Gigantic Air Gun To Blast Cargo Into Orbit

Hugh Pickens writes: "The New Scientist reports that with a hat tip to Jules Verne's From the Earth to the Moon , physicist John Hunter has outlined the design of a gigantic gun that could slash the cost of putting cargo into orbit. At the Space Investment Summit in Boston last week, Hunter described the design for a 1.1-kilometer-long gun that he says could launch 450-kilogram payloads at 6 kilometers per second. A small rocket engine would then boost the projectile into low-Earth orbit. The gun would cost $500 million to build, says Hunter, but individual launch costs would be lower than current methods. 'We think it's at least a factor of 10 cheaper than anything else,' Hunter says. The gun is based on the SHARP (Super High Altitude Research Project) light gas gun Hunter helped to build in the 1990s while at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in California. With a barrel 47 meters long, it used compressed hydrogen gas to fire projectiles weighing a few kilograms at speeds of up to 3 kilometers per second."

Comments

Pumpkins

[trip11]

The real question on all of our minds though: "How far will it launch a pumpkin?"

Re:Pumpkins

[kryptKnight]

For those who don't know, the OP is referring to pumpkin chunking. It's a competition to see whose machine can throw a pumpkin the farthest. There are separate categories for catapults, trebuchets and cannons, and there are annual competitions and championships all over the world.

Re:Pumpkins

[Beardo the Bearded]

Into orbit. RTFH before posting. ;)

Re:Pumpkins

[MagusSlurpy]

Fuck pumpkins. I'm buying a bunch of capes and then stopping by the animal shelter on my way there!

G-forces ????

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wondering how they plan to address the problem of controlling the G-forces and prevent damages to the cargo.

The cannon idea was tried before ...... not a test single cargo survived the trip (or made it to orbit).

Re:G-forces ????

[Tx]

If you RTA (yes I know, not likely), you'll see that they acknowledge this issue, their intent is to use this for robust cargo only (rocket fuel is given as an example, not e.g. satellites or humans). They also state that ablative heatshields would be necessary to survive atmospheric transit, so wouldn't be a fully reusable vehicle either. Sounds like one for the back burner, as it isn't solving the current launch capability issues.

Re:G-forces ????

[Tumbleweed]

If you RTA (yes I know, not likely), you'll see that they acknowledge this issue, their intent is to use this for robust cargo only (rocket fuel is given as an example, not e.g. satellites or humans)

Send up consumables, for sure. Fuel, water, compressed air, freeze-dried food, etc. Even if just used for that, this is not a bad plan. There's no rule that says you have to use only ONE method to get stuff off-planet.

Is that a gigantic air gun ...

[dijjnn]

Is that a gigantic air gun with a 1km barrel in your classified launch facility, or are you just happy to see me?

Re:Gerald Bull

[Gudeldar]

Bull was killed by Mossad because he was helping Iraq build a "supergun". You make it sound like he was killed because of Project HARP.

Re:Starting to get afordable

[Jamu]

Only if you want them to arrive on orbit as people paste. The G-forces in a cannon launch would be very high.

I'll make a list...

Re:nothing new here

[John Hasler]

> Cargo it seems would have a better chance but any sensitive equipment (like
> 99% of anything used in space) or explosive materials (fuel) wouldn't be able
> to be shot up in a gun.

Nonsense. Guns have been firing projectiles filled with explosives for centuries. The US Army has had shells filled not only with explosives but optics, electronics, and actuators for terminal guidance for dacades. In WWII they had anti-aircraft guns that fired shells with vacuum tube proximity detonators in them. In WWI they used shells with self-winding mechanical timers. Fuel would be easy.

Re:G force.

[John Hasler]

The acceleration is an artillery piece runs to the thousands of Gs. Artillery shells are full of explosives, electronics, and machinery. This gun should be able to handle pretty much all of the consumables and many of the parts and materials needed by the space station.

Re:1670 g

[John Hasler]

Which, given that artillery shells exceed 2000g and are full of explosives, electronics, and machinery, should be easy.

All that matters

[Tablizer]

As a tax-payer, I refuse to fund it unless it makes a cool "FffffummmppPPP" sound.

Re:Gerald Bull

[Anand7]

Bull was killed by Mossad because he was helping Iraq build a "supergun". You make it sound like he was killed because of Project HARP.

Gerald Bull designed his "super gun" to put payloads into orbit. He approached the US government with the idea and they rejected it as a launch method but wanted a weapon. Disgusted and disillusioned (he was apparently treated very poorly) his response was to create a truly powerful weapon. Iraq hired him to build one for them. The Mossad killed him in Belgium, a country that exports arms all over the world. It's important to remember that the US military has done this with a number of inventions. The guy who invented the x-ray laser had wanted to use it for medical purposes; excising tumours etc. The US military classified it and now it's a weapon. Another Canadian invented polymorphic encryption for secure banking and corporate communications...US military classified his work and as far as I know he can't even talk about it with his peers.