Bulbous Meat Rocket

Well the post / mail delivery rocket was a recurring idea between approximately 1920 and 1960.

Radom silly feelings about the silly thing

- MEAAAAT in space ROTFL

- Well, since beef is already "grounded" or "minced", it doesn't really matters if the G-forces or explosion or crash turns it into a bloody pulp... because it is already a bloody pulp.

- Pizzas delivered by drone ? Boring. Now meat delivered by rocket, that's SOMETHING.
 
On arrival the meat is cooked ""A point ou saignante"". I need the results of submission at high speeds to conclude, the "chef" designer must be an Ace in this culinary missile specialty.
 
They could always send deliveries of Richmond ?Sausages? They are as close to being meat free as can be though and are mostly just rusk. Make the almost meat turkey and they could be sent anywhere,
 
CJGibson said:
When I saw the title of this thread, I reached for my copy of Roger's Profanisaurus Rex by Roger Mellie (the man on the telly). I was disappointed to find that it wasn't in there. I quote Roger verbatim.

Chris
Click to expand...

If Roger reads this, it will be . . .

cheers,
Robin.
 
Archibald said:
"There ain't such thing as a free (sausage) launch"
Click to expand...

That would be the meat space cannon.

03_babylon.jpg

"Our scientists were seriously working on that. It was designed to explode a shell in space that would have..."
 
Ranchoth said:
Archibald said:
"There ain't such thing as a free (sausage) launch"
Click to expand...

That would be the meat space cannon.


"Our scientists were seriously working on that. It was designed to explode a shell in space that would have..."
Click to expand...
I've always found the notion that the Mossad offed Bull due to the Babylon gun to be ridiculous: it was a massive fixed emplacement, easily targeted. It's rate of fire would have been terrible, so at best it might get off one, maybe *two* shots - almost certain to be poorly aimed - before an Israeli F-15 came over the horizon to drop some LGB's straight down the bore. And the Iraqis would have blown *billions* setting it up. So Bull was actually helping the Israelis by getting the Iraqis to build an incredibly expensive giant target.

Of course, Bull also helped the Iraqis make better Scuds. *THAT* could very appropriately rile up the Israelis.
 
What I don't understand is why raw meat? Cooked meat is much more sanitary, keeps better, and would be just as compact if not more so depending on the preparation.
 
Orionblamblam said:
Ranchoth said:
Archibald said:
"There ain't such thing as a free (sausage) launch"
Click to expand...

That would be the meat space cannon.


"Our scientists were seriously working on that. It was designed to explode a shell in space that would have..."
Click to expand...
I've always found the notion that the Mossad offed Bull due to the Babylon gun to be ridiculous: it was a massive fixed emplacement, easily targeted. It's rate of fire would have been terrible, so at best it might get off one, maybe *two* shots - almost certain to be poorly aimed - before an Israeli F-15 came over the horizon to drop some LGB's straight down the bore. And the Iraqis would have blown *billions* setting it up. So Bull was actually helping the Israelis by getting the Iraqis to build an incredibly expensive giant target.

Of course, Bull also helped the Iraqis make better Scuds. *THAT* could very appropriately rile up the Israelis.
Click to expand...
I once called into a radio interview show to ask Scott Ritter about the Iraqi supergun. He worked for UNSCOM in post-war Iraq charged with locating and destroying WMD. He said that the gun wasn't aligned with any obvious target so it must have been intended as a satellite launcher rather than a weapon.
I've never seen this reported anywhere. The fairly rapid destruction of the supergun supports my theory that the US government actively suppressed low-cost launch technology for decades (think of it's lack of interest in: Bull's work in US/Canada, McDonnell Douglas Delta Clipper, Rotary Rocket and the prosecution of ORTAG). Yes, that's kind of a conspiracy theory but it makes sense that the USG would be happy with a near duopoly in space where the other player was spending itself into bankruptcy trying to keep up and everyone else was intimidated by the pricetag. The USG didn't really need more than a few dozen spy, observation and communications satellites - the rest was show business. That happy situation would end if a low-cost launch technology opened the field to lower-budget countries.
 
taildragger said:
I once called into a radio interview show to ask Scott Ritter about the Iraqi supergun. He worked for UNSCOM in post-war Iraq charged with locating and destroying WMD. He said that the gun wasn't aligned with any obvious target so it must have been intended as a satellite launcher rather than a weapon.
Click to expand...

Maybe. Was it pointed east, or west? If pointed east, it was either a satellite launcher or a way to annoy the Iranians. If it was pointed west, it was a way to bombard Israel. You're not using a cannon to put *anything* into retrograde orbit.

As to it being a cheaper way to send payloads to orbit: maybe, for a very limited range of payloads. If you're sending bulk aluminum or water or whatever to an existing orbital infrastructure, sure. If you want to send anything remotely like a useful communications or spysat, a cannon launch will crush the thing or shake it to bits.
 
Back in the Usenet days, someone had a bright idea for pizza delivery by ballistic missile. The concept was that you'd have a central pizza shop somewhere in, oh, Kansas or Missouri or somewhere like that. When someone ordered a pizza, it would be assembled on the top of a cheap LOx/LH2 rocket (I think these were to be expendable) and launched, uncooked, toward the recipient. The heat of re-entry would cook the pizza, and flight times from the southern Midwest would guarantee piping hot pizza across the Lower 48 (and much of Canada) in fifteen minutes or less.

Apparently the economics were reasonably plausible for this scheme.
 
The Excalibur shell had electronics-from the Superweapons series as I recall.
 
publiusr said:
The Excalibur shell had electronics-from the Superweapons series as I recall.
Click to expand...

Electronics can be potted into resin, made a solid brick. Harder for deployable solar panels and antenna and attitude control systems and long-distance large-size optics. Maybe you could pot everything in with solid nitrogen ice or something that would evaporate away once in space...
 
Something dissolvable.

I saw this tech which seems to limit the need for tracking the Sun for solar panels:
techxplore.com

Optical concentrator could help solar arrays capture more light, even on a cloudy day, without tracking the sun

Researchers have imagined, designed, and tested an elegant lens device that can efficiently gather light from all angles and concentrate it at a fixed output position. These graded index optics also have applications in areas such as light management in solid-state lighting, laser couplers, and...
techxplore.com techxplore.com

That might also simplify things. Not as many moving parts.
 
Orionblamblam said:
taildragger said:
I once called into a radio interview show to ask Scott Ritter about the Iraqi supergun. He worked for UNSCOM in post-war Iraq charged with locating and destroying WMD. He said that the gun wasn't aligned with any obvious target so it must have been intended as a satellite launcher rather than a weapon.
Click to expand...

Maybe. Was it pointed east, or west? If pointed east, it was either a satellite launcher or a way to annoy the Iranians. If it was pointed west, it was a way to bombard Israel. You're not using a cannon to put *anything* into retrograde orbit.

As to it being a cheaper way to send payloads to orbit: maybe, for a very limited range of payloads. If you're sending bulk aluminum or water or whatever to an existing orbital infrastructure, sure. If you want to send anything remotely like a useful communications or spysat, a cannon launch will crush the thing or shake it to bits.
Click to expand...
You're right. It's more likely that it was a fixed artillery system aimed at nothing.
A supergun wouldn't necessarily subject a projectile to the same accelerations as conventional artillery and conventional artillery can fire guided rounds with deployable and steerable fins, radar seekers, laser seekers, GPS receivers and ramjet engines. Maybe cannon-launching a functional satellite is an impossible step too far but its not implausible that someone would try.
 
Last edited:
taildragger said:
Orionblamblam said:
taildragger said:
I once called into a radio interview show to ask Scott Ritter about the Iraqi supergun. He worked for UNSCOM in post-war Iraq charged with locating and destroying WMD. He said that the gun wasn't aligned with any obvious target so it must have been intended as a satellite launcher rather than a weapon.
Click to expand...

Maybe. Was it pointed east, or west? If pointed east, it was either a satellite launcher or a way to annoy the Iranians. If it was pointed west, it was a way to bombard Israel. You're not using a cannon to put *anything* into retrograde orbit.

As to it being a cheaper way to send payloads to orbit: maybe, for a very limited range of payloads. If you're sending bulk aluminum or water or whatever to an existing orbital infrastructure, sure. If you want to send anything remotely like a useful communications or spysat, a cannon launch will crush the thing or shake it to bits.
Click to expand...
You're right. It's more likely that it was a fixed artillery system aimed at nothing.
A supergun wouldn't necessarily subject a projectile to the same accelerations as conventional artillery and conventional artillery can fire guided rounds with deployable and steerable fins, radar seekers, laser seekers, GPS receivers and ramjet engines. Maybe cannon-launching a functional satellite is an impossible step too far but its not implausible that someone would try.
Click to expand...
Dr. Gerald Bull equipped his High Water, Quebec range with several ultra-long guns that were made by welding together (end-to-end) pairs of US Navy surplus gun barrels. The barrels were salvaged from retired battleships. Those guns pointed west parallel to the Canada-USA. Bull bragged that he could shell Moscow!
 
Might those be turned into AAA bursting like a canister round for a shotgun like effect against hypersonics?

Bull’s work should continue
 
riggerrob said:
taildragger said:
Orionblamblam said:
taildragger said:
I once called into a radio interview show to ask Scott Ritter about the Iraqi supergun. He worked for UNSCOM in post-war Iraq charged with locating and destroying WMD. He said that the gun wasn't aligned with any obvious target so it must have been intended as a satellite launcher rather than a weapon.
Click to expand...

Maybe. Was it pointed east, or west? If pointed east, it was either a satellite launcher or a way to annoy the Iranians. If it was pointed west, it was a way to bombard Israel. You're not using a cannon to put *anything* into retrograde orbit.

As to it being a cheaper way to send payloads to orbit: maybe, for a very limited range of payloads. If you're sending bulk aluminum or water or whatever to an existing orbital infrastructure, sure. If you want to send anything remotely like a useful communications or spysat, a cannon launch will crush the thing or shake it to bits.
Click to expand...
You're right. It's more likely that it was a fixed artillery system aimed at nothing.
A supergun wouldn't necessarily subject a projectile to the same accelerations as conventional artillery and conventional artillery can fire guided rounds with deployable and steerable fins, radar seekers, laser seekers, GPS receivers and ramjet engines. Maybe cannon-launching a functional satellite is an impossible step too far but its not implausible that someone would try.
Click to expand...
Dr. Gerald Bull equipped his High Water, Quebec range with several ultra-long guns that were made by welding together (end-to-end) pairs of US Navy surplus gun barrels. The barrels were salvaged from retired battleships. Those guns pointed west parallel to the Canada-USA. Bull bragged that he could shell Moscow!
Click to expand...
Sounds like a perfect setup for a future episode of Murdoch Mysteries...
 
Bull bragged that he could shell Moscow!
Click to expand...
With 16-inch guns and 20 miles range ? my sorry a$$. Now of course, if his guns could reach orbit through MARTLET IV rockets, then indeed, he could go mini-FOBS on Moscow...

Gun-launched

Gun-launched
www.astronautix.com www.astronautix.com
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom