/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15483567]

Could you build a cannon firing from the surface of the Earth which could propel a projectile into space with sufficient momentum to destroy an LEO satellite? Or would the forces involved like, blow up the gun

[Anonymous No.15483578]

>>15483567
You can, but probably it would last just 1 launch and far more expensive than a rocket.

>projectile with ablative shield
>+12km/s muzzle velocity
>guided

[Anonymous No.15483580]

>>15483567
You can but a jet + missile can already do that soooooo

[Anonymous No.15483644]

>>15483580
Yeah these are cool

[Anonymous No.15483671]

>>15483578
So it'd probably make more sense to just have something in orbit to begin with that could do that. I guess another subsequent question is, if you had like a gun-satellite, it'd probably be more sensible and cost effective to have it be a one-shot thing rather than a platform to fire multiple times? You're spending a fuckload of gas to precisely orient it if it's spinning in 3 directions, prolly makes more sense to just store enough condensed nitrogen or whatever for one shot and then it de-orbits rather than having a fucking reactor or a giant battery on it to be able to compensate and adjust for multiple shots

[Anonymous No.15483683]

>>15483671
>one shot and then it de-orbits
What a waste of mass. Just crash it into the satellite/ICBM you want to destroy

[Anonymous No.15483689]

>>15483567
it would be a waste of energy. the faster an object goes through the atmosphere, the more drag it is, that's why rockets at first go slowly and after they reach outer space they accelerate.
a cannon bullet can't do that

[Anonymous No.15483704]

>>15483671
You probably meant something like "Brilliant Pebbles".
Against satellites it's simpler use things like >>15483644.
Changing orbit and altitude quickly enough requires a lot of energy. And for things that requires high velocity rockets are better because you don't need limit the avionics/shell to a problematic small projectile that can fit in a barrel and can withstand tens thousand of g's.

[Anonymous No.15483733]

>>15483683
Harder to hit if you're driving the entire thing to strike the target versus sending a projectile, no? To take the example of an anti-ICBM satellite, it would have to fucking RIP to reach the target in time starting from zero acceleration, whereas for a gun (even if it blows up the satellite firing it) that projectile will get there way faster by virtue of the lesser mass of the sent slug. Assuming we're dealing with, basically, explosive force, if you figured out a way to propel the same slug with MAGNETIC acceleration then we're thinking about electricity and batteries

[VIRUSES DON'T EXIST No.15483760]

>>15483567
> anime pedo pic

[Anonymous No.15484439]

>>15483567
Along with what other people said, there's another reason why a simple gun/cannon couldn't do what you want.
You know how when snipers shoot, they don't actually point the gun where they're aiming at? Lots of snipers have a log book telling them the air+wind conditions of previous successful shots. Hell, what about shooting a cannon from space down to hit the Earth? Coincidentally, Veritasium did a recent youtube vid on this question. The problem was that simply dropping a rock over an object would mean the object would land far away from the intended target.

Do you get it? Without a guidance system, you'd never hit your target. Air and wind conditions will chaotically disturb any significantly far trajectory whether you're pointing the barrel up into the air, down towards the Earth, or even straight forward - simple as that. A cannon with a guidance system on the cannonball - that might as well be a missile, right?

[Anonymous No.15484453]

>>15483644
Stratosphere missile go BRRRRRRRR