Discussion
Was just thinking ( randomly ) about the Iraqi supergun thing, and that gun the Germans has in WWII that could fire shells about 40 miles.
Why has no one made a gun that could fire a paypoad into space? Most of what goes up is satellites etc, surely they could be packaged in such a way as to withstand the force.
And with modern precision explosives and materials, wouldn't it be possible to calculate just the right amount of force to get a payload in near weightless orbit.
One energy advantage would be that you woundln't need to carry the weight of all that fuel up with the payplaod, god knows how much a rocket needed to carry up a 1ton payload weighs with all of the fuel.
Come to think of it the same mechanism would work for sending missles around the world, surely? Just fire them up to zero gavity let the earths spin do the work, then fire them back down.
Why has no one made a gun that could fire a paypoad into space? Most of what goes up is satellites etc, surely they could be packaged in such a way as to withstand the force.
And with modern precision explosives and materials, wouldn't it be possible to calculate just the right amount of force to get a payload in near weightless orbit.
One energy advantage would be that you woundln't need to carry the weight of all that fuel up with the payplaod, god knows how much a rocket needed to carry up a 1ton payload weighs with all of the fuel.
Come to think of it the same mechanism would work for sending missles around the world, surely? Just fire them up to zero gavity let the earths spin do the work, then fire them back down.
nervous said:
we did it already, theyre called 'rockets'. if you do a search, google might have a couple of things on them.
But rockets are crap, they often blow up on take off ( well the Arianne ones do ) and they use so much fuel because you have to carry alot of fuel up with you, fuel carrying fuel as it were.
I thought it was a good idea myself.
timmy30 said:Blimey, have you been reading Jules Verne or something?
Why has no one made a gun that could fire a paypoad into space?
Seriously though, it is impractical. The initial thrust necessary to carry the object into space would be enormous and the strength necessary for the barrel would probably be in excess of modern materials. There's also be no real advantage over rockets either.
The reason that big artillery is still used is that it is cheaper and simpler for short-ish range and also the ballistic trajectory is an advantage (for raining death down on your foes).
Ballistic trajectories are not really something you want to achieve when trying to put something into orbit.
>> Edited by JonRB on Thursday 2nd March 15:46
Gerard Bull's Iraqi supergun, originally designed to fire payloads (satellites) into space but probably used for firing weapons at Israel. Bull was assasinated in 1990 over this.
www.astronautix.com/lvs/babongun.htm
>> Edited by FourWheelDrift on Thursday 2nd March 15:47
www.astronautix.com/lvs/babongun.htm
>> Edited by FourWheelDrift on Thursday 2nd March 15:47
FourWheelDrift said:
Gerald Bull's Iraqi supergun, originally designed to fire satelittes into space.
www.astronautix.com/lvs/babongun.htm
"Nine tonnes of special supergun propellant could fire a 600 kg projectile over a range of 1,000 kilometres, or a 2,000 kg rocket-assisted projectile. The 2,000 kg projectile would place a net payload of about 200 kg into orbit at a cost of $ 600 per kg. "
Some of the development research that went into the 'Star Wars' and 'Son of Star Wars' projects might make interesting reading too, with relation to this topic. Scientists did experiment with the idea of being able to shoot a concentrated beam of energy towards any global target, erradicating the need for ground-launched missiles and even limiting the need for localised defence facilities. This was in addition to the networking of all existing localised defenses via the sat system.
In the end the project as a whole was marred by many things including political arguments, technological dithering, relunctance to share information, moral implications and arguments, and the not inconsiderable estimated $1Trillion cost. So the project never got very far...or did it?
No, it didn't.
In the end the project as a whole was marred by many things including political arguments, technological dithering, relunctance to share information, moral implications and arguments, and the not inconsiderable estimated $1Trillion cost. So the project never got very far...or did it?
No, it didn't.
Raify said:
A better idea I've heard of, is the space lift (or elevator for our 'Merkin cousins)
All the energy you spend getting something into space, you get back on the way down.
What you need is a satellite orbiting the earth, towing a cable behind it that trails on the ground. When you want to go up, just grab the cable and.... er, hang on while I think this through a bit more...
timmy30 said:And, again, I say "allegedly".
"Nine tonnes of special supergun propellant could fire a 600 kg projectile over a range of 1,000 kilometres, or a 2,000 kg rocket-assisted projectile. The 2,000 kg projectile would place a net payload of about 200 kg into orbit at a cost of $ 600 per kg. "
Is anyone naif enough to believe that they ever had any intentions of trying to put anything into space, even as an anti-satellite weapon?
This was long-range artillery, nothing more.
Raify said:
A better idea I've heard of, is the space lift (or elevator for our 'Merkin cousins)
All the energy you spend getting something into space, you get back on the way down.
I've just been reading about this concept over the last week, whilst researching the Worlds Tallest Structures. Some scientific contractor has stated it can be done now for a reasonable sum of money (£10Billion or something like that). Seems an interesting idea to me, but one that I reckon is a long way from fruition.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff