Space and Science BS Thread

Wasn't this the plot of an H.G. Wells novel?

 

Shot the moon in the eye this way once.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeLjzlFgiEE

 

I'm sorry. The book is, From the Earth to the Moon by Jules Verne.

 

SN 8 static fire 2 now!!

 

Bridenstine says he's out on Jan 20 by choice.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/10/tech/nasa-administrator-biden-jim-bridenstine-scn/index.html

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_HARP

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Babylon

A lot of research on re-entry vehicles was done under HARP and then the work I mentioned started at Project Babylon. One of the main reasons this hasn't progressed is because it's not man-safe but also because, let's face it, rockets are sexier. It would take major trailblazing to build one of these and figure out ballistics on a multicharged, low G, gun but it's completely plausible.

 

SN8 Static Fire scrubbed

 

Thanks.

Bridenstine was in the right place at the right time for Crewed Dragon for sure.

It’ll be interesting to see what the new administration, of which the head was part of the same administration that killed the Shuttle and gave the go to Commercial Crew, will go with funding and other project decisions.

 

I feel like a large, ramped, Gauss cannon used to slingshot payloads to space would be super amazeballs!

 

(deleted bad math). just remember that orbital velocity is 26km/h. A 50bg velocity is 1km/s. Take barrel length / velocity needed for your km/s acceleration.

 

Actually at low earth orbit it's only about 7 kilometres per second. I get what you're saying though. That's why stepped charges and an obscenely long tube or track is required. It's completely possible. Single charge 16" guns only 100 feet long can push over 200 km altitude with the projectile still well into the double digit Mach numbers in 1960s testing. Scale up to a 36" tube over 1-2 km with several boost charges and you could have something. You don't even need total velocity from the barrel, just enough velocity near apogee and a solid fuel correction to obtain orbit.

Again, it's all possible but no one wants to do it because it would take a whole new program that's never really been done before to achieve. The final results though could solve a lot of the problems with launches involving small payloads that could be made shock insensitive. So much less waste both in material and energy.

Like I said, it's just a really cool idea that sadly had its day and was never developed because rockets were sexier and man rated. A "space gun" would never be low enough g for the human body.

 

Comet Atlas in Orion. The link has skymaps going to 11/16.

https://spaceweather.com/

 

https://twitter.com/JimBridenstine/status/1326262588175380481?s=20

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1326286313058787328?s=20

Crewed Dragon certified. I wonder how long it’ll take to get to 135 missions? Will it be retired by Starship before it reaches that benchmark? Inquiring minds want to know

 

Might be a cheaper solution to a space elevator, especially to get the heavier components to space to build a space dock/shipbuilding station or send the heavier moon base components up to orbit.

 

Other reason is that you’re stuck firing in to a single orbital inclination, and changing that once you’re in orbit is fairly mass-expensive.

 

Or just have multiple "guns"?

 

For a constellation like starlink I can certainly understand a “gun” setup. I just imagine it’s a hard capital and R&D investment to justify to limit your capabilities.

 

True.

I'm thinking more about a scifi scenario where we're really starting to build a large, permanent moon base or shipyard.

 

Don't get my hopes up like that, man.

 

A man can dream.