It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Underwater Cannon Used For Shooting Supplies Into Space.

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   
One of the biggest problems with getting stuff into space, is the enormous amount of fuel it takes. Just getting off of the planet is usually an ordeal.

So why jet ourselves into orbit to deliver supplies? Why not build an underwater cannon, that shoots stuff into space?

Nah, that would never work....

Oh wait.

A Cannon for Shooting Supplies into Space



John Hunter wants to shoot stuff into space with a 3,600-foot gun. And he’s dead serious—he’s done the math. 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.

Source Material.

You know, usually I have something to say about the articles that I post. But honestly, I dont know what to think about this. I mean, will it work?

What do you think, fellow ATS'ers?




posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Looks cool sounds cool, overall pretty cool.







[edit on 15-1-2010 by colloredbrothers]



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   
i think we should build a big tower and float # up to space.

2nd line.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by InertiaZero
One of the biggest problems with getting stuff into space, is the enormous amount of fuel it takes. Just getting off of the planet is usually an ordeal.

So why jet ourselves into orbit to deliver supplies? Why not build an underwater cannon, that shoots stuff into space?

Nah, that would never work....

Oh wait.

A Cannon for Shooting Supplies into Space




Yes, it might work. In the 1970's Canadian Gerald Bull (spell?) designed a cannon that could toss a shell hundreds of miles. He was warned by Isreal not to work for Iraq who wanted to hire him. Shortly after that he wound up dead. It's an open secret that the Mossad was behind it.

An electro-magnetic cannon could be built that would be able to put a satalite in orbit. The satalite would have to be rugged enough to survive the launch. Considering we built antiaircraft proximitry shell in WW-2, we should be able to build something tough enough today. (as always forgive spelling)
John Hunter wants to shoot stuff into space with a 3,600-foot gun. And he’s dead serious—he’s done the math. 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.

Source Material.

You know, usually I have something to say about the articles that I post. But honestly, I dont know what to think about this. I mean, will it work?

What do you think, fellow ATS'ers?



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Hmmm.......looks quite interesting. Wondering if it may be possible to shoot people into space in the same way they shoot the supplies. I mean, why not? Kim Jong Ill for instance



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Elethiel
 


You know, Russians used to stab you, burn you, and then put your ashes into a cannon and fire you off.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Elethiel
 


article says 5,000 g's
so no humans....

This is the coolest water gun I have ever seen, looks like it would work to me. Hopefully they'll get funding.

InertiaZero your threads have inspired me as of late!



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Looks interesting, can't see why it wont work - and it would look damn cool!

Could also double up as an ICBM launcher! - Because a major method of detection is the heat signature, I suppose this wouldn't have one, or not a big one anyway.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Signals
reply to post by Elethiel
 


article says 5,000 g's
so no humans....

This is the coolest water gun I have ever seen, looks like it would work to me. Hopefully they'll get funding.

InertiaZero your threads have inspired me as of late!


Well, nobody said they had to live....

I see the practical use, but lets say a large transport of items is sent up, and something goes wrong. The conversation would be like this:

"Dave, whats the status on our orbital supply?"

"Uhhh...Captain, its actually still in the ocean"

"THAT DAMN UNDER WATER GUN!! I told you it was insane!! Get me the Mountain-top slingshot people on the phone!"

You see, when put in practical conversation, it seems a little silly



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 08:27 AM
link   
several things spring to mind about that 'gun' barrel wear, projectile wear, orbit insertion, cost of building the gun, ( which would make it more than stated as regards cost per launch pound) Still, no pollution from rocket exhaust. Oh wait, electromagnetic, sorry, no wear! um, still cost a lot to build it though.



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 08:50 AM
link   
This sounds like an amazing idea. But I have to wonder if such a machine would inadvertently cause earthquakes or tsunamis?



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Would it go into orbit, or just one direction?

How they going to catch something travelling that fast



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by n00bUK
 


Catch it? Do you mean the payload once it's up in orbit?

I reckon they could just launch it with just the right amount of force to put it on the correct orbit... And then it would be the same as docking with any other object in orbit, they will have the 2 vehicles in similar orbits and adjust the payloads orbit gradually... After 3 or 4 orbits then they would be matched close enough to perform a docking.

Of course it is much much harder than that! Lots and lots of maths and crossed fingers - but I can't see it being much harder that the way they do it now with rocket launches.



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   
I don't know if everyone here is old enough to have had one of those, plastic water rocket/toys that you put on a small pump and then let it go.
Wow they would go out of site!

I also saw a docu, a while back they were dropping a high pressure ball/ vessel, into the great depths, then remotely closing the lid and bringing it up. Containing the pressure of the depths. It was about 3 feet in diameter, by memory.

I saw the pressures involved/released, when the popped the cork, it pushed the very large boat side ways, and can imagine that if done with a little more science and thought that it could easily be able to reach space using only water pressure as a fuel....
But hey I'm just a silly ole country boy, but I gots me sum big plans sumday hee haaw



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by InertiaZero
Well, nobody said they had to live....


What happened to immersion in fluid? And exposure time is critical, because the inertia of flesh would prevent instant crushing. Remember the acceleration stops at the end of the barrel. So immersion and pushing them through fast enough would do the trick.



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 12:22 PM
link   
The main problems that I can see with this prospect are
A) The stability of the whole structure while it was firing, unless they anchored it to the sea floor
B) the possible disruption to sea life due to the recoil of the cannon
and C) If a 'round' decided to explode in the chamber, lots of things would be potentially screwed.

Neat idea though.



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by InertiaZero
One of the biggest problems with getting stuff into space, is the enormous amount of fuel it takes. Just getting off of the planet is usually an ordeal.

So why jet ourselves into orbit to deliver supplies? Why not build an underwater cannon, that shoots stuff into space?

Nah, that would never work....

Oh wait.


Some people may believe it would never work, but NASA and the U.S. military already know "space guns" have the capability of putting a payload in orbit. They have done plenty of research on it since the 1960s.

The United States had been developing "space guns" for a few decades now for military purposes, based on NASA technology from the 1960s in which NASA did small-scale testing of space gun technologies (as a proof-of-concept).

The U.S. government's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory built a gun called "SHARP" which stood for "Super High Altitude Research Project" that further proved the concept of lauching a payload into orbit. Not only did SHARP prove a gun could launch an object into orbit, but it even showed that escape velocities were possible:

Project SHARP
The "Jules Verne Gun"
SHARP - Wikipedia



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by TokiTheGreat
 


yeah,i agree

you think whales didn't like the sonar noise?
They won't care after we deafen them with this puppy!
dolphins with little white canes and stuff.
won't someone think of the mammals!

not to mention you know they use it for evil at least once.like not giving it quite enough thrust and opps!



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 06:06 PM
link   
I would guess the motion of the ocean would throw off their trajectory a bit?



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by TokiTheGreat
The main problems that I can see with this prospect are
A) The stability of the whole structure while it was firing, unless they anchored it to the sea floor


The time it takes for the projectile to exit is so small that inertia prevents any significant movement of the gun.


B) the possible disruption to sea life due to the recoil of the cannon


If there is any, perhaps it would be seawater displacement in centimeter or millimeter range. The algae in one area may get moved to another area. Yes, huge catastrophe there.


C) If a 'round' decided to explode in the chamber, lots of things would be potentially screwed.


Absolutely no screening would be made of cargo prior to deployment. Wouldn't want to scare away customers.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join