Science Channel show on Gerald Bull tonight (built cannons to launch satellites to orbit)

[bananas]

I think it's on at either 7pm or 10pm, check local schedules for "Spy Wars".
I've mentioned him in the past and a lot of people never heard of him.
Amazing story.

edit to add link: http://science.discovery.com/tv-schedules/series.html?paid=48.15411.130736.40231.x
edited again to fix link.
edited again because not sure of spelling of "Gerald".

[snagglepuss]

1. 60 Minutes did a story about him and Saddam back in the 1990s. They

linked Bull to Saddam's WMD promram. I have always wondered whether 60 Minutes was being fed US propaganda, whether they were seeding the notion that Saddam was danger to the US who needed to be eliminated.

[madrchsod]

3. the Israeli intelligence service killed him....

the gun was forged in england and was never assembled into working order.

[snagglepuss]

4. I didn't know that but the Israelis did the world a favour.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/other/supergun.htm

[JohnyCanuck]

2. A picture of one of Bull's space guns in action and its remains today

This is a picture of one of Gerald Bull's space cannons in action in Barbados back in the 1960s.

Here's the related article:
http://www.astronautix.com/fam/gunnched.htm

Here's what that cannon looks like today.


More pics of the remnants of Gerald Bulls artillery from the 1960s era HARP (High Altitude Research Project) in Barbados can be seen here:http://bajans.com/src.htm

[txlibdem]

5. Cannon to launch things to orbit is unworkable for a number of reasons

A cannon uses an explosive charge to impart kinetic energy to an artillery shell (or this article says to launch a satellite but I'll explain later why that is the worst idea ever). The energy from the explosion causes a huge acceleration of the shell and it has to be built to withstand this blast of energy.

To launch a satellite to orbit would require such a powerful explosion from the cannon that the satellite would have to be so small but built so robustly to withstand the explosive force it would leave precious little space or weight for the actual usable satellite components that you want in orbit. There is a better system than a cannon. That would be a rail gun such as the Navy is probably going to be putting on all its next generation naval vessels, which uses a MagLev type system.

A MagLev launch system can either be configured as a straight line accelerator, which would be basically a scaled-up version of the rail guns on the upcoming Navy ships. The track would have to be pretty long in order to get a payload up to orbital speed (11 m/s or 11,000 mph) while still keeping the G forces within Human tolerances. The other option would be to build a two-mile loop on which the payload circles round and round, slowly building up speed with each loop until escape velocity is achieved, at which time the spacecraft is funneled to a straight track at the proper angle to reach orbit.

I envision a system that is built in a valley with a mountain up which the "launch" track (the straight portion) is built, with the loop taking up the valley. I wrote a post a while back about this very subject; Navy rail guns can get a payload about 1/4th the speed required to get to orbit and uses 30 Megawatts so a scaled-up version of the loop MagLev launch system might not need too much more power than that (the shorter the length of track the higher the power needs to be in order to get the payload up to speed, and the higher the G forces on the payload as it is accelerated). This tells me that a solar power station nearby could supply the power for launching space vehicles and raw materials. The cost to launch (before factoring in the cost of the solar plant) could be between $50 and $100 per pound.

Compare this to how NASA does things now, rockets cost up to $10,000 a pound to orbit and blow up all too frequently. You couldn't devise a more dangerous and wasteful system if you tried.

A MagLev loop launch system would decrease costs and increase safety and reliability. With NASA's budget the cost of this launch system construction is chump change, compared with what they spend on even unmanned missions like a Mars rover, and the operation costs would be similarly tiny compared to NASA's current wasteful methods. I think that NASA's mindset is still stuck in the Apollo days and they cannot move past rockets to get a payload up to orbit.