Re: tank gun acceleration versus orbital gun acceleration

At 12:33 AM 5/26/01 -0600, you wrote:
>Hi guys, I ran into a problem on another mailing list and since it's
sort
>of relevant to the subject matter here, here it is :)
>
>I've been wondering about the acceleration that's placed on a
projectile
>fired from a modern high velocity tank gun, versus the acceleration
that's
>placed on a projectile fired from one of those theoretical superguns
>(conventional, not electromagnetic) that's supposed to shoot payloads
into
>orbit.  I think that the acceleration placed on the orbital payload
would
>be higher thank on the tank gun projectile.  What does everyone
>think?  Calculations would be welcome :)
>
>This is actually a question I had about the feasibility of launching
>something delicate, like a satellite into orbit with a supergun.  It
seems
>like the satellite would have to be specially hardened.  But even now
>high tech missiles are being launched from tank guns which have
>electronics comparable in complexity to some satellites.  So can
regular
>satellites withstand the stress of being launched?
>

>From what I have seen most of the data on guns capable of puting
payload
into orbit comes from the work of Dr. Gerald Bull working on the HARP
project in the '60s. You should find something like
http://www.islandone.org/Propulsion/GeraldBullInfo.html using his name
or
HARP as a keyword.

Ndege Diamond--Nezach(at)earthlink(dot)net
    http://home.earthlink.net/~nezach/
     "A witty saying proves nothing."