I assume so. Or maybe I'm only operating under a false assumption from my study's sample size. I should probably expand my research.
Everyone knows that the source of g-forces is the g-spot. The more often you stimulate the g-spot, the more g-forces you'll be subjected to.
Attach the mobile nuclear reactor backpack to that suit, add some angelic wings to radiate away the heat and you're good to go for long distance flights.
there was talk of using lasers to ignite the air at the barrel of a railgun, or sending a preshot through to prevent that effect, much like using an object to break the surface tension of water before hitting can mitigate some of the impact. It'll be entertaining to see what happens when they finally test the EM drive in space, assuming it works it'll put holes in a lot of our presumptions.
I really, really, realllly hope it works. "Time to dig up those moldy fact books again! Remember to bring your red markers!" As for the railgun, I always favored designs that ascend way high to thinner parts of atmosphere though those are probably going to have to wait until a century or more. They cost bollocks to build and we don't even have near the level of tech. It would be quite a difficult engineering feat to significantly reduce the gas pressure in a linear line for miles. Even then it would have to be one fricking long launch tube to allow human passengers though getting the ship to orbit and then shuttling the crew in would still be a hell of a lot better than anything we now have.
"Huh...the damn thing works. FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU...." *Begins rampaging through the Physic's Department smashing all of his awards with an axe*
That's the dilemma with physicists. You really, really always hope that stuff goes against predictions because that means you're getting closer. On the other hand if the theory you're testing is one that you built your career upon for the past 40 years.. ouch! Thankfully it's never up to any one guy. Even if that guy with his career thesis on the line had a moral dilemma the rest won't have one. It's not theism we're talking about after all. It's the scientific method. If there's any hope for any of us ever getting closer to truth, it is it.
We already have one. It's called science. Atheists and theists are all free to chip in, the only requirement is that they adhere to scientific method. If you don't adhere to it you will not be punished, only ignored over time. It's great because science doesn't tell you what kind of hat you must wear or how many people you can sleep with. It also doesn't judge people who like sheeps.