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.
Today the organizers of the Google Lunar X Prize announced the final roster of teams competing in a $30 million race to the lunar surface. And much to their surprise, 29 teams have signed on to the mission...The terms of the contest are easy, but succeeding is hard. A private firm has to send a robot to the moon. After it gets there, the bot will travel 980 feet and transmit video, images and data back to the Earth. The prize: $30 million...The Lunar X Prize's time limit expires in 2015.
Light-gas cannons work almost like you’d expect a really, really big gun to work: at one end inside of a long tube a gas, hydrogen, helium or methane, is pressurized to an extreme pressure, 15,000 PSI...Hydrogen is used because of its lightness. Since a projectile can’t go faster than what’s pushing it along inside a cannon, the lighter gas – which can travel quicker – allows for a projectile to be accelerated to incredible speeds, in excess of 13,000 miles per hour (21,000 km/hr)...a system that is capable of launching 2-pound (0.9 kg) payloads into space will be designed. The cost of this cannon, Hunter estimates, will be around $10 million and take two years to get rolling. [The 2lb capability launcher] is actually tailored to a small niche, which is the Cubesat community. It makes sense because we can “G-harden” cubesats...
I don't think the cost of a rocket motor for each 2 lb payload is trivial, and you haven't explained how you'd get it into orbit without the rocket motor (with the gun alone). From your source:
Originally posted by SunSword
Here is the background on how to do it: Hydrogen Gas Cannons Could Launch Payloads To Orbit
Light-gas cannons work almost like you’d expect a really, really big gun to work: at one end inside of a long tube a gas, hydrogen, helium or methane, is pressurized to an extreme pressure, 15,000 PSI...Hydrogen is used because of its lightness. Since a projectile can’t go faster than what’s pushing it along inside a cannon, the lighter gas – which can travel quicker – allows for a projectile to be accelerated to incredible speeds, in excess of 13,000 miles per hour (21,000 km/hr)...a system that is capable of launching 2-pound (0.9 kg) payloads into space will be designed. The cost of this cannon, Hunter estimates, will be around $10 million and take two years to get rolling. [The 2lb capability launcher] is actually tailored to a small niche, which is the Cubesat community. It makes sense because we can “G-harden” cubesats...
Now here is the way to do it. Launch a whole collection of 2 pound payloads. Launch cost is pretty trivial
The Wiki article explains a couple of reasons why you need the rocket motor even if you use the
Critical to getting the payloads into orbit is the use of a single-stage rocket attached to the payload projectile.
I don't see anything in your links saying that the problems mentioned of atmospheric drag and the need to have a rocket motor have acceptable solutions, in fact your source says it still needs a rocket motor.
In the HARP Project a U.S. Navy 16 inch (406 mm) 100 caliber gun (40 m) was used to fire a 180 kilogram slug at 3,600 meters per second, reaching an apogee of 180 kilometers, hence performing a suborbital spaceflight.
However, a space gun has never been successfully used to launch an object into orbit.
Atmospheric drag also makes it more difficult to control the trajectory of any projectile launched, subjects the projectile to extremely high forces, and causes severe energy losses that may not be easily overcome. A space gun with a "gun barrel" reaching above the lower troposphere, where the atmosphere is most densely packed, may mitigate the issue.
A space gun, by itself, is generally not capable of placing objects into stable orbit around the planet, unless the objects are able to perform course corrections after launch.
If acceptable solutions to these fundamental issues could be achieved, a space gun could offer access to space at an unprecedented low cost.
Rocket science is neither simple not easy and nobody has ever demonstrated a space gun can put an object into orbit without a rocket.
See? Very simple. Now I am very aware that simple does not equal easy but this concept is very simple and will work because of its simplicity.
No, we have never put an object into orbit with a space gun alone. I'm not saying it's impossible, only that neither you nor your source has demonstrated a viable concept for doing so.
(1) Building the gas cannon? Simple.
(2) Launching 2 pound payloads? Simple.
(3) Doing Telerobotic Lego-like assembly in orbit? Simple.
Every one of the above steps is scientifically sound (we know the math, the physics, and the chemistry). Every step is solid engineering (we have already done every one of these things in one way or another.
OK, interesting concept, but it has a couple of issues. The "catcher's mitt" will reach a higher orbit every time something leaving Earth slams into it, right? That may not be a fatal flaw if you start out with a low enough orbit and don't fire too many things into it. But if you want the
Originally posted by SunSword
So you see, it IS possible for a gun to be used for a launcher, AND to not to have to require each projectile to carry its own fuel to achieve a stable orbit.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
OK, interesting concept, but it has a couple of issues. The "catcher's mitt" will reach a higher orbit every time something leaving Earth slams into it, right? That may not be a fatal flaw if you start out with a low enough orbit and don't fire too many things into it. But if you want the
Originally posted by SunSword
So you see, it IS possible for a gun to be used for a launcher, AND to not to have to require each projectile to carry its own fuel to achieve a stable orbit.
"catcher's mitt" in a stable orbit it would need a fuel supply to make compensations in it's course for all these things projectiles striking it.
But you didn't address the atmospheric drag issue. Don't you still need a rocket engine to overcome atmospheric friction to get it to the catcher's mitt? And if you think it's possible to overcome atmospheric friction with a space gun, please provide a source since the source you provided said a rocket was needed even with the space gun.
Thanks.