Space Cannon: Groobles incredible dream

[blairf]

Grobble - if you are serious read, learn and inwardly digest<br /><br />http://www.smallsat.org/proceedings/12/ssc98/3/ssciii6.pdf<br />http://yarchive.net/space/exotic/light_gas_gun.html<br /><br />The company (JVL) and its principals (John Hunter & Harry Cartland) seemed to "disappear" in 1998. Not wanting to stoke the conspiracy theories but I would not be surprised if this ended up a black project. As we speak a light gas gun may be firing away.

 

[grooble]

Thanks, excellent links, i'm reading them now.

 

[spacefire]

does anybody realize the most useful application of this idea?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />shooting down space debris!<br />they've sent small particles as fast as 11km/s.<br />they don't need to send anything that fast to hit a satellite, just time the shot perfectly.<br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[grooble]

Maybe you could hit nuclear missiles. You'd just need a good tracking system.

 

[rogers_buck]

Carefull, the last guy (Canadian->American) who had that dream and got pretty far along was murdered by the Massad. Of course he was getting his funding from one of our allies at the time (Saddam Husein).

 

[crossovermaniac]

Bah! Gerald Bull did more with old WWII 16-inch battleship cannons and gun power than SHARP ever did. You want Jules Vernes cannons heeping payloads to space, just pick up where Bull left off in Project HARP (just don't work for Middle Eastern dictators. That got Bull killed).

 

[north_star_rising]

Grooble, here is a proposal for a "Space Cannon" or as we like to call it, a ground based tube launch system.<br /><br />http://www.international-space-agency.net/ground_based_launch_tube_system_detail.html<br /><br />http://www.international-space-agency.net/ground_based_launch_tube_system_overview.html<br /><br />http://www.international-space-agency.net/igbsls.html

 

[grooble]

How is the ISA's spaceplane program progressing?<br /><br />The ISA needs to get some victories under its belt, not anything as grand as moon landing, more like spaceshipone level acheivements. It'd gain a lot of credibility and attract investors and volunteers that way.<br /><br />The same thing was discussed in the Mars Settlement threads, that the public want to see results, AKA credibility.<br /><br />But anyway, how is the spaceplane / tube launch program? What are the hurdles etc?<br /><br />Grooble<br /><br />

 

[nexium]

Both tube launch and space cannon can get to orbit with a 2nd stage. My guess is neither is supperior to chemical rockets in terms of cost. Neil

 

[crossovermaniac]

Depends on the launch rate just like any reusable launch system. The space cannon is not discarded unlike regular launch vehicles. Most of the cost will just be making a cannon. I believe the estimate for a launch from the Iraqi supergun was a 200 kg payload at $600 per kilogram.

 

[north_star_rising]

Grooble, A picture for you!<br /><br />Wells Movie "Things To Come" Space Cannon<br /><br />A Big Honking Space Cannon! ;-)<br /><br />

 

[nexium]

When I decide to post, I typically have only one or two sentenses partially perfected. Often I click on a post that has details I may want to comment on when and if I perfect the first few sentances. Occasionally I loose my train of thought completely if I search for the best post to click reply. I appologize if this causes confusion. That said I will now reread the Spacester post to see if I typed anything related to what spaster typed.<br /> I agree a second stage is essentual to achieve low Earth ORBIT with the space canon as the first stage. Building a second stage which will function reliably after a 7000 g jolt will be difficult. For the projectal to reach almost to the moon, we likely need more than 10,000 g and we still need a second stage to land on the moon at less than 6000 miles per hour. Neil

 

[chriscdc]

Will these containers have to be actively picked up by a spaceship or could propulsion mechanicms survive this sort of punishment? <br /><br />The US was experimenting with gun launched satellites (apparently they didn't trust rockets) in the very early stages of the space program.<br />Just think of the electronics required to survive the launch. No free wires at all as they would ge ripped apart. Solid state only. Can silicon survive this?

 

[spd405]

The Germans had a WWII equivalent, called the HPP (High Pressure Pump) gun, which was based at Mimoyeques on the English Channel. They actually used it a few times. It could apparently launch shells that would hit London.<br /><br /><br />Mimoyeques never became operational, luckily.<br /><br />Information on the V3 from the book ‘The Dam Busters’ by Paul Brickhill<br /><br />‘But the greatest nightmare of all was the grotesque underworld being burrowed under a 20-foot thick slab of ferro-concrete near Mimoyecques. Here Hitler was preparing his V3.<br /><br />The muzzles would never appear above the earth: the entire barrel would be sunk in shafts that dived at 50 degrees 500ft into the ground. Hitler was putting fifteen of these guns in at Mimoyecques, five guns, side by side, in each of three shafts. They were smooth-bore barrels, and a huge slow-burning acceleration would fire a 10-inch shell with a long steady acceleration, so there would be no destructive heat and pressure in the barrel. In this way the barrels would not wear out as Big Bertha did in WW1. They were more monstrous in every way than Big Bertha: they fired a bigger shell, could go on firing for a long time and more important than that, they had a rapid rate of fire. Thick armour plate doors in the concrete would slide back when they were ready, and then the nest of nightmare guns would pour out six shells a minute on London, 600 tons on explosives a day. They would keep that up accurately day after day, so that in a fortnight London would receive as much HE as Berlin received during the whole year.’<br /><br />617-squadron dropped 12,000lb Tallboys on it and got a direct hit and 4 near misses which given the way the Tallboy worked were probably more effective – needless to say the complex was never used and it was a terrific waste of effort and manpower.<br /><br />When Hitler learned his 20ft thick concrete shells were no use he ordered the concrete on other bunkers and pens to be increased but it did no good

 

[gunsandrockets]

"Bah! Gerald Bull did more with old WWII 16-inch battleship cannons and gun power than SHARP ever did. "<br /><br />I am as impressed as you obviously are by the HARP guns, but you are incorrect. Muzzle velocity using conventional gun technology is limited by the velocity of the gas itself, you can't get much more than 7,000 fps muzzle velocity that way. The SHARP gun on the other hand produced muzzle velocities more than twice as high.<br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/articles/abroject.htm <br /><br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/sharp.htm

 

[gunsandrockets]

"It's possible. A major problem is the incredible acceleration and what it would do to the second stage's rocket engines and other systems. That's why I wanted to be sure you understood that a second stage is needed: IMO that's as big a problem as the gun itself."<br /><br />Not a problem. Rocket assisted projectiles are common artillery rounds used by the US Army today.<br /><br />"Of course, the other major problem is air resistance. It's a really really big drag; basically you cannot leave the muzzle fast enough without burning up in seconds."<br /><br />Also not a problem. High speed reentry vehicles are common ICBM warhead technology. <br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[gunsandrockets]

"AFAIK the real issue with a space gun is figuring out what payloads can actually be fired given the stresses of launch (or should i say fire)."<br /><br />The answer is obvious.<br /><br />http://yarchive.net/space/exotic/light_gas_gun.html<br /><br />From which comes this text...<br /><br />"...As far as access to space, most of what you need in orbit (structural<br />materials, propellants, air, food) can be launched via gun. A few<br />things, like people, computers, and delicate science instruments, need<br />to be launched more gently, but they represent a small fraction of the<br />total cargo."<br /><br />Exactly.<br /><br />

 

[gunsandrockets]

"Hi, my goal is to build a cannon that launches payloads into space so cheaply, that it will revolutionise our space capability. The time line is 20 years, by the end of which i hope to be able to launch dozens of payloads per day which can land on the moon, or more advanced payloads that can travel to mars."<br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/julncher.htm<br /><br />Cannon launched rockets would be a fantastic way to send fuel to an orbital fuel depot.

 

[nexium]

I'm not sure, but I think the air resistance is too high even if you build the gun at the top of Mount Everest. Ablative tiles would ablate before the pay load reached a safe altitude. Neil

 

[mlorrey]

Nah. SHARP materials would allow launching at mach 7 speeds at sea level. Ought to be able to launch at mach 9 at about 10,000 ft.<br /><br />Use the gun for the first stage, scramjet for the second stage, and rocket for the third stage (scramrocket combined cycle engine), and only needing 2/3 of the required delta v for on vehicle propulsion, your mass fraction is significantly lower.<br /><br />Once you build a space elevator from GEO down to LEO, you can launch canisters at Mach 7 straight up to the LEO low end station where they will peak out and be caught.

 

[barrykirk]

Actually, I seem to remember an antisatellite weapon that was supposed to be launched by an F-15. The idea was to use a rocket to intercept a satellite in LEO.<br /><br />All, you have to do is slow down the target a little... drop it's orbit a little.... and air friction will do the rest.<br /><br />Of course any orbit low enough for that isn't going to last forever either.

 

[webtaz99]

That did happen. The F-15 was supposed to reach 80,000 ft, but only made it to around 78,000. It did, however down the target. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[publiusr]

Gerald Bull (sell-out or no) was a great inventor. If we don't support space efforts, I wouldn't be surprised if Rocket advocates go rogue if ignored.

 

[hcm1955]

Is there any information available on what ever happen the Jules Verne Launcher Company ?

 

[nexium]

I suppose there are a few places on Earth where are kilometer long gun can fire from 20,000 feet, which would likely take the projectal to an altitude of several hundred miles. A second stage would then be necessary to reach orbital speed/either Earth orbit or solar orbit. Perhaps CNT = carbon nano tubes may soon be available to reduce the mass of the kilometer long barrel to a few million tons. Likely only a few degrees from vertical would be allowable. Neil