars in cash that can be spent at any time right

@@achillle Well not to stir the pot but Buffet does. Several sources claim that he keeps around 20bn ready in case he sees a profitable opportunity.

Said 100 people: Nah lol

Capitalism baby!

There are exactly zero people who can pay that out of pocket. People like Musk and Bezos, their wealth is 'on paper', and is tied up in assets (real estate, intellectual property, shares in a company, etc). They likely only have $5-10mil in the bank in cash, or less, because why would you need that much money, and especially when you factor in that having that much cash sitting in a bank acrues interest, which is considered income and can be taxed, so they don't keep it in a bank. Most, if not all wealthy people make purchases with credit cards and only keep enough money in the bank to pay the fees those cards acrue.

"ready to invest? we accept all credit cards but better invest with cold hard cash and crypto" "Subject Zero, we're done here" god i love it

It's not just a function of cost. It's a function of energy. That is the current bottleneck

Great game

"I was able to spot the extremely on-the-nose joke, Mom!"

@@cwtrain "I'm salty Mom! I better announce it to everyone MOM!"....

Lofstrom loop!

Turn the Everest into a space rollercoaster

myth busters can launch a ping pong ball very fast with a vacuum + rail gun = faster for less energy

@millionmanification vacuum (autocorrect) - actually, it turns out, that sustaining a huge volume of vacuum is really expensive, especially since you need to eventually open it at the end, and not slam into the air too hard enough, etc. - it's an interesting idea, but probably not happening any time soon - I personally expect something cheaper to be possible, before this. - mass drivers are great for moon and mars, though - On moon you don't need a tube at all, and it will work extremely well for moving lots of mass, like mined resources, to orbit

Build a launch tunnel on the mountains in Colorado and bury the track when it gets horizontal. Put a rocket on it, but have it ignite as it leaves the track so it's still accelerating in the air (and you still have control of it that way). If you start the track on another mountain, you can take advantage of gravity to aid in acceleration of the payload. Make sure to evacuate the air from the tube as you launch, not before, to avoid backflow. And blow air towards the rocket exhaust as it leaves the tunnel to increase the Reynolds number of the air and reduce drag on the rocket. You should probably use a Reuleaux triangle as the body profile instead of a circle, easier to keep it stable on the electromagnet rails. Maybe fade into a deltoid curve towards the front.

Sorry 8 times the speed not 9. And I hope Patreon proposal was a joke because I like this channel

Probably true which is why rail run tech was abandoned. Funny you mention the SR71 though. As I believe they are working on the SR72 as we speak. But it sounds like it is heavy in prototype faze & supposedly supposed to travel Mach 6 which seems unrealistic. As again it could run into the same problems the last one did with heat. You bring up some good points here though. :)

This. This is why nobody really uses railguns other than the lack of a reliable and practical power source. You'd have to repair/rebuild the rail gun everytime you fire it because it probably melted the rails. Now imagine something like that running the length of Florida

You merging m/s, feet, and fahrenheit in a single comment bugs me for whatever reason. (as does the spelling of "fahrenheit" since I can never get it right the first time).

It would travel in a vacuum. It's essentially an ever-accelerating Hyperloop mechanism, from what I can see. Once it left the tube, it would only be traveling through the atmosphere for a short time before reaching the near vacuum of LEO. The US has successfully flown and controlled Hypersonic aircraft at speeds of >Mach 25. These craft utilize scramjet propulsion technology, which could be employed in this type of an application.

Space elevators don’t really work on earth because the cost is far greater than what it’s worth, especially because if it fell it would wrap around the earth and kill everyone

Silly man, haven't you paid attention in class? Air resistance can obviously be neglected.

Or, for it's ultimate stage of advancement, build an orbital ring

Go look up the temperture rocket engines burn at. The same way rocket engines survive is how a craft can survive at those tempertures especially since it will be a much shorter amount of time.

​@@calebfielding6352 The rocket engine nozzles made of unique composite materials and specifically coated to withstand these temperatures, but it would be a major compromise to build the entire spacecraft like that, in terms of weight, cost, and complexity. The actual key point with rockets, though, is that they have a gradual acceleration and a relatively slow ascend. If you wanted to launch a spaceship into orbit from the ground via a railgun system, the speed necessary to reach orbit while battling air resistance would be so high that you would have to vastly exceed the speeds at which a normal rocket ascends through the atmosphere. So again we are back at the core issue, that the speeds necessary to launch a spaceship from ground into orbit would be so high that air friction would burn up the outer hull before you could ever exit the atmosphere. On top of this, the impact of going from vacuum-tube into atmospheric air resistance, would be like hitting a literal brick wall. So not only would the spaceship have to be extremely heat resistant and durable, it would also have to be built like a tank. The main compromise is extreme weight, which is exactly what you want NOT to increase for spaceflight operations.

@@Real_MisterSir 1. And I think this is the most important point. The purpose of a rail lancher/mag lev/or other wise space gun is to put extreme weight into space. Being able to put dramatically cheaper products into space should be the goal. For instance water is a wonderful radiation shield, but at the current cost of putting stuff into space its more economical to send far more expensive radiation shields into space because they are far lighter. 2. rail launchers are not guns. Their is without a doubt a gradual increase of speed. Granted that increase is far faaster than a rocket engine. 3. Dont launch at sea level. lots of mountains in the U.S. that would dramatically reduce the air pressure at the launch sight. Currently the tallest tower is 2800 feet tall. Wheeler peek in nevada is at 13000 feet above sea level, add 3000 foot tall tower and you have half the air pressure. 4. Whatever you launch needs to be able to move in space so it will have to have a rocket anyway, so in reality any rail launcher launch system will technically be assisting a rocket into space. 5. I dont think vaccuum tube is the way to go, the naval rail gun seemed to have a piece that sacrificed itself during acceleration so that the real projectile could go, so I suspect a far better method than vacuum would be to have some sort of projectile in front of the space ship to create a vortex to make the air current much less problematic. Not sure how to describe it. Simular to the boost a racecar can get in a race when they closely follow another race car, or simular to a car in the highway riding very close to a semi truck 6. Rocket engines work because they are pumping exremely cold materials into them while the rockets burn. Same method can be used on the spaceship. Have extreemly cold liqued pumped into the skin of the ship just before launch, we know from rockets that 3500 celsius can be survived by this method. Heck even make it a one way trip, and use the skin of the ship in whatever project you are building in space. 7. At the end of the day any rail launcher or magneticly propelled system will be unmanned. So the g forces are not the biggest limit to it. We have electronics that can survive 20,000 gs when fired from artillary, so the purpose of this system is to put heavy robust things in space, not to put people into space.

what other channels are there like this?

@@blyat7276 THIS. I MUST KNOW.

Yahhhh they have another company doing something similar with a big circular arm that YEETS projectiles into space from inside a vacuum with close to zero friction!

I was thinking about that caveat the whole way through...

You're right. The linear accelerator is the best launch system from the moon and it can double as a landing strip. It doesn't have to be a railgun. A maglev type would be perfect.

@@halnineooo136 aren't those basically the same thing?

@@Skankhunt-mv4vd No they aren't. The maglev doesn't require the capsule to be in contact with the rails. The capsule generates its own magnetic field from either an internal powerplant or getting power from a low friction connection to an external source. The railgun was developed for the military for it's simplicity. The round is a simple piece of metal and doesn't cost much. It can tolerate extreme heat from friction with the rails. You don't want that for a capsule.

@@halnineooo136 you are very intelligent .

K think it would be best to accelerate it above escape velocity and use rockets to keep it going which shouldnt take as much energy and fuel

Wont work. The payload would just burn up when hitting the atmosphere. And getting it to angle upwards would require a gigantic tower several kilometers high.

Yeah, nearly the entirety of this concept track would have to be in a vacuum for it to be remotely possible; pretty fuckin difficult to make a 200km track a near-100% vacuum and sustain it. This idea is fun, but rapidly reusable rockets are just a way more realistic and cheaper concept for cheap spaceflight than this.

@its zack Rockets will be expensive, reusability reduces it but still. And to be fair at this point making space elevator would be easier.

@@ImieNazwiskoOK space elevator? I call dibs on being the first space elevator operator (or lift attendant for you Brits). I like working in the service industry. I made a lot of extra income from tips waiting tables. I can only imagine that space elevator tips are going to be out of this world!

@@Zacharysharkhazard There's a concept called launch loop where the tracks raise like an elevated track!

@@makisekurisu4674 Let me know when you figure out the engineering to build a building that's 100 kilometers high. It's not the whole way out of the atmosphere, but about the ballpark where this railgun launch track would have to exit at to have any sort of a shot at not destroying the launch vehicle, and anything in it. It's where the "edge of space" is usually defined, also known as the Kármán Line.

I do like dat

Minerals minded on the moon could be launched back to earth to be sold for an extremely cheap cost. Commercialising the moon could be possible because of this technology.

"The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Heinlein explores this idea quite a bit (It's also a damn fine book).

I mean Master Chief kinda did that in Halo 2

Trouble is we can't get our EMAILS to work which is launching of AirForce plaines from new carriers, they do work but only for about 200 launches which is inadequate for combat, the whole idea is to use it for combat. Besides,you need the track to be pointed skywards, not horizontal, do one on NTP nuclear rockets .

You need to launch to the East, to take advantage of the velocity of the Earth's surface (~460 m/s at the equator) as it spins on its axis. By going West you need to add 2x this speed to "escape velocity" to reach orbit.

Can a laser make stuff move tho 🤔 thought they only burned and destroyed stuff edit serious question that I'm going to look into cuz now I'm curious

@@buildtime78years9 ther is a plan to use solarsail probe and shoot lasers to it

@@buildtime78years9 lasers currently do not push, lasers convey energy. Energy will be used to move things. Kinetic lasers have not currently been developed yet but there are currently projects to arm tanks with prototype heavy armaments that do simulate heavy-light. I don't know much about what exactly it means, but it's promising. Back to what you said, lasers do not move stuff. We need to do more experiments on handling and compressing what "light" consists of first

It hasn't worked correctly and probably never will because of the almost unstoppable tumbling of the projectile rocket on exit of the vacuum.

My Hypothesis would be, that there would be very big structural challenge in keeping a Rocket sized Craft on that track at Mach 33. You would need a very strong structure to keep that Craft on the Track. Though there also would be the problem with getting anything through the atmosphere after launch without burning up. I suppose launching somthing in that fashion could provide some velocity, but not a significant amount.

@@muetzenclown3255 What if the payload is smaller and there's some kind of catcher in orbit. Might be good to send some stuff astronouts needed

not possible, the faster you go the more G's it takes to turn (because you are changing direction)

Using a circular accelerator with the track on the outer wall would eliminate the centrifugal force from trying to pull the vessel off the track. As for the atmospheric pressure, well ALL railgun concepts would have to overcome that problem. Unless you built the open end of the railgun up the side of Mount Everest where the atmosphere is thinner. You would also have to create a vacuum within the entire length of the accelerator or the projectile would burn up once it was moving fast enough.

i just plugged some numbers into a spin gravity calculator.. and once youre up to speed, even a ring with a radius of 100km would have almost 53 g's of centrifugal acceleration squishing you against your seat 😭 1000 km, 5.3 g's. but if you built it around the equator, it'd be a very comfy .83 g's, opposite the earth's gravity so youd'd experience .17 g :)

The circular track idea would actually be a better design because you have a track of "infinite length" in a very small area. Acceleration in any respect is a problem, but the centrifugal (moving away from the centre) force only becomes an issue if it's sustained. Humans are able to sustain a higher G rating vertically than any other direction, so technically we could sustain a 5G environment for a slightly longer period of time as long as "down" is "outward" (i.e. everyone's heads are pointing toward the centre of the loop) The issue is shunting the sled from the loop into a launch track. The sudden change in direction would be felt by everyone on board, and might be pretty rough on them. Add to that you want to accelerate everyone at a slightly higher rate for the short last phase up into the air, and it would definitely not be the most pleasant way to get into space.

This would not work because we can't build something strong enough to sustain the centrifugal force that would be experienced by a several ton craft moving at 10 times the speed of sound. Even if you could build something strong enough to tether the craft, you'd need nanosecond precise timing to release the tether at exactly the moment when the velocity of the craft is aligned with the tangent exit track. If you were off by even a fraction of a second the craft would crash into the structure obliterating the entire thing and sending several tons of debris hurtling outward at 10 times the speed of sound.

@@Swiggityswagger You're right about that, I saw that thunderfoot video recently. It would take less precise timing than spinlauch (still obscenely dangerous), as you no longer need a release trigger just a track switch like a train. But then there's problems with stopping the supersonic sled the craft is moving on ... just problems all around with this idea.

No he don't, I think the majority of us love it like that. You shouldn't tell people what they have to do. Cause it's not because it doesn't please you that it won't please others like me. You could have made it a suggestion at least, not an order like you did.. What did you create to criticize like that ? It's real hard to get to his point so cut the closed eyes recommendations and try to do that yourself first. Only then you'll have the right to openly criticize. Thanks

@Liace159 oh I see, you in fact haven't done anything like this video, and simply made some fortnite videos over a year ago. So once again, get off your high horse pal.

@@battleoid2411 I did something at least, I tried. And no there are not only fortnite videos big guy. I work now more than full time so don't have much time for videos anymore. Just doing something else. Also, I tried to demonstrate that you could use the conditional tense but I don't think you are old enough to understand apparently.. No high horses here, just a little demonstration of humility and there we are. Have a great day, won't respond again, thx.

I get where you're coming from but it would be more relevant if we had a constant stream of content like Aperture Science, then someone basically copying them would be cringey and not fun. But since Valve basically doesn't release any content, or if it does it happens about as rare as a rail gun space launcher- the appeal of many people to this style is scratched and also gives fun vibes- even tho it's unoriginal.

But this is for GUNS. They have WAY higher Projectile Speeds. Also the projectiles are litteraly touching the Rail. If you make it Rocket-Size Big, You could use magnets for acceleration, and also for levitation -> No contact at all -> no wear ;) Practically like a transrapid but with a longer track.