View Full Version : Space Catapult.


Cthulhu
01-10-03, 06:03 AM
http://www.globalgallery.com/images/aa-2366.jpg

Giant Catapult as envisioned by Leonardo Da Vinci.


Yes, I realise this is insane and can never ever work, but I still want to build it and launch things into space anyway.

The early rocket pioneers used to employ catapults for gaining extra altitude from their models. Back in the middle ages huge siege engines were employed for knocking down castle walls. Large boulders were sent sailing through the sky from a distance that was beyond longbow range. Perhaps they were on to something. Forget the Jules Verne cannon with its monstrous barrel and explosives. Just use a long lever and a counter weight.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/lostempires/trebuchet/images/trebuchethome3a.gif

NOVA's successful attempt to build and shoot a giant trebuchet (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/lostempires/trebuchet/), the most destructive war machine that ever laid siege to a medieval castle.

Giant Medieval War Machine Is Wowing British Farmers And Scaring the Sheep. (http://www.interweavers.com/brett/humor/trebuchet.html)
With surprising grace, the grand piano sails through the sky a hundred feet above a pasture here, finally returning to earth in a fortissimo explosion of wood chunks, ivory keys and piano wire.

Nor is the piano the strangest thing to startle the grazing sheep this Sunday morning. A few minutes later, a car soars by - a 1975 blue two-door Hillman, to be exact - following the same flight path and meeting the same loud fate. Pigs fly here, too. In recent months, many dead 500-pound sows (two of them wearing parachutes) have passed overhead, as has the occasional dead horse.

It's the work of Hew Kennedy's medieval siege engine, a four story tall, 30 ton behemoth that's the talk of bucolic Shropshire, 140 miles northwest of London. In ancient times, such war machines were dreaded instruments of destruction, flinging huge missiles, including plague-ridden horses, over the walls of besieged castles. Only one full-sized one exists today, designed and built by Mr. Kennedy, a wealthy landowner, inventor, military historian and - need it be said? - full-blown eccentric.

History of Catapults. (http://home.t-online.de/home/d.baatz/catapult.htm)
Catapults were invented about 400 BC in the powerful Greek town Syracus under Dionysios I (ca. 430-367 BC). The Greek engineers first constructed a comparatively small machine, the gastraphetes, sort of a crossbow.

http://home.t-online.de/home/d.baatz/gastr1.jpg



http://www.trebuchet.com/articles/ron/treb.gif
To ride a Trebuchet. (http://www.trebuchet.com/articles/ron/trebuchet.html)
According to physicists this is quite impossible so don't try it at home.

http://www.catapults.info/trebuchet1.jpg


Ok. Time for some math.

http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/images/machines1.gif

If EA = 10 m, RA = 1 m, and you drop R = 200 kilos at 32 m per second, weight E = 20 kilos will fly in the air at 320 m per second!

If we multiply the long arm by a factor of ten to an impressive 100 m then we get 20 kilo's launched at 3.2 km per second!! To increase payload we mutiply both it and the counterweight. Changing R to 2000 kilos(X10) and E to 200 kilos(X10) for example.

So we would need something in the order of this:

Long arm EA = 400 metres.

Short arm RA = 1 metres.

Counterweight R = 10,000 kilo's.

Payload E = 1,000 kilo's.

Launch velocity of payload = 12.8 km per second.

Required velocity is only 11.2 km per second but that gives us a margin of error and should counter air resistance. I hope I didn't fudge up those calculations. I had to look over some websites on mechanical levers. Its more complex than I thought it would be. Is there a mathematician in the house? Hopefully this is correct.

One metre might be too short to place 10,000 kilos on so we might have to lengthen the short end. Ofcourse whatever we lengthen it by has to be taken into account for the long arm. Unless ofcourse we get around that by increasing the weight further. Changing it from one metre to two metres would mean having to change the 400 m long arm to a monstrous 800 m arm. Jeepers. Even 400 m looks too long to me. I would rather increase the counterweight as much as is possible. Theres no reason it couldn't be like a long rod running parallel to the ground. This would give more size and yet not interfere with the machine. So we might end up with this:

Long arm EA = 80 metres.

Short arm RA = 2 metres.

Counterweight R = 100,000 kilo's.

Payload E = 1,000 kilo's.

Launch velocity of payload = 12.8 km per second.

After launching 1 metric ton, the counterweight can be lifted and another payload placed on the pitching arm. Preferably encased in heat resistant material to reduce burnup.

The weight of the arm would have to be taken into account so I expect the counterweight would actually be a lot more than 100 metric tons.

Please feel free to shoot this down if you see any flaws in my calculations. I want to know if it's really a practical solution for cheap launches. I know that a model built that was a reproduction of the largest type ever used had a lead counterweight weighing 6.5 tons, and the overall weight for a similar machine in England was 30 tons so it would certainly be an ambitious project but by no means an impossible one.

Using a hinged pivotal counterweight to increase the straightness of descent will increase power. I am in love with this idea. No detailed plans exist for siege engines. Only out of scale drawings and brief outlines written by the ancients. It's a forgotten technology. Those building them today are relearning the art. For instance, many carvings and reliefs show Trebuchets with wheels. It was assumed this was for transportation but when reproduced it was quickly realised these monsters could never have travelled on ancient roads. When fired, those without wheels would upend and damage themselves crashing back down. Those with wheels would smoothly transfer momentum to the arm and the rolling forward was like a running baseball pitcher, it would add about a third as much distance to the range. This doesn't help for our vertical space shot, but does demonstrate how much we have forgotten about catapults.

At this point in my rambling at Treb.com some smartpants stuck their hand up and pointed out the acceleration of gravity was 32 feet per second. Not 32 metres.

http://198.144.2.125/Siege/OtherSiegeEngines/Full/TrebLarge2.gif

Back to the drawing board.

By that reckoning my machine is only one third as powerful. Instead of the original math resulting in 320 m per second it actually reads 98 m per second. So the scaled up model will need an arm just over 3 times as long or around 250 m. I'd rather stick with 80 m so the only other option is to increase the counterweight to 300 metric tons. Still have to get permission from the city parks commission, a union waver, NASA clearance, EPA approval, coordinate press coverage (without sigining away book and movie rights!), get scheduled on Jay Leno for "free" ad time, etc., etc.

P.S. ... with the tip velocity of the arm, can you imagine the sonic boom???

Adam
01-10-03, 06:08 AM
A while back there was talk of launching rockets from deep underwater, using pressure to catapult the rocket up at great speed. Anyone remember that stuff?

Asguard
01-10-03, 06:10 AM
you do realise the planes you posted at the top are not a catapult there a basister (its not spelt like that but you get the idea)?

Cthulhu
01-10-03, 06:18 AM
"A while back there was talk of launching rockets from deep underwater, using pressure to catapult the rocket up at great speed. Anyone remember that stuff?"

Something about a tube wasn't it. Utilising water pressure. Sounded like an engineering nightmare. This from a guy who wants to build giant catapults.

"You do realise the plans you posted at the top are not a catapult there a basister"

Vaguely. I knew it wasn't a catapult per se but thats what the poster advertised it as being. Didn't recall the actual name. I did read up on the history of catapults and it is quite interesting.

For instance...

For several hundred years, military technicians have been trying fruitlessly to reconstruct a working trebuchet. Cortez built one for the siege of Mexico City. On its first shot, it flung a huge boulder straight up - and then straight down, demolishing the machine. In 1851, Napoleon III had a go at it, as an academic exercise. His trebuchet was poorly balanced and barely managed to hurl the missiles - backward.

Asguard
01-10-03, 06:46 AM
i love age of empires:p

The ballista was an early artillery weapon that fired missiles, primarily large bolts or spears. It was used in attacks on cities or fortified positions because it could cause structural damage and casualties from a great distance. When it could be deployed on a battlefield, it was especially useful against dense formations of troops. In this situation, one shot could cause multiple casualties. The ballista was invented in the second half of the first millennium BC, probably by Greek engineers. It functioned like a large crossbow. Tension was built up in the engine by twisting leather, and then released, propelling the missile down a guided trough and into flight.



The Helepolis (Greek for "city killer") was one of the most advanced weapons of antiquity and a remarkable demonstration of ancient engineering ingenuity. It was in fact an automatic siege weapon that fired ballista bolts. The top loading magazine of the helepolis was a horizontal funnel in which were laid bundles of bolts. These were fed by gravity into the chamber of the weapon. A clever gearing mechanism automatically recocked the helepolis and fired. Human operators needed only to keep it loaded and aimed, plus provide power by cranking. The original of the machine was abandoned outside the city of Rhodes when a besieging army withdrew. It has been reconstructed on paper from contemporary sketches and descriptions of that only known example.

Cthulhu
01-10-03, 09:11 PM
Ah yes, Ballista. Now I remember. Due to the material restraints of contruction I was wondering whether torsion springs might be better than a class 1 lever like a Treb. I recall reading in the above history that there is no limit to scale with torsion artillery. I've experimented with steel springs myself and when used in parallel there is no limit to how many can be applied. A counterweight would still be necessary and the machine would still be very simple. This negates the cumbersomely lengthy lever. Maybe Leonardo had space travel in mind when he drew up that machine. The man had an obsession with flight.

James R
01-11-03, 06:58 PM
Want to launch things into space with your catapult? No problem. All you need to do is built a catapult which can launch things at 11 km per second.

Hmm... might be a bit difficult after all.

Cthulhu
01-11-03, 09:27 PM
11200 metres per second sounds like a lot. Because it is. Still, all we need is a catapult design which can be scaled up sufficiently without suffering loss of structural integrity. The class 1 lever would be difficult. Something shaped more like a tower would work better. How about a million bungee ropes stetched to the limit? Thwack.

Cthulhu
01-13-03, 05:49 AM
Does anybody know whether a steel compression spring could be built on a scale capable of launching objects into space? I've been pondering tower like catapults to get around the gravity stress problems associated with Treb levers. A steel coil around a stabilising pillar seems like the simplest solution. Thats a heck of a big mattress spring I know. Really just a thick stainless steel wire wrapped around the pillar while hot. There has to be a reason why this can't work or else it would have been tried already. Just curious.
:confused: