The links to the details are worth following, any scientific test where the report includes the phrase "the hypersonic expanding column of vaporized concrete" must have been spectacular, whatever happened!
Did speeding American manhole cover beat Sputnik into space? Top boffin speaks to El Reg
As any space enthusiast knows, beachball-sized Sputnik was the first manmade object to orbit the Earth after it was launched by the Soviets in October 1957. But it's possible the US managed to put an object into space a few months before that. In 1956, astrophysicist Dr Robert Brownlee was asked by his boss at the Los Alamos …
-
-
Thursday 16th July 2015 08:02 GMT werdsmith
Escape velocity is the thing, presumably the assumption is that the thing could have been still shifting at a good lick when it left the atmosphere and entered an orbit with a parabolic trajectory if any part of it has survived the heating on the way up (which would have been combined with the momentary effect of the blast). It would have been possible to calculate is the mass of that plug could hold that much energy without disintegrating.
First to Sub-orbital space was probably Werner with his V2.
But whatever, if there was nuclear blast energy being hosed vertically out of the end of a tube then we need video. This just has to be seen. Anyone know of any links I would be very interested.
-
-
Thursday 16th July 2015 10:24 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Paris gun
Paris Gun would only achieve 25 miles in altitude on a normal range shot.
A V2 however would reach 55 miles (88km), on a range shot, but could achieve 128 Miles (206km) if fired vertically upwards.
Neither of these would achieve any kind of orbit. The V2 however would cross the 100km Karman line.
*IF* the manhole cover escaped Earth it would likely still be on a Solar Orbit..
-
-
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Sunday 19th July 2015 14:13 GMT ZSn
Re: "approximation for the impact depth" is an approximation
I'm afraid you misunderstood the impact depth equation. It all depends upon momentum transfer. The momentum is transferred to whatever it is hitting (in this case the atmosphere, which is equivalent to about 10 metres of water). If it could push it aside then it wouldn't be applicable. Wikipedia actually does a resonable take:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_depth
-
Tuesday 21st July 2015 14:47 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: "approximation for the impact depth" is an approximation
How far can you throw a 2p coin?
For its thickness Impact depth states 2mm (6660/1.22) = 11m
However this disc will tumble and shed air. its going to go much further than impact depth on its thickness predicts, so perhaps the calc should be done on its diameter...
-
-
-
-
Thursday 16th July 2015 11:39 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Orbit?
Nope. The solar escape velocity of the Sun at the distance of the Earth's orbit, is a shade over 42km/s.
So IF that things survived passage through the Earth's atmosphere (and it seems to me that the probability of that happening at that velocity is rather small), it was headed for interstellar space, and would have got there well before Voyager.
-
Thursday 16th July 2015 11:57 GMT Annihilator
Re: Orbit?
"So IF that things survived passage through the Earth's atmosphere (and it seems to me that the probability of that happening at that velocity is rather small), it was headed for interstellar space, and would have got there well before Voyager."
Surely that depends on what direction it was going in comparison to our orbit. If it were facing the opposite way to our orbital trajectory (launched at 6am or 6pm, not sure which), it would have lost orbital 'speed' and effectively moved to a lower solar orbit.
-
-
Thursday 16th July 2015 12:36 GMT Jim 59
Re: Orbit?
If the object exceeded escape velocity, it would not enter any shape of orbit around Earth, it would just carry on until it hit something or got captured into orbiting another body (thinking about it, it probably would orbit the sun).
Not exactly, if I understand Wikipedia right (and it's explanation is not the clearest). The object would escape earth if launched directly upwards. After escaping earth, it would have to contend with the Sun's much greater gravity, and might start to orbit the Sun. If launched at an angle, the object would achieve "escape orbit" from earth, a parabolic path but not a closed shape, which I don't quite understand the sequence of events.
-
-
Thursday 16th July 2015 13:19 GMT Eugene Crosser
Most probably, the first man-made object outside atmosphere was V2, the first man-made object on Earth orbit was Sputnik. This plug, if it did not disintegrate (and most likely it did) and kept escape velocity when it exited the atmosphere, could claim to be the first man-made object to go to space and stay there.
Otherwise, that would be Luna 1, launched in 1959.
-
-
-
-
Thursday 16th July 2015 12:52 GMT Sprismoid
Re: Very interesting story,
My father tracked the first orbit of Sputnik in Dublin using a rig he designed and built himself! Our family grew up with the sounds of various Russian and US satellites ringing around the house.. No wonder my sister built a SaturnV instead of a doll's house :) And I ended up here!!
-
Friday 17th July 2015 23:34 GMT Wzrd1
Re: Very interesting story,
Considering the technology in use in that era, it's surprising it wasn't ticking and required a manned mission to wind it back up.
Considering that state of the art of that era was vacuum tubes, which intensely disliked high G acceleration.
So, a tip of the hat to the ingenious Russians of that era!
Nationalism and space is a bad idea.
-
Saturday 18th July 2015 13:28 GMT MacroRodent
Re: Very interesting story,
Considering that state of the art of that era was vacuum tubes, which intensely disliked high G acceleration
You are thinking of the variety used in living room equipment, with thin glass and delicate insides. Ruggedized equipment used much more sturdily built ones. I have a very small tube from a WW2 German military radio (probably) somewhere among my assorted junk. It does not even have a socket, just wires coming through the thick glass and says "Wehrmacht" on the label.
-
-
-
-
-
Thursday 16th July 2015 08:45 GMT Paul Kinsler
Re: 2.0013% of the maximum velocity of a sheep in a vacuum.
Hmm, interesting. If I calculate correctly, a 55ton yield gives about 55*4GJ energy (since 1Mton is 4PJ), so that if all the explosive energy turned into the kinetic energy of a 100kg lid, it would end up travelling at 0.0002 of c as well.
Perhaps that was the original calculation :-)
(bah - half ton lid ... so erm, 0.0001 of c)
-
-
-
Thursday 16th July 2015 08:17 GMT Anonymous Coward
Slightly disappointing to read the detail
Unfortunately, the bomb yield was much greater than anticipated – 50,000 times greater, apparently.
The disappointment being that this test was intended to be an accidental detonation safety test, with a yield of 1-2 pounds! The 50,000-times-greater yield only amounted to a yield of 55 tons. It doubtless still made an impressive Roman Candle, but not the multi-megaton bug-planet-threatening manhole-cover cannon I'd been envisaging from the article!
-
-
-
Thursday 16th July 2015 18:08 GMT Dave 32
Re: Slightly disappointing to read the detail
Probably not as bad as the Castle Bravo nuclear test shot, which was only supposed to be 5 megaTons, but, instead, was closer to 15 megaTons. It seems that the designers missed the fact that the Lithium in the Lithium-Deuteride boost fuel would contribute to the fusion. Whoopsie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo#Detonation
And, yeah, that would require a change of underwear!
Note that some of the islands in the Bikini Atoll no longer exist. Bokonijien, Aerokojlol, and Nam were vapourized during nuclear testing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikini_Atoll#Geography
Dave
P.S. Despite the island chain giving name to a popular type of swimwear, the natives are very modest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikini_Atoll#Clothing_and_dress
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikini_Atoll#Swimsuit_design
-
Saturday 18th July 2015 09:57 GMT Fruit and Nutcase
Re: Slightly disappointing to read the detail
Pikinni ("surface of coconuts") -> Bikini. Quite descriptive!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikini_Atoll#Etymology
"The island's English name is derived from the German colonial name Bikini given to the atoll when it was part of German New Guinea. The German name is transliterated from the Marshallese name for the island, Pikinni, ([pʲi͡ɯɡɯ͡inʲːii̯]), Pik" meaning "surface" and "Ni" meaning "coconut", or surface of coconuts.[2]"
-
-
-
-
-
Thursday 16th July 2015 09:00 GMT Mike Shepherd
Superpowers
Superpowers spend a lot of time scrabbling for evidence that they did just about everything before anyone else, even if by accident and with no useful result. I may as well claim that my first fart in 1955 included six hydrogen molecules which made it to the interstellar void. Russia was in space first, nearly 60 years ago: apparently that still smarts.
-
Thursday 16th July 2015 09:40 GMT Six_Degrees
Re: Superpowers
Not so much. I remember first hearing this story at least 20 years ago, and I got the impression it had been in circulation for quite a long time even then. I don't think there's any current smarting taking place, although that might have been the case during the Cold War, when it seems this story first appeared.
-
Thursday 16th July 2015 17:35 GMT asdf
Re: Superpowers
>Russia was in space first, nearly 60 years ago: apparently that still smarts.
In the end it was all a matter of who kidnapped the best Germans anyway. The only reason the US lost was not trusting Von Braun sooner. I still honestly believe if he dies in WW2 even today we never would have went to the moon. We recently saw how good the Russians version of the Rocketdyne J-2 engines was when the rocket it was on recently blew up.
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Biting the hand that feeds IT
