Got a tip for Noah?
SEND IT!
(Guaranteed Confidential)
Subscribe

Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Bomb Squad
Cammo Green
Chem-Bio
Cloak and Dagger
Comms
Cops and Robbers
Data Diving
Dissent Tech
Drones
Eat My Dust
Eye on China
FCS Watch
FOS Files
Gadgets and Gear
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
Info War
Iraq Diary
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Net-Centric
Nukes
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Politricks
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Space
Strategery
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
War Update
You can run...

See all Archives
Related Links
News and Intel
Military.com News
Aviation Week
Natl Defense Mag
Strategy Page
Global Security Newswire
Soldiers for the Truth
Security News
Defense Review
Fed Comp Week

Security Sources
GlobalSecurity.Org
Fed Am Sci
CSIS
Ctr for Defense Info
Defense & Natl Interest
Instit for Sci & Intl Secy
Secrecy News
POGO
Cryptome
The Memory Hole
Natl Security Archive

Geeks and Mad Scientists
Slashdot
Wired News
Security Focus
The Register
Gizmodo
Geek Press
Robots.Net
Cosmic Log
Space Daily
New Scientist
TechCentralStation
Engadget
Space.Com
Technology Review
Gyre
Near Near Future
Fed Dev Blog

Bloggers and Buddies
Phil Carter
Global Guerillas
Jeffrey Lewis
Milblogging
OPFOR
Laura Rozen
Larisa Alexandrovna
Juan Cole
Ryan Singel
Josh Marshall
Cursor
Boing Boing
InstaPundit
Winds of Change
Tapped
TalkLeft
Brad DeLong
Mountain Runner
Gene Healy
Clive Thompson
Greg Djerejian
Jeff Quinton
Workbench
Electrolite
Jim Henley
War in Context
Kathryn Cramer
Wash Park Prophet
Blogs of War
Tom Shachtman

Official Dispatches
DARPA
AF Research Lab
Marine War Lab
Soldier Systems Ctr
Naval Research
Army Research Lab
UK Def Sci Lab
NASA News
DoJ Cybercrime

Military Network
Military Benefits
Veteran Employment
GI Bill Express
Personnel Locator
Free ASVAB
The Few
Fred's Place
Army Insider
Navy Insider
Air Force Insider
Marine Corps Insider
Coast Guard Insider



Edited by Noah Shachtman | Contact

Giant Slingshot: New Way to Space?

All space projects get into orbit pretty much the same way – by burning lots of rocket fuel, a spaceship powers itself past the sky. But what if there was a different approach? What if we could throw something so hard, it would wind up in space? At NASA's behest, Ed Schmidt and Mark Bundy of the Army Research Lab are looking at ways of firing projectiles into orbit.

slingatron2.JPGThe notion has a very long pedigree. Back in 1687 when Isaac Newton first came up with the theory of gravity he also introduced the concept of an orbital cannon which could fire a cannonball so fast that it would never come down. The first serious attempt to shoot into space was the High Altitude Research Program (HARP)
carried out in the US in the 60’s (not to be confused with HAARP High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program so beloved of the tinfoil hat brigade). HARP used a modified 16-inch naval gun to loft projectiles to the incredible altitude of 112 miles before being cancelled in 1967.

The ARL study looks at more sophisticated approaches than your basic cannon, including a blast wave accelerator, and electro-magnetic rail gun, and an EM coil gun. But the wildest idea may be the Slingatron: a giant, hypervelocity, rapid-fire slingshot. The machine would spin a projectile faster and faster through a spiral-shaped tube, building up increasing amounts of centripetal force along the way – just like a discus-thrower, spinning himself around before a toss, or like a latter-day King David, winding up his weapon before he whacks Goliath.

Schmidt and Bundy are cautiously positive about Slingatron and the other launch concepts:

- Achieving an 8 km/s muzzle velocity did not violate any laws of physics

- All had serious engineering and materials issues

- Significant research is required

- Facilitization costs would be high

- All are high risk

So it’s a big project which will take some development, but the benefits would be phenomenal. If we can spend $7 billion+ on an airborne laser which is frankly unimpressive, why not put a billion into each of these concepts - then use the rest to build whichever looks best?

An orbital launcher would bring the cost of putting a payload into orbit from around $10,000 a pound to a few hundred dollars. (The G-forces are so huge, astronauts still have to go up the hard way). The main problem as far as I can see would be fights breaking out in the queue to use it. [OK, not exactly. But Hambling's on a roll here. Let him go with it. -- ed.]

NASA wants it to send up components of the ISS or future lunar of Mars missions. Send up the pieces and it could all be assembled in Earth orbit before moving on go where no man has gone before. Or they could use it as a first-stage, putting rockets into orbit which could then boost small probes to the rest of the solar system.

HARP.jpgOr it could be used to put up new nano-satellites by the score, at short notice and without the need for scarce and expensive rockets.

But for the Pentagon it could be a candidate for the ideal Global Strike tool: capable delivering a one-ton bunker-busting tungsten supercavitating penetrator at orbital speed. [Not that we're encouraging this sort of thing.] That’s real Shock & Awe, which could arrive anywhere in the world with no warning before bombers could get off the runway. (Anyone remember Saddam Hussein’s Project Babylon Supergun , or the Nazi’s V3 plans?)

Alternatively, an aeroballistic pod could be launched which would break open at high altitude to release a dozen Dominators or similar craft to find and attack precision targets, catching fleeing terrorists in less time than it takes to get a Predator into the area.

Then again, the anti-satellite people might want to have a go too. [Not that we're looking to encourage them, either.] It would make a neat anti-aircraft gun, firing small guided projectiles, and might offer some interesting options for kinetic ballistic missile defense.

Maybe SOCOM might want a look for about instant re-supply anywhere, for when it absolutely, positively has to be there within the hour, regardless of weather conditions?

If you take a look at my book Weapons Grade, you’ll find a chapter with an unusual history of the Space Race. It shows how the space program for both East and West originated with the German military V-2 program, and progressed on the back of post-war ballistic missile programs. The launchers on both sides were modified versions of rockets originally designed to carry warheads. The idea of space travel had been around for years, but it took military interest to make it happen.

We may now again be in a situation where the next major breakthrough in space technology is just waiting for the military to take the lead again.

The possibilities are endless…but, I think I hear Monsieur Verne’s lawyers at the door, something about stealing his idea of going From The Earth To The Moon…

-- David Hambling

UPDATE 05/10/06 12:23PM: Not only is physicist a fan of the Slingatron, but, apparently, Google co-founder Larry Page is, too.

Latest Comments

what if space ship were on a mag level rail system being pushed by that system, and in addition a pulse laser pushing from behind would it make it in to space with out fossil fuels.

Posted by: joseph at December 16, 2006 8:36 AM


20,000 tons for a .4 meter ID barrel (10" thick per ARL) operating at 9 cycles per second is 40,000,000 pounds accelerating from a dead stop to full acceleration to a dead stop every .055 seconds. Bet they have lots of material issues along with bearing issues.

Posted by: Clint Stallard at November 2, 2006 11:49 AM


I remember this one. It didn't work out so
well for me!

Posted by: Wile E Coyote at July 21, 2006 4:07 AM


Would it be possible to save energy in the first few moments of flight by building the launcher at a higher elevation? I know the base elevation in the Rockies is between 4000 and 7000ft, and of course the mountains go up to 14000ft. I know that a very significant fraction of the atmosphere lies below these levels. So why not save energy by not having to shoot through the initial thickest layer with the most drag? If you could also build it at elevation closer to the equator, say, in Mexico (some places there are much higher than anywhere in the continental US) you could also benefit from the rotation of the Earth.

Has anyone considered using a "flying saucer" approach to the payload? The shape would give it aerodynamic lift I presume (not exactly sure how it would work at such high velocities). Manufacturers and project designers would have to adapt to the new dimensions of course. I mean, think of a discus or a frisbee, a spinning disc can go very far with relatively little energy.

Posted by: Zach Young at May 16, 2006 1:17 PM


Responding briefly to Michael Turner: Unfortunately, you need most of the delta-V for circularization within the first orbit (for launches to low Earth orbit) which rules out electric propulsion. You can minimize the delta-V either by launching close to horizontal (which is very costly in air drag) or by launching to a high apogee, much higher than the desired final orbit (which is expensive in initial velocity). Increasing the exit velocity of any kind of "cannon" launcher tends to be very expensive above 8 km/s, both in the actual launcher cost and in the difficulty of protecting the projectile from atmospheric heating on its way up. The result is that John Hunter and most others who have designed space launch guns have ended up with a relatively low gun velocity and a hefty (sometimes 2-stage) circularization motor. With the motor and associated control system, the projectiles get fairly expensive even if mass produced.

(And for those who wonder why the Slingatron is a spiral: it's not just a compact railgun. The whole spiral is mounted on offset pivots and moves in a small circle, accelerating the projectile the way you'd accelerate a marble rolling around inside an upside-down Frisbee. No electromagnetism involved.)

Posted by: Jordin Kare at May 13, 2006 8:15 PM


» View All 36 Comments

» Post a Comment