The biggest gun ever designed could have put Iraq at the centre of space exploration, but its story is one of unfulfilled genius, military secrets and murder.

One of the most audacious pieces of engineering ever designed: a “supergun” called Big Babylon, which could have fired satellites into orbit from a 156m-long barrel (512ft) embedded inside a hill.

Its Canadian inventor, Gerald Bull, who was one of the world’s leading artillery experts, had high hopes that it would revolutionise space launches, removing the need for conventional rockets. “Bull was an outstanding scientist and a charismatic figure, and this is the physical reminder of what he did on a monumental scale,” says Nicholas Hall, Keeper of Artillery at the Royal Armouries.

But Big Babylon was never built, and no-one has got close since. So what happened? The answer is a tale of hubris, thwarted ambitions and military secrets. At a time when Bull’s expertise should have been in high demand by all of the world’s superpowers, he chose to make his supergun for Saddam Hussein instead, a decision that would end in murder.

Decades later, tantalising questions remain: could Bull’s supergun idea have worked? And might the idea that died with him ever return?

More:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160317-the-man-who-tried-to-make-a-supergun-for-saddam-hussein

PermeateFree said:

The biggest gun ever designed could have put Iraq at the centre of space exploration, but its story is one of unfulfilled genius, military secrets and murder.

One of the most audacious pieces of engineering ever designed: a “supergun” called Big Babylon, which could have fired satellites into orbit from a 156m-long barrel (512ft) embedded inside a hill.

Its Canadian inventor, Gerald Bull, who was one of the world’s leading artillery experts, had high hopes that it would revolutionise space launches, removing the need for conventional rockets. “Bull was an outstanding scientist and a charismatic figure, and this is the physical reminder of what he did on a monumental scale,” says Nicholas Hall, Keeper of Artillery at the Royal Armouries.

But Big Babylon was never built, and no-one has got close since. So what happened? The answer is a tale of hubris, thwarted ambitions and military secrets. At a time when Bull’s expertise should have been in high demand by all of the world’s superpowers, he chose to make his supergun for Saddam Hussein instead, a decision that would end in murder.

Decades later, tantalising questions remain: could Bull’s supergun idea have worked? And might the idea that died with him ever return?

More:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160317-the-man-who-tried-to-make-a-supergun-for-saddam-hussein

Sounds a bit Jules Verne to me. Orbital velocity in 150m. Very squishy for humans.

Tamb said:

PermeateFree said:

The biggest gun ever designed could have put Iraq at the centre of space exploration, but its story is one of unfulfilled genius, military secrets and murder.

One of the most audacious pieces of engineering ever designed: a “supergun” called Big Babylon, which could have fired satellites into orbit from a 156m-long barrel (512ft) embedded inside a hill.

Its Canadian inventor, Gerald Bull, who was one of the world’s leading artillery experts, had high hopes that it would revolutionise space launches, removing the need for conventional rockets. “Bull was an outstanding scientist and a charismatic figure, and this is the physical reminder of what he did on a monumental scale,” says Nicholas Hall, Keeper of Artillery at the Royal Armouries.

But Big Babylon was never built, and no-one has got close since. So what happened? The answer is a tale of hubris, thwarted ambitions and military secrets. At a time when Bull’s expertise should have been in high demand by all of the world’s superpowers, he chose to make his supergun for Saddam Hussein instead, a decision that would end in murder.

Decades later, tantalising questions remain: could Bull’s supergun idea have worked? And might the idea that died with him ever return?

More:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160317-the-man-who-tried-to-make-a-supergun-for-saddam-hussein

Sounds a bit Jules Verne to me. Orbital velocity in 150m. Very squishy for humans.

If we take orbital velocity as 7900 m/s and ignore air friction it would need an acceleration of 189,121 m/s^2, which is more than 19000g.

So a little bit squishy for pretty well everything.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

PermeateFree said:

The biggest gun ever designed could have put Iraq at the centre of space exploration, but its story is one of unfulfilled genius, military secrets and murder.

One of the most audacious pieces of engineering ever designed: a “supergun” called Big Babylon, which could have fired satellites into orbit from a 156m-long barrel (512ft) embedded inside a hill.

Its Canadian inventor, Gerald Bull, who was one of the world’s leading artillery experts, had high hopes that it would revolutionise space launches, removing the need for conventional rockets. “Bull was an outstanding scientist and a charismatic figure, and this is the physical reminder of what he did on a monumental scale,” says Nicholas Hall, Keeper of Artillery at the Royal Armouries.

But Big Babylon was never built, and no-one has got close since. So what happened? The answer is a tale of hubris, thwarted ambitions and military secrets. At a time when Bull’s expertise should have been in high demand by all of the world’s superpowers, he chose to make his supergun for Saddam Hussein instead, a decision that would end in murder.

Decades later, tantalising questions remain: could Bull’s supergun idea have worked? And might the idea that died with him ever return?

More:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160317-the-man-who-tried-to-make-a-supergun-for-saddam-hussein

Sounds a bit Jules Verne to me. Orbital velocity in 150m. Very squishy for humans.

If we take orbital velocity as 7900 m/s and ignore air friction it would need an acceleration of 189,121 m/s^2, which is more than 19000g.

So a little bit squishy for pretty well everything.

A quick Binge tells me that the fastest artillery shell to date was about 1600 m/s which is about 1/5 the required orbital velocity.

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

Sounds a bit Jules Verne to me. Orbital velocity in 150m. Very squishy for humans.

If we take orbital velocity as 7900 m/s and ignore air friction it would need an acceleration of 189,121 m/s^2, which is more than 19000g.

So a little bit squishy for pretty well everything.

A quick Binge tells me that the fastest artillery shell to date was about 1600 m/s which is about 1/5 the required orbital velocity.

From the article PF linked:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

If we take orbital velocity as 7900 m/s and ignore air friction it would need an acceleration of 189,121 m/s^2, which is more than 19000g.

So a little bit squishy for pretty well everything.

A quick Binge tells me that the fastest artillery shell to date was about 1600 m/s which is about 1/5 the required orbital velocity.

From the article PF linked:

TATE on SHARP:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_High_Altitude_Research_Project

“Headed by John Hunter, the SHARP gun fired projectiles using expanding hydrogen and achieved velocities of 3 km/s (6,700 mph) or Mach 8.8 for 5 kg (11 lb) projectiles. Had the project continued, there were plans to elevate the tube and begin space launch trials potentially reaching speeds of up to 7 km/s (16,000 mph), or about Mach 21.

The tests were designed as a precursor to the “Jules Verne Launcher,” an even larger light-gas gun with a 3,500 m (11,500 ft) barrel length designed in the early 1990s for first-stage satellite launch. This was to cost $1 billion, but funding was not forthcoming and the project was eventually canceled in 1995. However, the SHARP gun continued to be used for high-speed tests in other areas of research, such as scramjet development.

The concept of ballistic escape velocity is well proven. The largest challenge is maintaining such high velocities, because air resistance and aerothermal heating will significantly slow down any such object. “

How Big Babylon was supposed to get things into orbit at 3000 m/s, I don’t know.

Poor old Mr Bull was assinated by Mossad.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

A quick Binge tells me that the fastest artillery shell to date was about 1600 m/s which is about 1/5 the required orbital velocity.

From the article PF linked:

TATE on SHARP:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_High_Altitude_Research_Project

“Headed by John Hunter, the SHARP gun fired projectiles using expanding hydrogen and achieved velocities of 3 km/s (6,700 mph) or Mach 8.8 for 5 kg (11 lb) projectiles. Had the project continued, there were plans to elevate the tube and begin space launch trials potentially reaching speeds of up to 7 km/s (16,000 mph), or about Mach 21.

The tests were designed as a precursor to the “Jules Verne Launcher,” an even larger light-gas gun with a 3,500 m (11,500 ft) barrel length designed in the early 1990s for first-stage satellite launch. This was to cost $1 billion, but funding was not forthcoming and the project was eventually canceled in 1995. However, the SHARP gun continued to be used for high-speed tests in other areas of research, such as scramjet development.

The concept of ballistic escape velocity is well proven. The largest challenge is maintaining such high velocities, because air resistance and aerothermal heating will significantly slow down any such object. “

How Big Babylon was supposed to get things into orbit at 3000 m/s, I don’t know.

I wonder if you could rocket boost them once they are fired

I reinvented this, keeping in mind Jules Vern.

The big gun does not completely replace conventional rockets. What is does is replace the first stage of conventional multistage rockets.

There is an equation that minimises the amount of propulsive power needed to gain a certain altitude. This equation is:

Downward force due to gravity = downward force due to air friction.

What that means is that minimum fuel usage to orbit requires an acceleration near ground that is as rapid as possible (subject to occupant comfort, ie. slower for manned flight) to accelerate the projectile to the speed at which the downward force due to gravity equals the downward force due to air friction.

It turns out that in every case, the amount of propellant in the gun cartridge needs to be almost exactly half the amount of slow-burn propellant in the conventional rocket fired from that gun.

Here’s a slide that I included in my presentation to the Australian high powered rocket society. The presentation ought to be on ewetube somewhere. Let me know if you want me to post the entire .ppt file.

mollwollfumble said:

I reinvented this, keeping in mind Jules Vern.

The big gun does not completely replace conventional rockets. What is does is replace the first stage of conventional multistage rockets.

There is an equation that minimises the amount of propulsive power needed to gain a certain altitude. This equation is:

Downward force due to gravity = downward force due to air friction.

What that means is that minimum fuel usage to orbit requires an acceleration near ground that is as rapid as possible (subject to occupant comfort, ie. slower for manned flight) to accelerate the projectile to the speed at which the downward force due to gravity equals the downward force due to air friction.

It turns out that in every case, the amount of propellant in the gun cartridge needs to be almost exactly half the amount of slow-burn propellant in the conventional rocket fired from that gun.

Here’s a slide that I included in my presentation to the Australian high powered rocket society. The presentation ought to be on ewetube somewhere. Let me know if you want me to post the entire .ppt file.

So what acceleration would you have during the rocket phase, and what would the minimum barrel length be to reach low-Earth orbit?

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

I reinvented this, keeping in mind Jules Vern.

The big gun does not completely replace conventional rockets. What is does is replace the first stage of conventional multistage rockets.

There is an equation that minimises the amount of propulsive power needed to gain a certain altitude. This equation is:

Downward force due to gravity = downward force due to air friction.

What that means is that minimum fuel usage to orbit requires an acceleration near ground that is as rapid as possible (subject to occupant comfort, ie. slower for manned flight) to accelerate the projectile to the speed at which the downward force due to gravity equals the downward force due to air friction.

It turns out that in every case, the amount of propellant in the gun cartridge needs to be almost exactly half the amount of slow-burn propellant in the conventional rocket fired from that gun.

Here’s a slide that I included in my presentation to the Australian high powered rocket society. The presentation ought to be on ewetube somewhere. Let me know if you want me to post the entire .ppt file.

So what acceleration would you have during the rocket phase, and what would the minimum barrel length be to reach low-Earth orbit?

Acceleration during the conventional rocket phase is small until we exit the atmosphere. If the Earth’s atmosphere had uniform density then the acceleration during rocket phase would be zero (constant air drag). A halving of atmospheric density corresponds to only a 40% increase in speed. Once you get out of the atmosphere, though, you want a higher acceleration.

I haven’t calculated the minimum barrel length, but why not. Minimum barrel length comes from maximum allowable acceleration. For an unmanned rocket, let’s say 20 g = 200 m/s^2 and aiming for a speed of 215 m/s. Note that this is very very much less than Earth’s escape velocity. Even the Moon’s escape velocity is more than ten times that. Uniform acceleration. t = 215/200 = 1.08 seconds. s = 0.5*a*t^2 = 116 metres. Aiming speed depends on diameter and mass, but consider this is the ballpark.

Long for a gun, but compare Jules Verne and Robert Heinlein.
> For Jules Verne, the length was about 68 metres.
> For Robert Heinlein in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, the railgun length was … um … well in excess of 8 km long, sloping up the side of a mountain.

in case if you haven’t heard from the ABC / australian “news” outlets – turkey and russia are now at war

wookiemeister said:

in case if you haven’t heard from the ABC / australian “news” outlets – turkey and russia are now at war

Yes, and we’ll be at war with NZ soon over deportations.

But how badly have Turkey fucked up here? They’re on the opposite side to the regime in Syria. However Russia have stuck their nose in and backed the regime, with military support including air-strikes. Turkey have been shopping around for an anti-aircraft missile system for a while and decided to buy the Russian S400 over the USA Patriot PAK-3 system, mostly on the grounds of cost. So the USA froze them out of the F-35 program. Now they have decided to meddle in Syria they find the,selves on the wrong side of Russia in that conflict, and on the receiving end of Russian air strikes. Now they have no friends. They need Russia to supply them with missiles to protect themselves against Russia. They have gone to NATO asking for someone to send Patriot missiles.

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

in case if you haven’t heard from the ABC / australian “news” outlets – turkey and russia are now at war

Yes, and we’ll be at war with NZ soon over deportations.

But how badly have Turkey fucked up here? They’re on the opposite side to the regime in Syria. However Russia have stuck their nose in and backed the regime, with military support including air-strikes. Turkey have been shopping around for an anti-aircraft missile system for a while and decided to buy the Russian S400 over the USA Patriot PAK-3 system, mostly on the grounds of cost. So the USA froze them out of the F-35 program. Now they have decided to meddle in Syria they find the,selves on the wrong side of Russia in that conflict, and on the receiving end of Russian air strikes. Now they have no friends. They need Russia to supply them with missiles to protect themselves against Russia. They have gone to NATO asking for someone to send Patriot missiles.

I don’t think it is that big a problem. Russia might have all the latest tech but Turkey is an almost equivalent military power on is own. Turkey is also most concerned with the Kurds in Idlib and will shy away from annoying Russia to much. Finally i think both Erdogan and Putin are both too adept at realpolitik to let anything too serious happening.

Witty Rejoinder said:

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

in case if you haven’t heard from the ABC / australian “news” outlets – turkey and russia are now at war

Yes, and we’ll be at war with NZ soon over deportations.

But how badly have Turkey fucked up here? They’re on the opposite side to the regime in Syria. However Russia have stuck their nose in and backed the regime, with military support including air-strikes. Turkey have been shopping around for an anti-aircraft missile system for a while and decided to buy the Russian S400 over the USA Patriot PAK-3 system, mostly on the grounds of cost. So the USA froze them out of the F-35 program. Now they have decided to meddle in Syria they find the,selves on the wrong side of Russia in that conflict, and on the receiving end of Russian air strikes. Now they have no friends. They need Russia to supply them with missiles to protect themselves against Russia. They have gone to NATO asking for someone to send Patriot missiles.

I don’t think it is that big a problem. Russia might have all the latest tech but Turkey is an almost equivalent military power on is own. Turkey is also most concerned with the Kurds in Idlib and will shy away from annoying Russia to much. Finally i think both Erdogan and Putin are both too adept at realpolitik to let anything too serious happening.

What’s the death of a few troops between friends?

Witty Rejoinder said:

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

in case if you haven’t heard from the ABC / australian “news” outlets – turkey and russia are now at war

Yes, and we’ll be at war with NZ soon over deportations.

But how badly have Turkey fucked up here? They’re on the opposite side to the regime in Syria. However Russia have stuck their nose in and backed the regime, with military support including air-strikes. Turkey have been shopping around for an anti-aircraft missile system for a while and decided to buy the Russian S400 over the USA Patriot PAK-3 system, mostly on the grounds of cost. So the USA froze them out of the F-35 program. Now they have decided to meddle in Syria they find the,selves on the wrong side of Russia in that conflict, and on the receiving end of Russian air strikes. Now they have no friends. They need Russia to supply them with missiles to protect themselves against Russia. They have gone to NATO asking for someone to send Patriot missiles.

I don’t think it is that big a problem. Russia might have all the latest tech but Turkey is an almost equivalent military power on is own. Turkey is also most concerned with the Kurds in Idlib and will shy away from annoying Russia to much. Finally i think both Erdogan and Putin are both too adept at realpolitik to let anything too serious happening.

I disagree. Turkey have a large military, and a large military industry, but they can’t design and manufacture everything they need – they are a long long way from being self-reliant. The only countries that are self-reliant are the big boys like USA, Russia, China. Turkey want to be a player in the region, but they need NATO to watch their backs, but also to supply them with whatever arms they can’t make themselves. So they can’t be a player doing their own thing and throwing their weight around the place.

party_pants said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

party_pants said:

Yes, and we’ll be at war with NZ soon over deportations.

But how badly have Turkey fucked up here? They’re on the opposite side to the regime in Syria. However Russia have stuck their nose in and backed the regime, with military support including air-strikes. Turkey have been shopping around for an anti-aircraft missile system for a while and decided to buy the Russian S400 over the USA Patriot PAK-3 system, mostly on the grounds of cost. So the USA froze them out of the F-35 program. Now they have decided to meddle in Syria they find the,selves on the wrong side of Russia in that conflict, and on the receiving end of Russian air strikes. Now they have no friends. They need Russia to supply them with missiles to protect themselves against Russia. They have gone to NATO asking for someone to send Patriot missiles.

I don’t think it is that big a problem. Russia might have all the latest tech but Turkey is an almost equivalent military power on is own. Turkey is also most concerned with the Kurds in Idlib and will shy away from annoying Russia to much. Finally i think both Erdogan and Putin are both too adept at realpolitik to let anything too serious happening.

I disagree. Turkey have a large military, and a large military industry, but they can’t design and manufacture everything they need – they are a long long way from being self-reliant. The only countries that are self-reliant are the big boys like USA, Russia, China. Turkey want to be a player in the region, but they need NATO to watch their backs, but also to supply them with whatever arms they can’t make themselves. So they can’t be a player doing their own thing and throwing their weight around the place.

We shall see i guess. Wookie’s bold predictions have not come to pass yet so anything’s possible i suppose.

BETWEEN 1843 and 1853, an eclectic mix of more than 110 soldiers, sailors, Māori, civilians and convict absconders from the Australian penal colonies were transported from New Zealand to Van Diemen’s Land.

This little-known chapter of history happened for several reasons. The colonists wanted to cleanse their land of thieves, vagrants and murderers and deal with Māori opposition to colonisation. Transporting fighting men like Hōhepa Te Umuroa, Te Kūmete, Te Waretiti, Matiu Tikiahi and Te Rāhui for life to Van Diemen’s Land was meant to subdue Māori resistance.

Transportation was also used to punish redcoats (the British soldiers sent to guard the colony and fight opposing Māori), who deserted their regiments or otherwise misbehaved.

https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/history-culture/2017/10/the-new-zealand-convicts-sent-to-australia/

PermeateFree said:

BETWEEN 1843 and 1853, an eclectic mix of more than 110 soldiers, sailors, Māori, civilians and convict absconders from the Australian penal colonies were transported from New Zealand to Van Diemen’s Land.

This little-known chapter of history happened for several reasons. The colonists wanted to cleanse their land of thieves, vagrants and murderers and deal with Māori opposition to colonisation. Transporting fighting men like Hōhepa Te Umuroa, Te Kūmete, Te Waretiti, Matiu Tikiahi and Te Rāhui for life to Van Diemen’s Land was meant to subdue Māori resistance.

Transportation was also used to punish redcoats (the British soldiers sent to guard the colony and fight opposing Māori), who deserted their regiments or otherwise misbehaved.

https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/history-culture/2017/10/the-new-zealand-convicts-sent-to-australia/

And were they all loaded into Saddam Hussein’s supergun?

PermeateFree said:

BETWEEN 1843 and 1853, an eclectic mix of more than 110 soldiers, sailors, Māori, civilians and convict absconders from the Australian penal colonies were transported from New Zealand to Van Diemen’s Land.

This little-known chapter of history happened for several reasons. The colonists wanted to cleanse their land of thieves, vagrants and murderers and deal with Māori opposition to colonisation. Transporting fighting men like Hōhepa Te Umuroa, Te Kūmete, Te Waretiti, Matiu Tikiahi and Te Rāhui for life to Van Diemen’s Land was meant to subdue Māori resistance.

Transportation was also used to punish redcoats (the British soldiers sent to guard the colony and fight opposing Māori), who deserted their regiments or otherwise misbehaved.

https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/history-culture/2017/10/the-new-zealand-convicts-sent-to-australia/

Wrong thread

party_pants said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

party_pants said:

Yes, and we’ll be at war with NZ soon over deportations.

But how badly have Turkey fucked up here? They’re on the opposite side to the regime in Syria. However Russia have stuck their nose in and backed the regime, with military support including air-strikes. Turkey have been shopping around for an anti-aircraft missile system for a while and decided to buy the Russian S400 over the USA Patriot PAK-3 system, mostly on the grounds of cost. So the USA froze them out of the F-35 program. Now they have decided to meddle in Syria they find the,selves on the wrong side of Russia in that conflict, and on the receiving end of Russian air strikes. Now they have no friends. They need Russia to supply them with missiles to protect themselves against Russia. They have gone to NATO asking for someone to send Patriot missiles.

I don’t think it is that big a problem. Russia might have all the latest tech but Turkey is an almost equivalent military power on is own. Turkey is also most concerned with the Kurds in Idlib and will shy away from annoying Russia to much. Finally i think both Erdogan and Putin are both too adept at realpolitik to let anything too serious happening.

I disagree. Turkey have a large military, and a large military industry, but they can’t design and manufacture everything they need – they are a long long way from being self-reliant. The only countries that are self-reliant are the big boys like USA, Russia, China. Turkey want to be a player in the region, but they need NATO to watch their backs, but also to supply them with whatever arms they can’t make themselves. So they can’t be a player doing their own thing and throwing their weight around the place.

And Erdogan is a despot.

Michael V said:

party_pants said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I don’t think it is that big a problem. Russia might have all the latest tech but Turkey is an almost equivalent military power on is own. Turkey is also most concerned with the Kurds in Idlib and will shy away from annoying Russia to much. Finally i think both Erdogan and Putin are both too adept at realpolitik to let anything too serious happening.

I disagree. Turkey have a large military, and a large military industry, but they can’t design and manufacture everything they need – they are a long long way from being self-reliant. The only countries that are self-reliant are the big boys like USA, Russia, China. Turkey want to be a player in the region, but they need NATO to watch their backs, but also to supply them with whatever arms they can’t make themselves. So they can’t be a player doing their own thing and throwing their weight around the place.

And Erdogan is a despot.

Better yet he is a democratically elected despot.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Michael V said:

party_pants said:

I disagree. Turkey have a large military, and a large military industry, but they can’t design and manufacture everything they need – they are a long long way from being self-reliant. The only countries that are self-reliant are the big boys like USA, Russia, China. Turkey want to be a player in the region, but they need NATO to watch their backs, but also to supply them with whatever arms they can’t make themselves. So they can’t be a player doing their own thing and throwing their weight around the place.

And Erdogan is a despot.

Better yet he is a democratically elected despot.

He’s a populist, without much idea of real-politik.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Michael V said:

party_pants said:

I disagree. Turkey have a large military, and a large military industry, but they can’t design and manufacture everything they need – they are a long long way from being self-reliant. The only countries that are self-reliant are the big boys like USA, Russia, China. Turkey want to be a player in the region, but they need NATO to watch their backs, but also to supply them with whatever arms they can’t make themselves. So they can’t be a player doing their own thing and throwing their weight around the place.

And Erdogan is a despot.

Better yet he is a democratically elected despot.

Not quite democratically…

Michael V said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Michael V said:

And Erdogan is a despot.

Better yet he is a democratically elected despot.

Not quite democratically…

For all his faults he did have a popular mandate. Less so of late since the electorate has turned with his party losing in Ankara and Istanbul.