Does anybody know how big of an catapult would it take to hurl approximately nuclear plant sized object 420 kilometers? Or the formulas I need to calculate that shit. Just the catapult will do also, If you manage to mail it to me.
Exact mass of nucleus of an atom is nearly nothing, can't be certain of that though. Lots of nothing is really light so maybe a slingshot?
Or maybe put a realyl big wind turbine behind it.
I'm stux.
Quote from: Faust on August 03, 2018, 11:32:42 AM
Exact mass of nucleus of an atom is nearly nothing, can't be certain of that though. Lots of nothing is really light so maybe a slingshot?
Or maybe put a realyl big wind turbine behind it.
Tried that, but hippies keep suicide bombing all my turbines to the ground. Enviromental toll on the local penguin population is too high they say. I've tried to shoot them with my bazooka, but they always blow up their vest before I manage to hit them.
Quote from: axod on August 03, 2018, 11:44:00 AM
I'm stux.
No, the point is to reposition the plant, not getting rid of it.
From a 45 degree angle, use d = v2/g
So, the velocity needed will be v = √dg
The bigness of the catapult depends on the force required to reach the velocity. Of course, F = ma
Acceleration is a = ∆v/∆t. Mass depends on the nuclear plant.
Hope that helps!
a really fucking big one should do it
I recommend using a trebuchet. Oh, and you're going to need a parachute too, if you insist on repositioning.
Where the hell is PMD? Only he can deal with a question like this.
Quote from: rong on August 03, 2018, 02:32:27 PM
a really fucking big one should do it
Rong, I love your style, the most unflappable lazy response to even the weirdest of questions.
It would help if you explained the root problem you're trying to solve. I mean, depending on what you want, it might make more sense to transport the plant by lifting it with a fleet of dirigibles.
Catapults aren't very accurate over long distances...
I'd still go with a trebuchet. I mean, have you ever seen what one of those things can do with a pumpkin? And, it should go without saying, your parachute should to be one of those high-tech, steerable, square chutes.
To be honest, it seems like the main engineering challenge is to get the fucking plant in the trebuchet to begin with.
Quote from: LMNO on August 03, 2018, 07:47:35 PM
To be honest, it seems like the main engineering challenge is to get the fucking plant in the trebuchet to begin with.
It will be a lot easier to get the plant into a trebuchet than it will be to get it into a catapult. Using a trebuchet will allow the launch team to keep the plant perfectly flat during the loading phase. And that alone solves about half of the loading problem.
Now don't get me wrong, I have nothing against dirigibles. But, steam punk is a whole different genre. If we're going to go that route, then someone should have told me that in the first place.
Quote from: Faust on August 03, 2018, 06:11:36 PM
Quote from: rong on August 03, 2018, 02:32:27 PM
a really fucking big one should do it
Rong, I love your style, the most unflappable lazy response to even the weirdest of questions.
thanks, man. i was starting to think everyone had me on ignore or something
I'll try and get OP that catapult, or, if you have tug-boat, try the Akademik Lomonosov way.
Here's a photo of a very basic trebuchet:
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/4176dM-pIPL._SX385_.jpg)
Simply start with this very basic design, and scale it up to your particular needs.
Quote from: Brother Mythos on August 03, 2018, 08:34:20 PM
Now don't get me wrong, I have nothing against dirigibles. But, steam punk is a whole different genre. If we're going to go that route, then someone should have told me that in the first place.
The fleet of dirigibles was just an example. The OP clearly has some sort of problem, which he believes can be solved by flinging a nuclear plant with a catapult. However, before we spend too much effort on this, we need to stop and determine if there is a better way to accomplish the OP's
real objective, which he hasn't stated.
We also need to consider questions such as:
Is the plant being flung
to somewhere, or
away from somewhere? What are the accuracy requirements? Would it be acceptable to dismantle the plant, fling the individual components, and then reassemble it at site? (Hurling one building at a time would help reduce the scale of equipment required).
Why a catapult in particular? Has using rocketry and/or explosives to put the plant into a sub-orbital trajectory been considered? I've already expressed my preference for dirigibles, but if the hurling part isn't strictly necessary, very large flat-bed trucks might also be appropriate.
Nuclear power hasn't been very popular lately. Why not fling a solar power installation, instead?
Of course, if hurling a nuclear plant is the objective in itself, then this analysis is unnecessary, although Brother Mythos does have some good points, and it would make sense to do a comparative study of catapults vs. trebuchets prior to proceeding.
Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on August 04, 2018, 04:45:45 AM
Quote from: Brother Mythos on August 03, 2018, 08:34:20 PM
Now don't get me wrong, I have nothing against dirigibles. But, steam punk is a whole different genre. If we're going to go that route, then someone should have told me that in the first place.
The fleet of dirigibles was just an example. The OP clearly has some sort of problem, which he believes can be solved by flinging a nuclear plant with a catapult. However, before we spend too much effort on this, we need to stop and determine if there is a better way to accomplish the OP's real objective, which he hasn't stated.
We also need to consider questions such as:
Is the plant being flung to somewhere, or away from somewhere? What are the accuracy requirements? Would it be acceptable to dismantle the plant, fling the individual components, and then reassemble it at site? (Hurling one building at a time would help reduce the scale of equipment required).
Why a catapult in particular? Has using rocketry and/or explosives to put the plant into a sub-orbital trajectory been considered? I've already expressed my preference for dirigibles, but if the hurling part isn't strictly necessary, very large flat-bed trucks might also be appropriate.
Nuclear power hasn't been very popular lately. Why not fling a solar power installation, instead?
Of course, if hurling a nuclear plant is the objective in itself, then this analysis is unnecessary, although Brother Mythos does have some good points, and it would make sense to do a comparative study of catapults vs. trebuchets prior to proceeding.
I can't argue with this sort of superior logic.
:science:
If the plant is on this planet (or any planet for that matter) it is already hurtling through space at a very high rate of speed.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 04, 2018, 06:54:46 AM
I can't argue with this sort of superior logic.
When you spend six months designing and building a 200-ton robot monster, only to discover that a roomba with a salad fork duct-taped to it would have worked just as well, you think about these things.
Sorry, I was off the grid for a moment, dodging flying potatoes with wires attached to them.
So the plant doesn't exactly need to stay intact during the flight phase, but if it did the result would look way more spectacular in the evening news. The main mission objective is to powerlevitate something heavy enough that the modern missile defense systems would just sigh, give up and go to a holiday somewhere warm and nice where there isn't any flying nuclear plants.
Also the trebuchet seems to be fitting my purposes better, thanks for suggestion. Anything more modern than that would kind of ruin the point I'm trying to make.