3 ms·

Hypersonic space cannon promises 10 minutes from ground to orbit

18 points by clouddrover 5y ago

blamazon 5y ago
Love that this is basically a huge 'potato gun'.
- egberts1 5y ago
  The most loved part of the most advanced potato gun would be the ultra-sonic “THUMP-WHOOSH——BOOM-BOOM!”
spzb 5y ago
Life imitating Jules Vernes http://www.astronautix.com/j/julesvernemoongun.html http://www.astronautix.com/j/julesvernemoongun.html
L_226 5y ago
I mean, I am all for new launch tech but it currently already only takes ~10 mins from launch to orbit. That orbit just might not be very useful, which is a problem you will basically always have.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
mytailorisrich 5y ago
I expect that the big issue with using a cannon to launch things into space is that the small payload must be resistant to this sort of extreme acceleration.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- spupe 5y ago
  Somehow I'm more skeptical about their claim that electronics can withstand 30,000G than that they can make this launcher work. Very interesting approach anyway.
  - Armisael16 5y ago
    The proximity fuses used in WW2 naval AA guns could handle 20000g and were using vacuum tubes. Electronics are more durable than you give them credit for.
- jqpabc123 5y ago
  Extreme acceleration and extreme heat from extreme velocity in the lower atmosphere. Problems that could be solved but at what cost? The marketing for this is the reduced cost --- which may or may not hold up in practical terms with real satellites that are usually more than a simple projectile. In other words, the cost to engineer and build a satellite capable of withstanding the launch may exceed any savings.
jvanderbot 5y ago
one thing I've never understood about these kinetic launch vehicles is that, if something falls from orbit, it tends to burn up. But if we want to launch it from ground to arrive at orbital altitude with orbital velocity, then we have to launch it faster than orbital velocity and from thicker atmosphere. So, do we cover it in big, aerodynamic heat shields or something?
- techdragon 5y ago
  Yes. All the feasible proposals for ground based kinetic launch have involved significantly high percentages of thermal shield materials. We basically do cover it it big aerodynamic heat shields.
- gvb 5y ago
  > one thing I've never understood about these kinetic launch vehicles is that, if something falls from orbit, it tends to burn up. But if we want to launch it from ground to arrive at orbital altitude with orbital velocity, then we have to launch it faster than orbital velocity and from thicker atmosphere. The kinetic launch vehicles achieve orbital altitude but not orbital velocity. They require a rocket engine to accelerate them to orbital velocity. This is no different from Blue Origin flights where they get to space, but then fall back down to earth (relatively slowly). To achieve "orbital" altitude you need to start with enough kinetic energy to make it to the Karman line (100km) with zero (or more) energy left. The kinetic energy a tthe start of the trip needs to equal the potential (gravitational) energy at 100km (neglecting friction). Gravitational energy is U=mgh so, for 1kg and 100km (g = 9.8m/s^2)... U = 1e3 x 9.8 x 100e3 = 9.8e8 Kinetic energy = 1/2mv^2 so... 9.8e8 = 1/2 x 1e3 x v^2 Solving for v... v = 1,400 m/s = 5.04e3 km/h (3355mph) or roughly mach 5 (if I got all my units right) Launching a projectile at mach 5 will result in a significant amount of heat, but nothing close to the heat from orbital velocity (6.8 to 7.9 km/s => 24,840–28,080 km/h) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed
eqterty43 5y ago
For context, this is fairly old - 40 to 60 years - technology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supergun_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supergun_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Bull https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Bull https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Babylon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Babylon
- Trouble_007 5y ago
  eqterty43, If I may add; Railgun : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun >A railgun is a linear motor device, typically designed as a weapon, that uses electromagnetic force to launch high velocity projectiles.<* Also see; Pentagon to build nuclear micro-reactor to power far-flung-bases : https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2022/04/15/pentagon-to-build-nuclear-microreactor-to-power-far-flung-bases/ https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2022/04/15/... -- Edit: Add; Scramjet : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramjet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramjet
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
sinuhe69 5y ago
What about (low orbit) orbital platforms? Powerful maser can strike almost everything instantly. They can even launch kinetic/chemical warheads faster than a ground launch site. With today automatic LEO transporters, such platforms can be restocked periodically.

18 points by clouddrover 5y ago

blamazon 5y ago

Love that this is basically a huge 'potato gun'.

egberts1 5y ago
The most loved part of the most advanced potato gun would be the ultra-sonic “THUMP-WHOOSH——BOOM-BOOM!”

spzb 5y ago

Life imitating Jules Vernes http://www.astronautix.com/j/julesvernemoongun.html http://www.astronautix.com/j/julesvernemoongun.html

L_226 5y ago

I mean, I am all for new launch tech but it currently already only takes ~10 mins from launch to orbit. That orbit just might not be very useful, which is a problem you will basically always have.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

mytailorisrich 5y ago

I expect that the big issue with using a cannon to launch things into space is that the small payload must be resistant to this sort of extreme acceleration.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
spupe 5y ago
Somehow I'm more skeptical about their claim that electronics can withstand 30,000G than that they can make this launcher work. Very interesting approach anyway.
- Armisael16 5y ago
  The proximity fuses used in WW2 naval AA guns could handle 20000g and were using vacuum tubes. Electronics are more durable than you give them credit for.
jqpabc123 5y ago
Extreme acceleration and extreme heat from extreme velocity in the lower atmosphere. Problems that could be solved but at what cost? The marketing for this is the reduced cost --- which may or may not hold up in practical terms with real satellites that are usually more than a simple projectile. In other words, the cost to engineer and build a satellite capable of withstanding the launch may exceed any savings.

jvanderbot 5y ago

one thing I've never understood about these kinetic launch vehicles is that, if something falls from orbit, it tends to burn up. But if we want to launch it from ground to arrive at orbital altitude with orbital velocity, then we have to launch it faster than orbital velocity and from thicker atmosphere. So, do we cover it in big, aerodynamic heat shields or something?

techdragon 5y ago
Yes. All the feasible proposals for ground based kinetic launch have involved significantly high percentages of thermal shield materials. We basically do cover it it big aerodynamic heat shields.
gvb 5y ago
> one thing I've never understood about these kinetic launch vehicles is that, if something falls from orbit, it tends to burn up. But if we want to launch it from ground to arrive at orbital altitude with orbital velocity, then we have to launch it faster than orbital velocity and from thicker atmosphere. The kinetic launch vehicles achieve orbital altitude but not orbital velocity. They require a rocket engine to accelerate them to orbital velocity. This is no different from Blue Origin flights where they get to space, but then fall back down to earth (relatively slowly). To achieve "orbital" altitude you need to start with enough kinetic energy to make it to the Karman line (100km) with zero (or more) energy left. The kinetic energy a tthe start of the trip needs to equal the potential (gravitational) energy at 100km (neglecting friction). Gravitational energy is U=mgh so, for 1kg and 100km (g = 9.8m/s^2)... U = 1e3 x 9.8 x 100e3 = 9.8e8 Kinetic energy = 1/2mv^2 so... 9.8e8 = 1/2 x 1e3 x v^2 Solving for v... v = 1,400 m/s = 5.04e3 km/h (3355mph) or roughly mach 5 (if I got all my units right) Launching a projectile at mach 5 will result in a significant amount of heat, but nothing close to the heat from orbital velocity (6.8 to 7.9 km/s => 24,840–28,080 km/h) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed

eqterty43 5y ago

For context, this is fairly old - 40 to 60 years - technology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supergun_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supergun_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Bull https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Bull https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Babylon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Babylon

Trouble_007 5y ago
eqterty43, If I may add; Railgun : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun >A railgun is a linear motor device, typically designed as a weapon, that uses electromagnetic force to launch high velocity projectiles.<* Also see; Pentagon to build nuclear micro-reactor to power far-flung-bases : https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2022/04/15/pentagon-to-build-nuclear-microreactor-to-power-far-flung-bases/ https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2022/04/15/... -- Edit: Add; Scramjet : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramjet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramjet

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

sinuhe69 5y ago

What about (low orbit) orbital platforms? Powerful maser can strike almost everything instantly. They can even launch kinetic/chemical warheads faster than a ground launch site. With today automatic LEO transporters, such platforms can be restocked periodically.