Check out the latest in gun-launched UAVs, courtesy of Draper Laboratories. It fits into a shroud that fits into a standard 155 mm gun barrel. Note the high g tolerances cited at the end of the quoted patent abstract.
Here is an article from Electronics Design News: http://www.reed-electronics.com/ednmag/article/CA341454?industryid=2573 Seeing is believing? Take a gander: http://www.reed-electronics.com/ednmag/contents/images/341454f1.pdf The people who design these kinds of wundergadgets are not amateurs: http://www.metisdesign.com/team.html (See bio for Seth Kessler.) Here is one of the patents: --- Flyer assembly Patent # U.S. 6,392,213; Date Issued: May 21, 2002 A flyer assembly is adapted for launching with, transit in, and deployment from an artillery shell having a central void region extending along a ballistic shell axis. The flyer assembly includes a jettisonable shroud and a flyer. The shroud extends along a shroud axis, and is positionable within the central void region with the shroud axis substantially parallel to the shell axis. The flyer is adapted to withstand a launch acceleration force along a flyer axis when in a first state, and to effect aerodynamic flight when in a second state. When in the first state, the flyer is positionable within the shroud with the flyer axis parallel to the shroud axis and the shell axis. The flyer includes a body member disposed about the flyer axis, and a foldable wing assembly mounted to the body member. The wing assembly is configurable in a folded state characterized by a plurality of nested wing segments when the flyer is in the first state. The wing assembly is configurable in an unfolded state characterized by a substantially uninterrupted aerodynamic surface when the flyer is in the second state. The flyer assembly is adapted to be launched from a ballistic delivery system such as an artillery cannon, and can thus reach a target quickly, without expending system energy stored within the flyer. During launch, the flyer is coupled to the shroud so as to maintain a portion of the flyer in tension during an acceleration of the flyer along the flyer axis resulting from the launch. The flyer assembly is adapted to withstand the high g-load and high temperature environments of a cannon launch, and can tolerate a set-back g load of about 16,000 g. --- I'm working (feebly, it's true) on a book about the history of the idea of gun launch to space. And this is one of several supposed showstopper myths I want to pound a stake through the heart of: the quick and easy conclusion that gun launch means you can't put anything terribly sophisticated in the projectile. You can. You just can't buy the parts down at Space Cadets R Us. But when has that ever been true even for conventional rocket launch? Undoubtedly, gun launch entails design compromises that increase payload mass over an equivalent payload for a conventional launcher. However, at $600/lb or less to achieve orbital velocity, doubling and even tripling the payload mass to address higher accelerations is a non-issue in the context of today's high launch costs. More likely, it's a 20%-35% penalty for a given equivalent payload. Furthermore, launching"equivalent payloads" may actually make little sense if such launch economies can be achieved. Instead, you might see lots of on-orbit integration from bundles of parts, and many more designs for satellites and probes design to withstand rather small accelerations, such as those they'd experience from an ion drive doing a long-term orbital insertion. In any case, autonomous payloads of not only high electronic complexity but high electromechanical complexity can be launched from guns. The significance for cheaper space probe missions can hardly be lost on readers here. Regards, Michael Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. If you're interested in my book project, and want to help, please do NOT send me anything except news within the last year or so. If you found some resource in 5 minutes, I probably found it myself at least 5 months ago. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2004 1:06 PM Subject: RE: The gun thing again [Off Topic] > > Greetings Sir, > Some comments on your post > > At 02:28 PM 4/8/04 -0500, you wrote: > > >One of the problems I encountered was how do you build circuitry to > >survive the launch. The forces involved will destroy most electronics as > >they are now built. Solids state is not very solid after 15x > >gravitational forces. > > Actually, this is probably not a major problem. Gerald Bull put electronics > in shells he launched back in the 1960's. Just packed them with sand in his > shells. JPL sent two penetrator probes into Mars. The probes did not work, > but evidence suggests that it was problems with the battery supply (i.e. > the battery couldn't survive the long cold and still function) and not the > electronics. Also, combat UAV's can pull (I believe) more that 15g's and > they survive just fine. Crash Black boxes in Indy cars routinely survive > probably 50-100 G's in crashs (for extremely short periods of time). So the > electronics will survive. > > >Comments? > > > >Joe L. > > > Thanx, > > Gordon > > == > You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/ > > == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
