|
Tias posted:Now I want to hear about gigantic gunz. Didn't Saddam Hussein plan for something 'eavy enough to shoot the moon at one point? guns guns guns HEY GAL posted:Mons Meg (1449)
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 07:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 20:13 |
|
|
Is that a horribly formed D in Deutschland? Or is it Teutschland?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 07:51
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Is that a horribly formed D in Deutschland? Or is it Teutschland?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 07:55
|
|
|
TEUTSLAND 
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 07:56
|
|
|
Sometimes people (in Austria) pronounce Deutschland like "Teutschland", if something is a bit too german.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 08:17
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:
Usage of the bow already started to decline in favor to firearms by the beginning of the 18th century. While the mongols dropped the usage of the bow entirely by then, bannermen were required to train it per edict. http://www.manchustudiesgroup.org/2013/03/09/the-solon-way-2012-edition/ Peter's site is a good source of information, and there's always literature references if you're interested. http://www.manchuarchery.org/articles-manchu-archery These arrows are almost like javelins. Huge and heavy. For comparison, an english livery arrow has around 63g, these have close to 100g.  http://www.manchuarchery.org/manchu-war-arrows I'm too lazy and don't have time, but there's some photos of Qing matchlocks on Peter's FB account, see if you can access it. He also has lots of other antiquities like sabers, etc. https://www.facebook.com/dekkerpeter/media_set?set=a.10150091424802087.275156.620262086&type=3
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 09:38
|
|
|
Due to the unique way the British Empire defends freedom and liberal democracy, civilians in Sri Lanka will soon find themselves being tried under military law. Not only that, but they'll be tried by Field General Court Martial rather than by anything more permanent and regulated. Which is exactly how an empire committed to justice and righteousness deals with ethno-religious rioting in its domains. Obviously. God save the King-Emperor. In mildly less depressing news, Louis Barthas's rest billets are in the "Wolves' Ditch" (and it's literally a ditch), and General Cadorna has ordered a halt while he rethinks his strategy for the Italian army. Perhaps they could fight a set-piece battle of some sort near the River Isonzo? I'm sure that will go swimmingly, hahaha.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 10:44
|
|
|
Chamale posted:I think that photo is of a punt gun, though it is a similar weapon. The men, clothing, and architecture certainly look Western and not Chinese. Yes- I just love that picture, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 12:24
|
|
|
Tias posted:TEUTSLAND What with all the sausage and kraut and beer, no kidding.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 13:11
|
|
|
Tias posted:Now I want to hear about gigantic gunz. Didn't Saddam Hussein plan for something 'eavy enough to shoot the moon at one point? Not really to shoot at the moon, but in theory it was supposed to be able to put satellites in low earth orbit. 1 meter in diameter, 150 meters long barrel,  as gently caress.Project Babylon http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/babongun.htm This is a piece of a gun, two sections bolted together - real thing would have 44 sections, so twenty two times bigger than that thing in the picture.  I don't think you can get anything more GUNS GUNS GUNS than this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 13:37
|
|
|
Tias posted:Now I want to hear about gigantic gunz. Didn't Saddam Hussein plan for something 'eavy enough to shoot the moon at one point? Gerald Bull was a Canadian artillery expert that worked on Project HARP, which stood for High Altitude Research Project. The aim of the project was to explore the possibility of using very large guns to shoot objects into space. The project ran from 1961 to 1966. The Project HARP gun was a 16-inch (410 mm) US Navy gun that was modified to a barrel length of 40m. After Project HARP, Bull eventually found himself in the employ of Saddam Hussein, who wanted him to build similar superguns, under the codename Project Babylon. They got as far as "Baby Babylon", which was a prototype that had an range of about 750 km. That wouldn't have been enough to reach Israel from where it was placed. Baby Babylon had a bore of 350 mm and a barrel that was 46 meters long. The next planned gun, Big Babylon, was supposed to have been a true "space gun" - it was larger than both Baby Babylon and the gun that Bull worked with during Project HARP. It's unclear what this gun might have been used for though, because while it most likely would have been able to achieve its goal of hurling satellites into space, that would not have had any direct military applications. This Big Babylon gun would have had a bore of 1 meter and a barrel that was 156 meters long. Bull was assassinated in March 1990, possibly by Mossad, and these works were not advanced nor completed until ultimately the project materials were dismantled and confiscated by UN inspectors after the Gulf War.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 13:50
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:Usage of the bow already started to decline in favor to firearms by the beginning of the 18th century. While the mongols dropped the usage of the bow entirely by then, bannermen were required to train it per edict. Thanks for the links. You touch on an important point, that above and beyond their military purpose, the banner armies served as a means of preserving a distinct Manchu cultural identity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 13:50
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Gerald Bull was a Canadian artillery expert that worked on Project HARP, which stood for High Altitude Research Project. The aim of the project was to explore the possibility of using very large guns to shoot objects into space. The project ran from 1961 to 1966. The Project HARP gun was a 16-inch (410 mm) US Navy gun that was modified to a barrel length of 40m. This began to sound incredibly familiar and I think I've seen the HBO movie about the project.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 14:16
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Mons Meg (1449) Which I have put my upper torso in. Then my wife and I went down the hill a ways and got poo poo-faced on single malt.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 14:19
|
|
|
It's a real shame that Bull was killed, IMHO. The gun based technique could have greatly reduced the cost of spaceflight, and showed much promise. It's darkly ironic that a project cancelled in the US for being insufficiently interesting to the military, was still military enough in the eyes of Mossad to get a man murdered.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 14:23
|
|
|
FYI actual historian sperglords: I am available to do runs to archives in the London area to look at poo poo for you for the next month or so, within reason.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 14:26
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:FYI actual historian sperglords: I am available to do runs to archives in the London area to look at poo poo for you for the next month or so, within reason. No offense, but most professional historians probably don't want to put "Source: A guy I asked on the Internet to look at it for me, no worries he's legit as gently caress" in a footnote.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 14:31
|
|
ArchangeI posted:No offense, but most professional historians probably don't want to put "Source: A guy I asked on the Internet to look at it for me, no worries he's legit as gently caress" in a footnote. There are these things called cameras, but you can also just check to see if something is in an archive to see if it's worth a trip yourself. Ed: But I also meant I could go out and look up service records if a few people wanted me to. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 14:39 on Jun 10, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 14:31
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:FYI actual historian sperglords: I am available to do runs to archives in the London area to look at poo poo for you for the next month or so, within reason. Expanded suggestion: I know there's some mughal and persian archery equipment in one of the big London museums. Would you be willing to take some pics?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 14:40
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:Expanded suggestion: I know there's some mughal and persian archery equipment in one of the big London museums. Would you be willing to take some pics? Sure dude. Do you know where exactly? I know the Wallace collection has some pieces that may be of that description.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 14:41
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:The 19th century Western version would be the punt gun used by commercial waterfowl hunters. That looks less like a gun and more like a propulsion system.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 14:55
|
|
|
Thanks, I'll ask around. Ask for something in return. e: It was indeed the Wallace collection. There's also some in the British museum depot, but you'd need to make an appointment to examine them. Apparently they're quite open to researchers. Power Khan fucked around with this message at 15:20 on Jun 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
Antti posted:This began to sound incredibly familiar and I think I've seen the HBO movie about the project. The one I'm familiar with is the Frederick Forsyth novel about an SAS dude sent to keep Saddam from firing a nuke out of Bull's supergun at Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fist_of_God
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
Fangz posted:It's a real shame that Bull was killed, IMHO. The gun based technique could have greatly reduced the cost of spaceflight, and showed much promise. It's darkly ironic that a project cancelled in the US for being insufficiently interesting to the military, was still military enough in the eyes of Mossad to get a man murdered. True but on the other hand railguns can serve the same purpose and we're making good headway there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 15:18
|
|
|
Fangz posted:It's a real shame that Bull was killed, IMHO. The gun based technique could have greatly reduced the cost of spaceflight, and showed much promise. It's darkly ironic that a project cancelled in the US for being insufficiently interesting to the military, was still military enough in the eyes of Mossad to get a man murdered. No offense, but everything up to and including "you took the good seat on my morning bus fare" is reason enough for Mossad to murder somebody.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
It's physically impossible to shoot something into low-earth orbit using a gun alone, although I suppose you could shoot a rocket to the correct altitude and then use thrust to keep it in orbit, or keep it from escaping Earth's gravity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
Chamale posted:It's physically impossible to shoot something into low-earth orbit using a gun alone, although I suppose you could shoot a rocket to the correct altitude and then use thrust to keep it in orbit, or keep it from escaping Earth's gravity. Citation needed. The material I've read suggests it's very much doable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
Isn't the trajectory you're going to get from firing an unpowered projectile upward always going to come back into the earth's atmosphere, unless it actually exits our SOI and then you're on a solar orbit anyway? That'd be the 'gun alone' part right there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 16:25
|
|
HEY GAL posted:no such thing "Lets see how many barrels we can mount on this fucker!" is the rallying cry of many gunsmiths for artillery and muskets between the 15th and 19th century.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Isn't the trajectory you're going to get from firing an unpowered projectile upward always going to come back into the earth's atmosphere, unless it actually exits our SOI and then you're on a solar orbit anyway? That'd be the 'gun alone' part right there. .... No? The moon exists, and it certainly didn't get there by rocket propulsion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
Fangz posted:.... No? The moon exists, and it certainly didn't get there by rocket propulsion. Lmao okay. Chamale's right by the way, maybe you misunderstood what he was getting at?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Citation needed. The material I've read suggests it's very much doable. Well, what's your definition of "gun" in this case?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
Fangz posted:.... No? The moon exists, and it certainly didn't get there by rocket propulsion. The moon didn't get shot from the earth by a gun either and has the mass that other weirdness is possible. You need a circularization burn period otherwise you get an elliptical orbit intersecting the earth. Once the projectile is out of the influence of drag, the orbit will be such that the ship returns to that relative position and velocity unless it encounters some form of drag or impact, which since there's an earth in the way of that orbit, will lead to a collision.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
A sufficiently strong gun could certainly fire a vehicle into an orbital altitude, and perhaps even to a significant fraction of orbital velocity, but you WILL need further propulsion to circularize the orbit. If you launched to an extremely high orbital altitude, you might not need very much extra Δv, but you are going to need something at the top of your trajectory.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Citation needed. The material I've read suggests it's very much doable. It's a fact of orbital physics. The Wikipedia article on Space Gun describes the problem, and Newton's Cannonball and non-rocket space launch have more information. Basically, an object launched into space at less than escape velocity will have a perigee (low point of trajectory) with a maximum altitude equal to the maximum altitude at which it was being accelerated. So if you shoot something out of a spacegun, even if it reaches space it will either come back down or leave the Earth's orbit. Though a rocket with a Δv of only 600 m/s could get the object to stay in orbit, depending on the space gun in question. Fangz posted:.... No? The moon exists, and it certainly didn't get there by rocket propulsion. New studies indicate it didn't get there by a collision between Earth and another body, either. edit: I see I've been beaten.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Isn't the trajectory you're going to get from firing an unpowered projectile upward always going to come back into the earth's atmosphere, unless it actually exits our SOI and then you're on a solar orbit anyway? That'd be the 'gun alone' part right there. Presumably you wouldn't be shooting straight up, but rather at a sideways angle that would give it enough horizontal velocity to achieve most of a proper orbit. Put some stubby wings on it and it'd be basically an unpowered spaceplane. Still, it'd be supremely difficult to build a useful spacecraft rugged enough to survive the absolutely ridiculous acceleration. To reach low earth orbit with a traditional spacecraft, you need to achieve a total change in velocity of about 10 km/s. That spacecraft has the luxury of spreading out its acceleration throughout the whole ascent and perform much of it once its at an altitude where the atmospheric drag will be severely reduced. A projectile from a gun needs to have that entire acceleration (and then some to account for the severely increased air resistance) happen while it's still traveling along the gun's barrel, and even if that's several hundred meters long that still results in forces that would put immense stress on the internals of the craft and would turn humans into mush. All things considered, we'd probably have better luck getting stuff into space by shooting lasers at it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam-powered_propulsion
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
i want to see a ground-based space flak cannon
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:All things considered, we'd probably have better luck getting stuff into space by shooting lasers at it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam-powered_propulsion I WAS PROMISED PROJECT ORION WHERE IS MY NUCLEAR BOMB POWERED SPACECRAFT  e: Fangz posted:intercepting the projectile and circularising it [...] minor issues. 
Koesj fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Jun 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
Okay, okay, I misunderstood. But I don't think adding some kind of guidance mechanism in the atmospheric phase is that insurmountable an obstacle. Or have some method of intercepting the projectile and circularising it. Of course it may also be more efficient to only shoot part of the way up and go the rest by rocket power. And yes, high acceleration means this method is bad for manned flights. But these seem like minor issues. EDIT: ^^^ Compared to the core problem of getting enough delta-vee? Yes, those are minor issues to me. Worth noting that the exact same issues apply to railgun based methods, with the difference there being that the core problem is unsolved. Fangz fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Jun 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 20:13 |
|
|
Waroduce posted:
From the last page, but I'm disappointed nobody referenced the well known documentary on the subject.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 17:37
|
|
