N-prize

Status
Not open for further replies.

ctdonath

Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
3,618
Location
Cumming GA
From n-prize.com:
The N-Prize is a cash prize of £9, 999.99 (nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety-nine pounds and ninety-nine pence, sterling), which will be awarded to the first person or group to put into orbit, around the Earth, a satellite with a mass of between 9.99 and 19.99 grams, and to prove that it has completed at least 9 orbits. The cost of the launch (but not ground facilities) must fall within a budget of £999.99.
Awright, that allows a bullet 155-308 grains and a rifle under $2K - well within the experience of this board's participants, but straining our understanding of trajectory, velocity, and external ballistics.
What would it take to launch one into orbit?
 
The problem any bullet (in the traditional sense of the word) is going to have is lack of controlled and constant thrust. You could theoretically have enough thrust from one pulse to attain a velocity to escape Earth's gravity but I'm thinking that is going to be one hell of a charge(i.e. probably over budget) and at that velocity friction could be detrimental to our payload.

The main problem of course is gravity will be acting upon our satellite from the moment the initial burst of energy is released to propell the projectile. We essentially have to frontload enough energy to not only attain a velocity that is sufficient to break from Earth's gravity but also to have that velocity once we reach a specified distance. In otherwords if out of the barrel we are at escape velocity, we won't be at that velocity by the time it reaches an orbital distance so that means we really need a departing velocity higher than escape velocity(that charge just got bigger).

And on top of Earth's gravity which is a constant actor from the moment the projectile departs we also have atmospheric considerations as that projectile will be losing inertia to the friction generated by it's ascent through the atmosphere. And aside from the inertia loss we are also probably running the risk of having high temperatures cause by said friction and will likely put the integrity of our projectile at risk(which depending on deformities mid-flight could worsen our aerodynamics and increase the friction thus leading us into a vicious circle.

Not saying this is the most efficient approach, but given the shoestring budget, and just some quick brainstorming, I would think using a Weather Balloon to do most of the heavy lifting through "thick" atmospheric conditions, followed by a rocket propelled projectile at high altitude would be the most likely candidate to win this prize given the budget. I'm sure there are a lot of other problems with my idea, but escaping Earth ain't an easy problem to solve. Especially on an afternoon Internet Forum. :cool:
 
How about firing straight up (whatever that means in orbital physics) to exceed 400km? What ballistics are we looking at there? Others note that the "hang time" should be enough for 9 orbits.
 
Fair disclosure: this thread was prompted by this thread. There's some useful insight over there; just seemed like one particular solution category lent itself to this board (ergo, I'd like to pass on discussion of balloons or other non-projectile solutions).
 
Going straight up won't do it because there's then nothing to make you orbit. It's the angle of escape that allows you to "fall" toward Earth once you reach max height and begin to orbit.
 
I'd like to pass on discussion of balloons or other non-projectile solutions

Given that we are on a gun related forum I can understand your viewpoint. But given the historical data on the subject, using a "gun" to launch something into orbit for under 2,000 dollars just ain't going to happen.

I can't think of any explosives in the required amounts that will cost less than 2K. Add on to that the materials, craftsmanship, and engineering costs of the "cannon" and I think you are just economically precluded from pursuing this endeavor down this route... alone.

Hence I go back to the Weather Balloon idea. A Weather Balloon itself is not going to acheive the results desired either. A weather balloon to get pass the "thicker" lower atmosphere that will then serve as a launching pad for a secondary mechanism(onboard rifle/cannon?) could be a way to do this within the budget contraints of the contest.

At that point we no longer need to talk about what it will take to build a ground based projectile system to achieve orbital velocity, we've just changed the scope of the required projectile launcher to be what sort of "gun" could make orbital velocities from high altitude (where atmospheric considerations and travel distance have been reduced for a relatively "cheap" cost). A slightly different beast of a problem to solve.

Oh and if budget were not a consideration, I don't think I would use a traditionally chemical powered gun to launch the projectiles. I'd be looking at Magnetic Rail guns like the Navy is experimenting with. But then those research projects are running into the Millions of dollars worth of operating costs.
 
From a rough reading, it would seem the cost of the rifle means nothing (it would fall under the "launch system")... the round has to cost under $2,0000....

Maybe unobtanium in a .50 BMG necked to .22? :D
 
Unless the projectile itself has some propulsion to adjust the orbit once it got to orbital altitude, wouldn't the orbit intersect the atmosphere making the first orbit also the last?
 
I'm not entirely sure and can't find it online but I KNOW I saw something on the history channel about a guy during the 40s-70s (sometime back in the day) who was facinated with using a cannon to launch a projectile into space. I'm fairly certain he never succeeded and his endeavor actually killed him...I wish I had specifics...or A specific lol.

Any help as to what I'm vaguely remembering would likely be useful. GL!
 
What goes up....

Just a quick comment. A gun-launch could get you to orbital altitudes and orbital speed. However, as someone pointed out, it won't get you into orbit - you need to "turn the corner" at some point, or your trajectory will bring you right back to earth, regardless of the angle you fire at. (This is something that was pointed out to me recently on the N-Prize group....you learn something new every day!)

On the other hand, a gun could give you orbital velocity if fired from the top of a rocket's trajectory....
 
There's no way you're going to get a chemically propelled inert projectile to escape velocity, it's just not going to happen. You have two ways of doing it: Rocket-propelled projectile, or electromagnetic propulsion (i.e. rail gun).

Rocket propelled projectiles have thus far been the only successful way to launch something into orbit, via constant (and relatively slow) acceleration. A railgun could get a projectile to escape velocity, but it would take one hell of a railgun with current technology. Right now the stuff that the Navy is testing has an expected maximum velocity of ~13,000mph at the muzzle, which is roughly half escape velocity. I'm sure it's possible to rig up a one-shot discharge, and get a tiny projectile up to 26,000 or even 30,000 miles per hour, but you'd vaporize/fuse any known rail substance with that one shot.

So basically, unless you want to build an expensive railgun and have to replace the rails after every test shot to get anywhere near escape velocity, your only bet is rocket propulsion.


If you wanted to go the railgun route, though, definitely take the rig up in a plane or fire it from the top of a tall mountain, at least 10,000 feet. If you could get up to 20,000, even better, far less drag to slow down the bullet, so you'll need less initial velocity (not to mention the bullet will be subjected to far less friction heating, and thus possible vaporization itself)
 
Ah, ya naysayers.

What would it take?
It's just a ballistics problem: fire a .408 CheyTac how fast and in which direction?

We'll solve the projectile & barrel materials problem after we know what the parameters are.
 
I'm not entirely sure and can't find it online but I KNOW I saw something on the history channel about a guy during the 40s-70s (sometime back in the day) who was facinated with using a cannon to launch a projectile into space. I'm fairly certain he never succeeded and his endeavor actually killed him...I wish I had specifics...or A specific lol.
ZombieHunter, look up, a ways back in the thread. I gave you a link. Gerald Bull

It wasn't a what that killed him, it was a who. The sub-orbital cannon he was building for Saddam Hussain would have been capable of reaching either Israel or Iran, so take your pick who.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top