Rockets are expensive, so a number of kinetic launch startups are working on ways to simply yeet payloads into orbit and bring costs down. This one's very fun – a six-mile long concrete cannon that'll squeeze launch vehicles to Mach 30 in one second.
Why are we launching small satellites into space on rockets? Longshot CEO Mike Grace has a theory: rockets are super-handy weapons of war – easy to manufacture, easy to hide and move around in the sleight-of-hand of international warfare.
Defense budgets paid for rocket development, but let other – potentially much cheaper – orbital launch technologies wither on the vine. The missile business put man on the Moon. Grace explains in more detail in a very entertaining and downright confrontational presentation made last month at the Foresight Institute's 2023 Space Workshop.
And might I add, any conference speaker that leads off with "OK listen up, assholes" is welcome to my full attention. Check it out:
Grace isn't there to take a flying dump on rockets recreationally; his company is working on an alternative, much more violent approach to orbital launch. Where fellow kinetic launch startup SpinLaunch is already testing its ability to spin a launch vehicle up to insane RPMs inside a centrifugal chamber and literally fling it skyward, Longshot wants to get the job done with a massive, multi-stage pneumatic cannon.
A cannon developed on multi-stage projectile-accelerating ideas from the 1800s. If you want to radically increase the range and muzzle velocity of a cannon, you run into a problem: there's only so much explosive force the barrel itself can take, and there's only so much that gas can expand before it stops giving your projectile a useful push.
Multi-stage "accelerating guns" attempt to solve this by starting with a relatively small bang to get the thing moving without destroying the gun itself, then supplementing this with additional bangs as it goes down the barrel, each precisely timed in an effort to give it an extra push as it passes.
Hitler's multi-stage accelerating super-cannon
It's a concept probably best known for its use in the V-3 cannon, or "Busy Lizzie," that Nazi Germany began rolling out toward the end of World War 2. The plan was to dig batteries of 150-m (492-ft) tunnels into the sides of rocky hills in the Western part of German-occupied France, and turn each tunnel into a multi-stage cannon using a series of accelerating charges provided by solid-fuel rocket boosters.
As you can imagine, you can't exactly aim something like that, so these guns were to be permanently trained on London, 165 km (103 miles) away across the English Channel, where they'd rain down regular 140-kg (310-lb) explosive shells that would arrive without warning or tell-tale bomber squadrons overhead, like a bigger, longer-range version of the "Paris Guns" Germany used to similar effect during World War 1.
Luckily for London, it didn't go down that way. After a series of disappointing and sometimes catastrophic tests, the entire site was leveled by the UK RAF's famous "Dambusters" bomber squadron and a series of 5,400-kg (11,900-lb) "Tallboy" deep penetration "earthquake" bombs. A smaller version of the V-3 did however manage to fire some 183 smaller explosive rounds over a distance of 43 km (26 miles) from Germany toward Luxembourg, killing 10 and wounding 35 before being dismantled when it was clear the site was about to be overrun by US troops.
So yes, long, multi-stage cannons proved pretty ineffective in warfare. Too big to move, hide or even aim, they were sitting ducks – not to mention, the Germans found it difficult to control the timing of the charges, and they never managed to fire the thing further than 93 km (58 miles) before the most promising example blew up during testing.
Graham Bull and Project HARP
But that doesn't mean the basic idea of an accelerating gun won't work for non-military purposes, argues Grace. Indeed, he points out, as far as cheap orbital launches are concerned, the idea of replacing rockets with big frickin' cannons was already proven in the mid-1960s by Gerald Bull's Project HARP.
"That is two WW2 battleship guns stuck end-to-end with baling wire," effused Grace, pointing at a photo of one of Project HARP's 16-inch, 119 ft (36.25 m) guns. "And this sonofabitch was putting 300-kilogram projectiles over 350 kilometers altitude. And he had plans for a multi-stage rocket system that would've been able to put a Cubesat – which wasn't an idea at the time – into orbit. But it wasn't a cube, it was a puck. And people were like, 'so, how many vacuum tubes can you fit in your puck?' It was 1963! What the hell are we gonna do with that?"
Project HARP was defunded by the Canadian government, and Bull was assassinated in 1990, shot five times in the head by Mossad agents, deemed a security risk to Israel after he took the HARP concept to Saddam Hussein and started developing a version nearly five times bigger, that'd fire rocket-assisted shells nearly all the way from Baghdad to New York City, or launch 1,200-pound (540-kg) satellites into orbit.
And so to Longshot
Apologies for the tangents here, but this has made some fun reading for me. So what exactly is Longshot proposing?
"At a high level, Longshot is a pneumatic-powered projectile cannon," said CTO Nato Saichek. "There's no combustion anywhere... The key insight, and the fundamental thing that makes Longshot work, is that instead of pushing from behind, we can also push from the sides. Our projectile has a long, tapered tail that hangs off the back, and we squeeze the tail from the sides, the same way you'd squeeze toothpaste out of a tube."
"By taking advantage of the geometry of that tail, we can push the projectile forward much faster than the gas moving in from the sides," added Grace. "This lets us take a comparatively slow-moving fluid – like compressed air – and turn it into a forward top speed of the projectile that's at orbital velocities."
The gentler approach offered by this compressed-air squeeze-gun method offers some advantages; it should be a lot easier on the barrel than the explosive or rocket-powered efforts of yesteryear. And the gun can quickly and easily be "re-loaded" by compressor pumps along the length of the barrel. Still, the numbers involved when it comes to space launches are awe-inspiring.
"I'll give you the image I have of an orbital launch from Longshot," said Saichek. "So we have something like a 10-kilometer-long concrete cylinder that's something like 10 feet in diameter. And we load the projectile into the breech, and seal it up, and we fire. In about one second, the projectile goes from one end of the barrel to the other. It exits going about 10 kilometers per second (Mach 29). The projectile banks up off of the atmosphere, and rides screaming up into the upper stratosphere. A little delivery to low Earth orbit. And then we'll do it again. And we'll do it again."
But as huge as it is, there's nothing particularly space-age about the barrel itself. "It's made outta the same stuff you'd build an overpass out of. It's mild steel and concrete. So the system we're building – that sits on the ground and does all this work and results in an aerospace result – is really a piece of civil infrastructure."
Still, 10 km' worth of just about anything is still a pretty pricey proposition, so Longshot has found itself an early market it can address to generate cashflow during the prototyping phase: hypersonic vehicle testing. The team has built a small-scale prototype that's already exceeded Mach 2.2 in muzzle velocity, and once it reaches Mach 5, the company will be able to start selling its services to the emerging hypersonic aircraft industry.
Obviously, Longshot won't be used to launch humans into space; accelerating from zero to Mach 30 in one second sounds like a great way to turn a man into a viscous stain. But we've got rockets for pushing soft, meaty things – what we don't have is a really cheap way to get less-perishable stuff past the clutches of gravity in the sort of quantities we'll need for more involved orbital and Moon-based constructions.
Even though OpenAI's Sam Altman is already on board with pre-seed funding, plenty of challenges lie ahead. Where to put these six-mile-long hyper-cannons, for one, since every launch will be accompanied by an Earth-shattering and rather antisocial hypersonic boom. Even sticking these things in the desert might deafen entire ecosystems.
Then there's how to make sure the concrete tunnel doesn't get chewed out by the forces involved. And how to design launch vehicles capable of withstanding not only the massive acceleration forces involved, but the brutal ablative effects you get when you try to push things through the atmosphere at 30 times the speed of sound. On the latter point, Grace says size is the key.
"It's a question of ballistic coefficient," he told an audience member at the Foresight presentation, in a rapid-fire masterclass of condescending sing-song tone that brings to mind a turbocharged version of the Comic Book guy from The Simpsons. "If you try to go small, your surface area to volume ratio sucks, and the fraction of the vehicle that must be ablative material is very high, potentially exceeding 100%."
Big ones, on the other hand, can carry lots of ablative shielding and still have it be a small fraction of the total launch vehicle weight, allowing lots of space for a second-stage rocket to position the vehicle in orbit, and of course for lots of payload.
Will this project work, or is Longshot a long shot? Lord knows. But at the very least, it's a hell of an entertaining idea, and one we look forward to following, if for no other reason than to have an excuse to watch lots more Mike Grace presentations. Sadly, he's a tad more measured and less sweary in the promotional video below.
Source: Longshot
'a six-mile long concrete cannon that'll *SQUEEZE* launch vehicles to Mach 30 in one second'.
+ + +
For wot it's worth:
So, & errrrrr, etc,
0 - circa 20,500mph in x1 second is enough to squeeze most things.
The literature does reference two serious problems, some of which are fundamentally rate limiting -- see e.g. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0734743X90900584 -- to get to the higher speeds one has to heat the driver gas substantially, since the theoretical limit on speed is the speed of sound in the propellant gas (or if you like, the speed with which the gas can propagate into a vacuum, as it has to keep up with the projectile in the void space it leaves behind and still collide with it on the molecular level). The hot gas has a much higher pressure than a cool gas (speed of sound is almost independent of pressure and scales like the square root of absolute temperature and inversely like the molecular mass of the gas). But that hot gas has a much higher pressure! To get to the 10 km scale final speeds, one can easily exceed the capacity of the gun barrel to not burst.
A second problem is shared with the flinger approach that is also under development -- to accelerate ANY particle to 10 km/sec over 10 km requires a projectile acceleration at least as large as 5000 m/sec^2 (from v^2 = 2aD for uniform acceleration, best case). That's 500 g's. If you are driving the projectile with explosions, chances are the initial explosive impulse can be several times that. That would turn living tissue into protoplasmic slime, and is unlikely to be super-great for delicate electronics etc.
Might be useful, to be sure, for two purposes. One is lofting e.g. fuel or raw materials into orbit for use in building habitats, labs, and any future intersystem transport vehicles. The other is firing military projectiles. Assuming only that one can harden guidance and/or explosives, the ability to fire them at 10 km/sec or slower basically makes the entire world accessible to ballistic trajectories. Even firing 100 kg chunks of steel-coated concrete so that it lands at (say) 7 km/sec converts its kinetic energy of 2.5 GJ into heat. That's the equivalent of 0.6 tons of TNT. Not quite nuclear scale -- obviously that's the same general scale of the explosions required to launch in the first place, however -- but 1200 pounds of dynamite delivered to a target can ruin that target's whole day. If the "gun" can be aimed (or the projectiles equipped with enough guidance and rocketry to aim within a reasonable target envelope) AND if they can fire reasonably rapidly, maybe a weapon. The Spinlaunch design seems better for this purpose, however, as it IS aimable!
Take that tapered wedge thing. Presumable the idea is that you fire high pressure jets of air or gas at it as it passes and it translates (some of) that energy into acceleration. A quick measure of the picture puts the angle of those sides at ~10°; which means at best, just 1.5% of the energy applied gets translated into force in the required direction. (Even if you could hit all four sides of that tail with exactly equal and opposite forces so that it doesn't twist against the sides of the tube creating far losses through friction that it gained). How much force can you possibly apply with a jet of gas in the milli^H^H^H^H^H microsecond it takes that thing to pass by?
And the best bit, its completely unneccesary. All you need to do is replace the volume of gas just vacated by the passing vehicle with gas at the same high pressure, and the pressure acting on the base of the vehicle/bullet remains the same. And you saved yourself the weight of the (scaling up) 70' long x 10' per side pyramid. (which even made of carbon fibre, if strong enough to take the forces involved would weight roughly the same as a 70' CF racing yatch hull; ie rough 25 tonnes!)
And that's before you've added the weight of the abblative material required to protect you cargo from the searing heat of passing through the atmosphere at 40,000 kph. Which would be bad enough if yu were firing straight up (100k of atmosphere) but if you're firing sideways to the horizon, then you would need to pass through 8000k of atmosphere.
Dumb as rocks.
Even at escape velocity, and even if that escape velocity is (somehow) sustained despite wind resistance; gravity will try (and succeed) to drag the projectile towards the Earth's centre (CoG). Even rocket powered trajectories are curved, not straight (take a look at the simulations in an of NASA/SPACEX launch videos).
My (crude, but informed) guestimate is that a 1 tonne projectile, launched (horizontally) with sufficient energy to sustain enough velocity to make it to orbit. For the potted explaination type ni8OUFb into imgur.com's search field.
1m represents 1000Km.
The light green circle is the 12.8km cross-section of the earth. The light blue (13km) is the 100km all around the earth.
The light blue ring is the Earth's 100Km deep atmosphere.
The purple sphere (top left) is the projectile (guestimated at 1 tonne for this exercise).
The red solid line is that 1 tonne projectile's path within the atmosphere -- assuming no wind resistance and a (magically?) sustained exit velocity of 40,270 km/h.
The red dotted line, the projectile's path after leaving the atmosphere.
Note the 70.7° of rotation around the Earth's CoG, required to (substantially) leave the influence of Earth's atmosphere.
70.7/360 * 40,000 ~= 8000km!
“Yeet” = not a real word, but slang, and how it’s used in the above context indicates that you don’t understand its meaning (am expression of surprise, approval, or excited enthusiasm).
“Very fun” = fun is a real word, but it’s a noun, not an adjective. Say a lot of fun, not “very fun.”
Not yeet, but yeesh.