/sci/ - Science & Math

Mossad assassinated Gerald.

>>15381763
>But surely by now there's a way we could make it work.
lol based and dreamer pilled

>>15381767
the US funds Mossad

>>15381763
>11km/s
they figured this out hundreds of years ago. you need acceleration the entire way

Wave motion


https://www.spacedventures.com/company/wave-motion-launch-corporation/overview

>>15381763
> And in the 60's they said the forces would damage sensitive components in a satellite
some of the components got even smaller, even more fragile

>>15381763
>>15381881
Yeah. Also the velocity slows down without a constant force. Therefore, the muzzle velocity has to be much greater than the escape velocity of the projectile, putting enormous stress on the projectile.

So much so, that it is virtually impossible to fire a hollow or non-homogeneous projectile, because the force of firing it creates such unpredictable internal forces that the projectile simply disintegrates.

>>15381763
Jews murdered Gerald Bull.

>>15381881
it already fires high enough to get into orbit though. And they could add boosters on the thing being shot so the boosters would take over when the velocity slows down too much
>>15381893
it doesn't have to only send satellites though. It could send components or other things that aren't damaged by acceleration. But even then, the sensitive components could be shot into space in parts and then astronauts already in space could assemble them in space

>>15381896
the US murdered millions of people. Like 95% of foreign aid to israel goes to their military anyway which would be passed on to mossad. The US would have known if there was a reason for him being assassinated by government

>>15381955
Deflection. The jews murdered Gerald Bull.

>>15381957
He worked for Saddam Hussien. Apparently Saddam wanted him to get it to launch missles
https://owlcation.com/humanities/Who-Killed-the-Supergun-Project
Also the US kills their own presidents and all kinds of people. Maybe the jews did kill Bull but I don't see how that's important in any way to what the thread is about

>>15381968
Jews murdered Gerald Bull.
>b-but Americans kill people too
Jews murdered Gerald Bull.
>but he was working with a country jews don't like
Jews murdered Gerald Bull.

>>15381978
what's your point though ? Nobody cares

>>15381986
Jews murdered Gerald Bull.
>what's your point?
Jews murdered Gerald Bull.

>>15381990
nobody cares though. You're just shitting up the thread trying to be Edgy Mc4chan

>>15381207

>>15381886
I emailed these guys once and asked if they had plans to hire any new people since they'd just raised like $5m and they basically told me to get fucked. I'm pretty sure they're just an IP buyout bait company. There's another company in Washington that's nominally doing ram accelerator shit but thy also seem like buyout bait.

>>15382035
is this space flight though ? It's more about the physics of launching something in an unconventional way

>>15381763

>Apparently the forces from the rapid acceleration are way too high to have humans sent into space like this.

So ... send fleshies up there with oldschool rockets, construction material, fuel and water/air are shot up there with a ram accelerator.

>>15381949
all that initial velocity has to be built up inside the shaft/barrel. that's a lot of g's for anything that's not bolted down solid material.
fuel would spontaneously combust inside those boosters

>>15381763
that's probably how we could move a lot of "cargo" from moon to earth and moon to mars and mars to moon, using kinetic guns, the "cargo" still has to have some maneuverability but this will make it so cheap that actually exploitation of resources in asteroids could be viable, send the mining machinery and an SMR , i mean, it's inevitable isn't it? imagine mining asteroids, processing on the moon or mars, and just sending the processed minerals back to earth, it would liberate the earth from so much nasty shit, but i guess this would be hundreds of years in the future, probably by 2300 this will be human reality if we don't fuck up the transition

>>15381763
jews literally killed the creator of the program. Scum of the earth

>>15381955
i think you're vastly overstating the competency of govt agencies

>>15381986
i care because the idea of a meter wide space gun that shoots big shells really far sounds cool.
Treacherous glow in the dark subhuman scum, murdering people who create cool things, should themselves be killed.

>>15381763
>But surely by now there's a way we could make it work
yeah, use a rocket instead
>>15381767
Sure
But that was decades after HARP was cancelled because it didn't really work (unlike Atlas and Titan)

>>15381763
>launch velocity 2100m/s
You need another 6000m/s (plus losses) for orbital velocity. Gun velocities are to small for earth orbital velocity.

>>15381763
try it, then see what happens

>>15381986
his point is that jews murdered the guy who was trying to invent the thing that the OP is asking about
if jews are going to kill someone who tries to invent someone and no one gasses them in return, then that thing will never get invented

>>15383934
why can't you own chudjak and have fun like everyone else?

>>15381763
1. firing something at 8000 m/s in atmosphere equals massive air drag, extreme heat.
2. massive acceleration causes death
3. even technology cant handle those kind of accelerations
4. unpredictable orbit from the massive drag. you shoot up but you still need sideways velocity top orbit. unless you aim at the horizon but then you travel through even more air.

solution: you make a long rail gun tunnel that you enter from the ground (ideally mountains) then you accelerate until you exit at 100km plus altitude. problems with this include weather proofing and how to suspend it in the air

>>15381763
>Why was this idea abandoned
because it's retarded

>>15381763
>need massive force for escape velocity
>now you need massive strength to protect the payload from the force
>now you need more massive force to offset the weight of the massive payload

>>15381763
Everyone would assume it's simply a weapon
It could probably work for small, densely built satellites (perhaps similar to starlink satellites), but it would break traditional satellites. They're not made to be hardy, they're made to exist in a free floating, zero pressure environment. Doubtful solar arrays would survive the launch/be able to unfold
>>15384050
>imagine mining asteroids, processing on the moon or mars, and just sending the processed minerals back to earth
There would be so much NIMBYism about launching meteors at earth. They also have to survive entry. A better method would be sending them into orbit around the earth then collected and brought down in pods but they would need to be so heavy to be economical that the heat shielding would need to drastically advance

>>15381763
Use this gun system, or other surface based launchers, to reach a sky hook rotating satellite at around 100,000 feet. Boom, you're in space. No rocket fuel or faggy Elon Muck needed.

>>15384250
other humans can make the same thing, it wasn't like he was the only one allowed to make this thing. Just nobody funds it and that's more about what my question was about, it wasn't about why some guy is dead

>>15385680
if you read the information though they were getting the shells they fired up to low earth orbit heights. They probably came straight down again because they didn't have any sideways speed. And this was 70+ years ago, surely there's something more powerful we could use now

>>15389052
exactly. The problem isn't that it can't get into space, the problem is that nobody's doing anything with the idea. So long as you can get stuff into space then astronauts in space receive things using this method. They don't have to be delicately assembled satellites that this gun is shooting into space. You'd shoot the stuff up there disassembled and people could assemble it in space

>>15390658
...it would be something like this maybe. Where the gun shoots the payload, then a satellite already in low earth orbit intercepts the payload, then astronauts could collect the payload from the satellite later on

bum

>>15385680
^ this
>>15390647
>they were getting the shells they fired up to low earth orbit heights
...but not low-Earth orbit velocity.

>>15392414
but that was in the 1960s. And the shells didn't have any kind of propulsion to take over when the velocity slowed down. And there's been a lot of aerodynamics research etc since then to potentially build something that could go the same high with more lateral speed.

This might work though anyway and would be achievable even with 1960s tech
>>15390770

>>15390770
gravity doesn't work that way retard, the projectile would collide with the satelite and destroy it

>>15393052
so it's going too slow to get high enough but it's also going too fast ?

>>15381763
Watch this to understand why it's never happening.

https://odysee.com/@januszkowalskii1979:e/NASA---Going-Nowhere-Since-1958-(Full-Documentary):4

>>15381949
So it can be used only to delive raw materials like metal ingots?
Then the answer is simple - we don't need metal ingots in space yet.
Anything more complex that piece of metal would smashed by gun acceleration.

>>15393279
Firing something into space requires a huge initial acceleration and an incredibly high speed down near the ground. But as it rises it slows down, so by the time it reaches your target altitude it's going at probably <1km/s. The satellite's going to be orbiting at >7km/s.

>>15382021
>ask question
>receive answer
>"n-nobody cares"
Jews murdered Gerald Bull.

>>15381763
the object just falls down
read a wiki article on orbits or play some kerbal space program and you'll figure out why

>>15393402
this could be a way to have the satellite go a lot slower. Just have a huge net like 1km square. And the satellite it's attached to is much further out in space. And the object is fired with some lateral speed and height should be fairly easy to get it so the object is going almost 0 upwards speed when it reaches outer space. Then when the net catches the object the satellite reels in the net
>>15393457
yeah that's expected though. So you could catch the object when it's at it's highest point

>>15381763
Can someone calculate how much energy the explosion needs to pack in order to shoot a satellite into low orbit, and the optimal angle for it to sustain orbital rotation?

>>15381763
I like the orbital flinger that's being played with. Basically they just created a vacuum chamber, used an electric motor to spin the payload around and build up speed for about 12 hours, and then they let it go in the general skywards direction. It has much less impact than an explosion because of the gradual buildup of momentum and apart from making the initial 'launch pad' the costs are cheap. Of course it also doesn't work for people but it would undercut even SpaceX's rockets for just putting things in orbit

>>15394249
the difference in velocity is too huge, plus that satellite would have had to gain orbital velocity anyways

bunch of sad sacks here. It probably is possible using that catch with a satellite method. Obviously not easy to the speed difference but can't really say it's impossible

If i said i was going to build something which looked like picrel that spun around a rocket until it was going 5000 mi/hr and then it slingshotted it into the air and then engaged boosters like a normal rocket, but way smaller, for the rest of the way then you'l all probably say it would never work. Well here it is working and it's done over a dozen test launches already
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_50TM3OeEw

>>15382153
Maybe they don't want to hire every schizo that emails their general inbox
and looking again at their website, they seem to only have a $1.3M contract with the Navy and a $175k crowdfund, not sure where you're getting the $5M figure from unless it's your ass

>>15381886
They seem to have the only method of acceleration that overcomes the drag and high g problems with this second generation of technology they're promising, but until then they seem to only have a gun that doesn't have a barrel. Neat but better for the military than space launch

>>15381986
I care

>>15381763
>But surely by now there's a way we could make it work.
for humans no, satellites sure.
less ambitious than spinlaunch at least.

>>15381986
stfu retard.

>>15394816
>Well here it is working and it's done over a dozen test launches already
Nowhere close to the speed required.

>>15397325
Rocket equation my dude, any energy they save with a spin launch reduces the fuel required by a expoential amount

>>15397352
>spinning something loaded with rocketfuel at crazy RPM's.

This sounds very exiting anon and not at all unsafe AF.

>>15397352
> reduces the fuel required by a expoential amount
Not really, they claim a "4x fuel savings." Taking a 200 kg payload and assuming a 2.5% nominal payload fraction for orbital rockets this would mean an 8 metric ton total launch mass, so 7800 kg of fuel and structure. If you reduce that by 75% you get 1950kg, giving you a 9.3% payload fraction, which is still bupkis. And you still have to redesign your satellite totally to match the high g load. "Technically feasible" doesn't mean that it's easy to implement in an industry with 50+ years of heritage, and Spinlaunch isn't promising anything disruptive enough IMO to justify making the switch

>>15397421
>And you still have to redesign your satellite totally to match the high g load.
Sure the G load will be high, but as long as it's electronics and not some kind of experimental cargo, I unironically don't see it as a big issue. Its also a smooth acceleration curve not a huge jolt which helps. Just need to tie down the loose wiring

>>15397437
The technical aren't the issue here, I see them as not a big deal either but you're dealing with an industry that has decades of inertia from boomers, they literally view mass savings over functionality as a positive point

Reason this didn't work is simply stated as:

Time-Temperature Superposition Principle

When matter is accelerated very suddenly much like the conditions during an impact (which is essentially what the conditions inside that gun was like) the matter behaves as if it is very brittle and fractures easily. This is why the it didn't amount to anything useful because it would damage objects accelerating that fast because the components inside would have different impact response characteristics due to various reasons like differing densities and interfaces behaving as impedance transition boundaries.

I don't understand the clowns in this thread. Decades ago the Nazis worked on a similar multi-staged super gun at the French coast to shoot grenades towards England. The building site was bombed to ashes by the Brits as soon they heard from it.

Saddam Hussein wanted to shoot grenades filled with deadly nerve gas towards Israel. Or filled with Anthrax or other biological weapons, or even "dirty grenades" full of powdered radioactive metals. Or conventional high explosive grenades. Worse enough. Of course Israel wouldn't like that. You wouldn't like that too if your family is threatened in such a way.

According to several TV documentaries Bull was warned repeatedly to stop his work for Hussein, or else...

Israel clearly acted in self defense.

>>15397864
this could work. Where there would be foam or some other shock absorbing material inside the shell to absorb the initial acceleration force

>>15398199
...another thing. The military has long range hypersonic missiles that travel at about 5km/s and they're full of sensitive electronic components

>>15397352
>Rocket equation my dude,
WOAH really that's a thing? You're really smart.
I meant nowhere close to the speed they themselves intend to operate at. They might get some useful data but it's a worthless proof of concept for anyone else because the only major source of doubt is what's going to happen when scaling up. I don't think anyone had doubts that you could fling something by spinning it. Slings existed since the stone age.
And it's not like they can just decide to operate at half or a quarter speed if full speed doesn't end up working out, because then the rocket/projectile needs to become way more massive.
Video is about testing high g on payloads, which is by far the least concerning aspect of the system. My biggest issue with it is what happens to the rotor when the projectile is released and the centre of mass instantaneously shifts away from the centre of rotation. Not a problem from now but it will be when you're flinging your rockets at a few km/s.

because you don't just need to get high up, you need horizontal speed to gain orbital speed
and even if you could, I think a small portion of stuff could actually withstand the effects and the masses themselves would be pointlessly small

>>15398509
We had disposable rockets for 50 years it will take time before go from disposable to reusable centrifuges

>>15400737
kek

scrump

>>15400737
I don't think it will take very long. NASA is quite capable and I think if we gave them only several hundred billion dollars they might be able to do a study on how much it would cost and it would probably only take them a few decades

>>15381763
>>15381893
>>15381949
there could be a combination. you use a very mild version of a "gun", i.e. you propel a regular rocket a few hundred meters by first giving it a mild push.

>>15398199

Though once you could do the initial acceleration not by explosive charge but by magnets ... think railgun / ram accelerator hybrid. The Gs would likely still be brutal for a fleshie (but fleshies are not that heavy, send them by rockets) but could be srsly useful for equipment, fuel, etc.

>>15402811
i always wondered if its worth bouncing a rocket at the very point of liftoff, never bothered to look at how much fuel gets used at the very first few seconds where the rocket sits on the pad

>>15403040
it would be funny if the best solution is a literal slingshot. it's smooth and safe to the projective as a concept.

it only needs the right materials (if they exist).

>>15400496
Just increase your velocity to very close to escape and "fall" back down to Earth using 1-2 km/sec of delta v at the top and bottom to circularize your orbit
Shooting at very high velocities in atmosphere is another challenge but you'd still get a rocket with better mass fraction than even just a second stage alone