Cannon Could be Used to Shoot Supplies into Space

Terry Olaes

Terry Olaes

I Used to be the [H] News Guy
Joined
Nov 27, 2006
Messages
4,646
A physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has devised a way that could cut the cost of transporting supplies to a space station from $5000 per pound to just $250 per pound. His solution: blast the stuff into space with a cannon. Hey, it worked with Jules Verne!

Just don’t ever expect a ride in the thing: The gun produces 5,000 Gs, so it’s only for fuel tanks and ruggedized satellites. “A person shot out of it would probably get compressed to half their size,” Hunter says. “It’d be over real quick.”
Click to expand...
 
Cool. All the good ideas about getting stuff into space should involve earth-based propulsion to cut down on the weight needed to be carried by the ship/payload in terms of fuel/engine, etc.

The ship in Avatar is pushed by a laser from Earth.
 
Someone thinks shooting fuel tanks at 5000g is a good idea? Ruggedized satellites that can handle 5000g? Stop joking around and be serious.
 
niconx said:
Someone thinks shooting fuel tanks at 5000g is a good idea? Ruggedized satellites that can handle 5000g? Stop joking around and be serious.
Click to expand...

This guy is serious. But i'm with you on can anything handle that?
 
Shockey said:
This guy is serious. But i'm with you on can anything handle that?
Click to expand...

cell/honeycomb style fuel tanks?

With deadened fuels? <--the kind of explosives used in nuclear bombs, so they would detonate without authorization, even if they were dropped from a high altitude.
 
Everyday household objects experience thousands of 'g's every time they impact a hard floor.

And why the hell would fuel tanks be a problem? You think they're just gonna decide to start using nitroglycerin or something? Just because it is combustible doesn't make it unstable.
 
Sounds great.

Scientists have envisioned using electromagnet-based cannon launchers on the Moon for decades. It would be great if some sort of cannon launcher is possible on Earth.
 
There's nothing wrong with the idea in theory, but I'm curious how (and whether) he worked out all the engineering issues. If it works, it will be brilliant - if it works. Unfortunately, it's hard to draw any kind of intelligent conclusion without a more scholarly article detailing the proposed design.
 
So... What happens to the stuff they launch that doesn't quite make it into space. Can they accurately predict where it will land?
 
That is an engineering nightmare alone. The length of tube that would have to be suspended and kept straight during a firing is something I can't begin to comprehend in terms of a weight/buoyancy issues.
 
By the way, I'm thinking thruster propellent could be made up of a dense, inert gas.

What about using this as a replacement for the first stage of a rocket?
 
sweeper240 said:
THIS IS NOT NEW!

sorry for shouting
Click to expand...

Yep, buyt people have already ignored my Project HARP reference, and Gerald Bull's research in this area.

I'm sure other people have researched in this area, but Canada's Project HARP actually did test it... with a really big gun.
 
Riftsaw said:
So... What happens to the stuff they launch that doesn't quite make it into space. Can they accurately predict where it will land?
Click to expand...

Yes. With incredible accuracy. However, unless there's a failure, it will all "make it".
 
Methadras said:
That is an engineering nightmare alone. The length of tube that would have to be suspended and kept straight during a firing is something I can't begin to comprehend in terms of a weight/buoyancy issues.
Click to expand...
They are planning to use composites that are neutrally buoyant. Watch the Google Talk video, it explains a lot of the issues and solutions of the system. These guys are very serious and have experience from project HARP.
 
Yeah, as has been noted a few times, this isn't a new idea & has actually been considered since WWII (some cannons could already almost make the trip). I've always wondered why such a method wasn't used for nuclear waste actually. Shoot the stuff into the sun. Completely feasible & even economical.

5000g's though rough on a living object, isn't too hard for metal/liquid to take. Wrist watches are made to regularly take 5000g's. Heck, the electronics on military shells are around 15000g's

What is new is the idea to make it water based. That is ingenious in some ways (greatly reduces the material needed to make it & keep it straight as well as built in cooling). In other ways, not so (since the cannon would be constantly be moving, achieving a proper stable orbit would be difficult).
 
Riftsaw said:
So... What happens to the stuff they launch that doesn't quite make it into space. Can they accurately predict where it will land?
Click to expand...

If a launch did fail it would be similar to any other rocket failure, predicting the path of the falling debris should be fairly simple. The risks of a launch failure at sea should be less than a conventional land-launched rocket.

Zoomer said:
What about using this as a replacement for the first stage of a rocket?
Click to expand...

That's exactly what they're envisioning. Watch the video.
 
Nemesis999 said:
Everyday household objects experience thousands of 'g's every time they impact a hard floor.

And why the hell would fuel tanks be a problem? You think they're just gonna decide to start using nitroglycerin or something? Just because it is combustible doesn't make it unstable.
Click to expand...

I think the technical name for some of the concern would be "The Squish Factor":)
 
ashmedai said:
There's nothing wrong with the idea in theory, but I'm curious how (and whether) he worked out all the engineering issues. If it works, it will be brilliant - if it works. Unfortunately, it's hard to draw any kind of intelligent conclusion without a more scholarly article detailing the proposed design.
Click to expand...

I'm on a mission right now and I command YOU to help!!! Gathering together all the farts in the world and compressing them into a superfuel to launch Perez Hilton into space it's not gonna be easy!!!
 
It would be great to be able to launch all kinds of waste (regular landfill waste and the toxic nuke shit) on a trajectory toward the sun and then fuhgeddabout it.
 
My major issue with the design is their plan to use hydrogen as the propellant gas. Why not use something effectively inert like Nitrogen, which won't cause an underwater Hindenburg, and is still incredibly available.
 
RickyJ said:
My major issue with the design is their plan to use hydrogen as the propellant gas. Why not use something effectively inert like Nitrogen, which won't cause an underwater Hindenburg, and is still incredibly available.
Click to expand...

They essentially heat up the hydrogen to 2400 ºC, which is past its autoignition temperature. So the hydrogen is essentially the propellant in a controlled explosion. That's why nitrogen can not be used. Nitrogen doesn't burn.
 
Enduring_Warrior said:
I'm on a mission right now and I command YOU to help!!! Gathering together all the farts in the world and compressing them into a superfuel to launch Perez Hilton into space it's not gonna be easy!!!
Click to expand...

I could swear that the Geneva Conventions banned the weaponization of confusion.
 
RickyJ said:
My major issue with the design is their plan to use hydrogen as the propellant gas. Why not use something effectively inert like Nitrogen, which won't cause an underwater Hindenburg, and is still incredibly available.
Click to expand...

Hydrogen and helium are the lowest molecular weight working fluids, and thus can achieve the higher velocities and efficiencies than any other working fluid. Helium requires higher operating temperatures which would wear out gun barrels quickly; therefore, hydrogen is a better choice.
 
I always wondered why they didn't just sink a big tube into the ground, cap it off with a big plate that can freely slide the length of the tube, attach the current space shuttle fist stage rockets to the tube so that they vent below the movable plate, put the space shuttle on the plate and bring the shuttle up to escape velocity before it even technically leaves the ground. Then it only has to carry enough fuel to maintain escape velocity and maneuver in space.

It would be as gentle as current takeoff, so people could handle the acceleration better than they could if it were more of a traditional cannon. It would also make everything reusable(hopefully) and cheaper.

Like any other invention, I'd always assumed that it had already been considered by minds greater than mine and subsequently rejected for some reason.
 
Mayson said:
I always wondered why they didn't just sink a big tube into the ground, cap it off with a big plate that can freely slide the length of the tube, attach the current space shuttle fist stage rockets to the tube so that they vent below the movable plate, put the space shuttle on the plate and bring the shuttle up to escape velocity before it even technically leaves the ground. Then it only has to carry enough fuel to maintain escape velocity and maneuver in space.

It would be as gentle as current takeoff, so people could handle the acceleration better than they could if it were more of a traditional cannon. It would also make everything reusable(hopefully) and cheaper.

Like any other invention, I'd always assumed that it had already been considered by minds greater than mine and subsequently rejected for some reason.
Click to expand...

You should work for NASA...
 
I did not see any* reason in the article why* this has to be in the water. Yes the position at the equator helps, but does not have to be in the water no?
 
Here's what it looks like with a human...

3917443_std.jpg
 
mdameron said:
It would be great to be able to launch all kinds of waste (regular landfill waste and the toxic nuke shit) on a trajectory toward the sun and then fuhgeddabout it.
Click to expand...

At a cost of $250/lb that would cost the average American $500,000 per year.
 
ProfessorKaos64 said:
I did not see any* reason in the article why* this has to be in the water. Yes the position at the equator helps, but does not have to be in the water no?
Click to expand...

Because the mobility, ease of loading, and ease of orbit selection put it above and beyond land based devices.
 
ProfessorKaos64 said:
You should work for NASA...
Click to expand...


I would if they asked me since it's, in "theory", my dream job. My computer engineering degree isn't exactly being put to good use changing diapers and getting pooped on. It's not that I don't love it, but it doesn't exactly pay the best.
 
i like the better idea of building an electromagnet rail run that runs up the side of a tall mountain.... that way the acceleration and g forces can be controlled. even to the point where people could go for the ride.
 
Nemesis999 said:
At a cost of $250/lb that would cost the average American $500,000 per year.
Click to expand...

It's a brand new tech. I'm not saying each house needs one of these... just one big one that starts working on emptying landfills and nuclear waste. Then we get rid of the biggest negative to nuclear power!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top