![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Peter Fairbrother wrote in message ...
Andrew Higgins wrote You can prove on gasdynamics grounds that a powder gun can *never* exceed 3 km/s muzzle velocity. The "gas speed" limit in a "gun" is not the speed of sound in the gas, assuming no projectile. Correct: maximum velocity is *not* equal sound speed in propellant gas, but they *are* directly related. In fact, as can be shown from the Method of Characteristics for unsteady gasdynamics, the maximum velocity of a gas expansion is: Vmax = 2 a0/(g-1) ....where "g" is the ratio of specific heats and a0 is the *initial* speed of sound of the propellant. For g = 1.4, for example, Vmax = 5 a0. This is for a complete expansion to vacuum, only realizable with a zero mass projectile. In practice, actual guns get nowhere near this limit. The base pressure drops off exponentially as the projectile accelerates, approximately as: p/p0 ~ exp(-g * V/a0) ....where p0 is the initial pressure (before projectile started moving). Once the projectile has reached twice a0, the base pressure is only about 5% its initial value, and guns can rarely accelerate projectiles any faster than this. For powder guns, the gaseous propellant is the combustion products of the powder, which typically have an initial sound speed around 1 km/s. Hence, the speed limit of about 2 km/s for powder guns. I am very skeptical of claims of a 3+ km/s powder gun. Experimental railguns have already achieved 30,000+ fps, well over orbital velocity, References, please. I am not aware of any railguns exceeding 6 km/s. The 30,000 fps plus figure came from a USN press report, with no details. I think it slipped out. I don't know if it's right, but for sure some research and development on railguns is classified. The same is even more true of travelling charge guns (which, btw, the 5 kps gun is not). Traveling charge guns, as far as I am aware, have *never* demonstrated a boost in muzzle velocity over conventional, breech-fed guns. The last review I've seen was: Baer, P.G., and I.W. May, "Traveling-Charge Effect" in "Gun Propulsion Technology" ed. L. Stiefel, Vol 109, AIAA Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1988, pp. 499-536. ....and I am not aware of any new experimental results since then. However, these guys reportedly got 7.1 km/s: http://www.ioffe.rssi.ru/PAPERS/94w06.pdf Thanks for the reference; this claim, if true, would be a new velocity record for a rail gun. However, I would need to see more data from the actual test before being convinced; some claims at record muzzle velocities from rail guns have actually been jets of plasma squirting from the end of the rails, not coherent projectiles. I have the impression that considerable unannounced progress has been made. This looks interesting: http://library.kmitnb.ac.th/df/ieee40/370192.pdf I think "Promising but unconfirmed theoretical study" is more appropriate description of this paper, rather than "considerable unannounced progress." By the way, does anyone know anything about an "electric gun" at LLNL? Not a railgun, I'd guess, they were talking about 15-18 kps? I am not aware of a 15-18 km/s gun at LLNL, although certain there is interest there (an elsewhere) in such a device. You may be thinking of two different, recent developments: One is the use of the Sandia Z machine (basically, a very, very large pulsed power supply) to launch thin metal foils to velocities of 15-20 km/s via magnetic loading: http://www.sandia.gov/media/NewsRel/NR2001/flyer.htm The other is a 3-stage gun at Sandia that has also accelerated small flyer plates ( 1g) to 15 km/s: http://www.cs.sandia.gov/HPCCIT/hyprvel.html Note that the third stage of this 3-stage gun is basically the 2nd-stage projectile impacting a special, density-gradient material that "smoothly" shocks the smaller flyer to the final velocity. In both of these devices, there are still concerns if the projectile is actually intact, or has been "spalled" by the acceleration process. Note that all of this work uses projectiles smaller than 1 g, and is used exclusively for fundamental equation of state studies motivated by inertial confinement fusion studies, H-bomb physics, and fundamental planetary physics. Other than as a possible simulator for micrometeoroid and orbital debris impact, these devices have no relevance to the subject of this thread ("Cheaper way to space!? A supergun.") because they cannot scale and because they violently shock their projectiles to their yield strength. As for concepts that are scalable for "soft" direct space launch, the two most interesting concepts (the Ram Accelerator and, more speculatively, the Slingatron) remain too underdeveloped to make definitively assessments of feasibility. Neither of these concepts have ever had the funding support necessary to determine what the maximum velocities achievable are, although a small amount of basic research is continuing on both. -- Andrew J. Higgins Mechanical Engineering Dept. Assistant Professor McGill University Shock Wave Physics Group Montreal, Quebec CANADA http://www.mcgill.ca/mecheng/staff/academic/higgins/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982) | Stuf4 | Space Shuttle | 150 | July 28th 04 07:30 AM |
European high technology for the International Space Station | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | May 10th 04 02:40 PM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | April 2nd 04 12:01 AM |
Clueless pundits (was High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers) | Rand Simberg | Space Science Misc | 18 | February 14th 04 03:28 AM |
International Space Station Science - One of NASA's rising stars | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | December 27th 03 01:32 PM |