• A Cannon for Shooting Supplies into Space
    141 replies, posted
[QUOTE=GunFox;19654048]Well this is dumb. We have the technology to build a rail gun to do this. We've had the design since before we had even perfected rail guns. And a rail gun would cost pennies per pound to shoot if supplied with power from a nuclear energy source. Maintaining it would cost a fraction of what it would for a hydrogen cannon.[/QUOTE] NUCLEAR ENERGY!?!? You mean like the bomb???
this reminds me of that futurama episode where they explain how we shot a huge ball of garbage in space, and it was coming back...
A space gun? boy I hope we get attacked by aliens, then we could have some real fun
Admittedly building it inland would require a lot of land to be moved. But building it on the ocean has it's own problems: Rust, pirates, hurricanes, physical errors that must be manually fixed, big waves, ships, you name it. The ocean isn't exactly an ideal place for a giant floating cannon which needs to be precisely aimed; that is unless you want your space mail to go into the sun instead of up to the ISS.
[QUOTE=Nitrowing;19649933]Take it easy, no need to bite my head off. Regarding my suggestion of putting underground, I meant that we put it out in the desert or somewhere near one of the space centers. [i]Do you know what common sense is or what?[/i][/QUOTE] The recoil from a large ballistic system like this is phenomenal - even so phenomenal as to damage the whole system with each shot. Watch videos of rail guns being tested by the US Navy. It makes sense to put something like this underwater.
This could be used as an anti-satellite weapon, just shoot down enemy satellites.
That is a big gun.
It says it wants to shoot "stuff" into space & I don't know why but I totally thought of sandwiches.
words cannot express
Making deliveries to an orbital outpost on a rocket costs $5,000 per pound, but using a space gun would cost just $250 per pound [img]http://cache.kotaku.com/assets/images/kotaku/2008/08/tf2_heavy_update.jpg[/img]
Some space physicists think they can outsmart me. Maybe. *sniff* Maybe.
They launch a baby out of it.
[img]http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk29/linkage_01/kos/coffee_hour/things_to_come_poster.jpg[/img] It begins!
We need a like button
What if we miss and blow up the station?
I'm suprised noones made a "moonshot" pun yet.
[QUOTE=Doug52392;19649528]Well I can see how practical this is. "Hey guys, let's send up some food" "Oops shit, SORRY VERIZON SATELLITE."[/QUOTE] Before [IMG]http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2009/11/26/alg_maps_verizon-att.jpg[/IMG] After [IMG]http://i47.tinypic.com/2jzbsn.png[/IMG] Anyways, I can finally say that my body will be able to be launched into space for my funeral!
Looks suspicously similar to [img]http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/halofanon/images/thumb/4/44/X-121_MAC-Cannon.jpg/180px-X-121_MAC-Cannon.jpg[/img] However the MAC cannon launches tungsten rounds not supplies
Major drawback- things burn up when thrown at high velocity :flame:
Best part is launching something and it doesn't get enough speed. It just comes back down on to some pedestrian. He wakes up and is told he was hit by Astronaut food.
[QUOTE=MachiniOs;19662068]Looks suspicously similar to [img]http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/halofanon/images/thumb/4/44/X-121_MAC-Cannon.jpg/180px-X-121_MAC-Cannon.jpg[/img] However the MAC cannon launches tungsten rounds not supplies[/QUOTE] How does that look anything like the cannon in the article?
[QUOTE=Tac Error;19649391] Iraq tried to do it with their Project Babylon superguns, but then Desert Storm came and the UN destroyed the program.[/QUOTE] Yeah, its too bad we liberated an entire country from a tyrannical dictator. If we had just let Saddam keep Kuwait, we could have space guns with little practical purpose. Desert Storm was entirely justified. Also, I read about this thing in Popular Science. EDIT: [QUOTE=MachiniOs;19662068]Looks suspicously similar to [img]http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/halofanon/images/thumb/4/44/X-121_MAC-Cannon.jpg/180px-X-121_MAC-Cannon.jpg[/img] However the MAC cannon launches tungsten rounds not supplies[/QUOTE] Except that MAC stands for "Magnetic Accelerator Cannon" not "Enormous Hydrogen Powered Gun."
[QUOTE=GunFox;19654048]Well this is dumb. We have the technology to build a rail gun to do this. We've had the design since before we had even perfected rail guns. And a rail gun would cost pennies per pound to shoot if supplied with power from a nuclear energy source. Maintaining it would cost a fraction of what it would for a hydrogen cannon.[/QUOTE] I don't see how. The only thing used up in this is some natural gas. Even the compressed hydrogen is captured and re-used. With a rail gun, you've got maintenance of the rails, the cost of the capacitors and electronics. A whole nuclear power station to build, reactor maintenance costs, uranium fuel costs and probably the worst expenditure will come later, decommissioning costs of the reactor when the gun is going to be replaced. Oh, and all this has to be built on the ocean if you want to get the optimal assist from the Earth's rotation.
[QUOTE=petieng;19662508]I don't see how. The only thing used up in this is some natural gas. Even the compressed hydrogen is captured and re-used. With a rail gun, you've got maintenance of the rails, the cost of the capacitors and electronics. A whole nuclear power station to build, reactor maintenance costs, uranium fuel costs and probably the worst expenditure will come later, decommissioning costs of the reactor when the gun is going to be replaced. Oh, and all this has to be built on the ocean if you want to get the optimal assist from the Earth's rotation.[/QUOTE] Not to mention in the worst case scenario if it needs more 'fuel' they can always obtain hydrogen from the surrounding water (assuming the necessary equipment is built into it).
Reminds me of Jules Verne's "From the Earth to the Moon". [editline]05:19PM[/editline] [QUOTE=sltungle;19662660]Not to mention in the worst case scenario if it needs more 'fuel' they can always obtain hydrogen from the surrounding water (assuming the necessary equipment is built into it).[/QUOTE] That requires a large amount of power, though.
[QUOTE=noctune9;19663145]Reminds me of Jules Verne's "From the Earth to the Moon". [editline]05:19PM[/editline] That requires a large amount of power, though.[/QUOTE] People over-exaggerate how hard it is to perform electrolysis. Sure, it requires a fair bit of energy to do it, but it's nowhere near as high as some people make it out to be. Hell, you can decompose a small amount of water into hydrogen gas and oxygen with a car battery. Of course as you start trying to split apart more and more water the power consumption grows, though. It's not so high that's it's unfeasible in the worst case scenario, though.
I want my space elevators already :frown: But this is kickass, nonetheless.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;19663344]I want my space elevators already :c[/QUOTE] Space Elevators are stupid and impractical. Not to mention extremely dangerous.
A rail gun would be a smarter way to do this, though more expensive to build. A miles-long, curving track would allow a smoother acceleration that wouldn't demolish the payload the way this gun would. Also, as I mentioned before, you still have to design a vehicle that can survive that force and still be able to adjust the orbit in space. There are too many variables to expect to be able to fire a tank of water and have it drift up within a few feet of the ISS. If you're just a couple of feet off your target when the launch is done, that can translate to ten miles once you've caught up to the station. You need that ability to make adjustments after launch, and I can't imagine how all you could build all the propulsion and avionics gear capable of withstanding 5,000 Gs.
Very cool. But could you use it to shoot other stuff?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.