Wave Motion Jet Gun

A primarily space launch oriented startup has gotten a bit of funding from Army DEVCOM to develop mortars that use an impulse launcher rather than conventional means. Advantages are size and weight reduction at higher projectile velocity. Disadvantages are changes to the logic of doing gun things and, for pansies, the right hand side of picrel. https://wavemotionlaunch.space/updates/wave-motion-awarded-16-million-in-army-direct-to-phase-ii-sbir

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 weeks ago
    caius
    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      You could make a rocket projectile and it would amount to the same thing but better.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        The point is that instead of precision-manufacturing rockets you get to use the same rocket over and over and over again to push the cheap mass-produced projectiles.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          It will never work precise. It's just some money eating pit like the ball shaped gasoline powered engine that will change the world (never) or fusion energy.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >he doesn't think a highly efficient, lightweight and compact motor has applications
            Low iq

  2. 2 weeks ago
    caius
  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >macron beams
    Holy shit. Macron beamers are the GOAT of space weapons. Using them for launch is something I never considered.

    • 2 weeks ago
      caius

      Chatter from the guy with space nerds here
      https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=57600.0

  4. 2 weeks ago
    caius

    The contract is a Phase II award under the Army’s Small Business Innovative Research program. Wave Motion previous work was under its selection in the xTech Pacific competition. The company was founded by University of Washington alumni Finn van Donkelaar (who holds the patent and CEO), James Penna (COO) and Casey Dunn.

    The company had a previous US$1.3 million contract for Jet Gun development from the Office of Naval Research.

    Penna explained progress on this effort, “We are still finishing the contract we had with the Office of Naval Research and can report that we’ve had successful tests occur under that project”. He further indicated “Wave Motion is developing a more advanced version of the Jet Gun that creates longer jets using solid entrained particles to extend the acceleration path for projectiles to potentially hundreds of times the length of the launcher system.”

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This seems desgined by moronic "engineers".

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      piece of shitty sheet steel gets the frick beat out of it

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      It's just a technology demonstrator anon. Not even a prototype

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >space start up with interesting ideas
    >starts selling artillery to pay the bills
    I've heard this story before and it ends with the CEO being assassinated by the Israelis.

    • 2 weeks ago
      caius

      I wouldn't worry about it, these guys are from Washington state so if anything their politics lean woke and anti-...oh

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Frick off, gun launches will never be viable for space and this guy was willingly working on a poorly thought out 'superweapon' explicitly designed to target the Israelis. He had it coming the moment he started working for Saddam.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >explicitly designed to target the Israelis
        Based, FRICK Christ-killing thirdies.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The babylon gun was just him continuing work on his sub-caliber, gun launched, satellite dreams. Obviously it's impractical, but he obviously didn't think so. The Babylon gun's possibility as being militarily relevant was near zero. It would have no ability to aim at all. Even the Israelis knew it had no military value.

        What did have military value were the Scud redesigns that were explicitly ordered to improve Iraqi striking power against Israel and Iran. That why they killed him.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Super autist just wants to build BIG GUN and the israelites piss and moan and extrajudicially kill him
        You deserve a good nuclear dick-slapping for turning your backs on God, Canaanite.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          but imagine the cool alternate history where Mossad kidnaps Bull and forces him to work for them... maybe we'd have moon guns by now lmao

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Imagine the alternate history where Bull’s program succeeds, Saddam flattens Jerusalem and the CIA force Bull to work for them instead under threat of dickslapping, allowing the US to build multiple sick as frick space guns.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Imagine the alternate history where Bull’s program succeeds, Saddam flattens Jerusalem and the CIA force Bull to work for them instead under threat of dickslapping, allowing the US to build multiple sick as frick space guns.

            For frick's sake, you're not getting around the material necessities of gun-launch systems that make them inefficient and impractical compared to rockets.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              Nah, eleventy billion gs of acceleration is super easy to design around. Trivial even.

              but imagine the cool alternate history where Mossad kidnaps Bull and forces him to work for them... maybe we'd have moon guns by now lmao

              Bull's most relevant and enduring work was with gun artillery. Finishing development of base bleed units and the ERFB concept. Both of those were already out and about by the time he got killed.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                What test is this

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                What are you talking about? The picture? That's just a generic 155mm projectile with a base bleed unit in flight.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >gun launches will never be viable for space
        completely untrue, while it'd be garbage for satellite launches, a gun launcher with a receiving station in orbit could move bulk freight to orbit for a fraction of the cost of pretty much any other conceivable system, and would be super useful for bringing up fuel and materials to manufacture things with in space.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          gun launch systems or other types of mass drivers are only good for throwing trash from the moon at Tel Aviv

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            they're good for any cargo that isn't very sensitive. Rockets suck dick, space planes, rotovators, and mass drivers are the future.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              >they're good for any cargo that isn't very sensitive
              build a longer gun

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >build a longer gun
                by the time you have a long enough gun to make it safe for humans, you are already poking the barrel out of the atmosphere. Not saying that idea isn't fricking rad, but it's definitely something you'd wait until you had more mature infrastructure for that sort of thing before you'd bother.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                it'll never work from Earth due to various reasons but mostly zoning laws, so you should give up on any of your stupid gimmicks for launching from Earth's surface

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >to various reasons but mostly zoning laws
                yeah, it's really mostly that. But it doesn't mean that gun launches for bulk freight aren't a good idea. If I had Elon Musk levels of funding I'd bribe the Equadorian government to let me build a giant cannon on top of Chimborizo.

                >mass drivers used to reach orbit
                maybe on the moon - on earth its wise to get trough first dozen or so miles of atmosphere first and accelerate to orbital speeds later - doing so in reverse order means lots of heat generated by friction

                You put a station or series of stations in orbit and have them catch the projectiles.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                you're fricking moronic, you know that?
                are you the skyhook schizo? knowing what a rotovator is makes me think so

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                I don't think so, I've never talked about space stuff on /k/ before. What am I moronic about?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                how the frick are you planning to use a space station to accelerate a suborbital projectile onto an orbital trajectory?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                You don't launch straight up, you're just shaving off some of what you need for getting into an orbital trajectory, and you launch fuel up to provide the station with what you need for station keeping.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                you didn't answer the question, anon

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Yes I did, once the station has captured it the rest is a matter of station keeping by the station. If you don't know how orbital mechanics work enough to realize that, you're not worth talking about this to.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                how the frick are you going to "capture" something moving at multiple km/s relative to you

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                see, that's the actually interesting question, and there are a number of options for how you could accomplish that, but you've pretty plainly indicated that you're not interested in discussing how to accomplish things and instead you just want to feel like you're smart by declaring everything you don't understand to be impossible. I've seen you in a lot of threads, since you seem to just get off on going to threads where people ask about hypothetical future systems or some new and novel weapon and you immediately declare it to be impossible for some reason that anyone with even a lukewarm IQ could tell was easily solvable. I am pretty sure you are the same moron who declared that using smoke shells from artillery to cover an advance was impossible.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                stand still while I fricking shoot you, see how you catch this bullet
                much easier problem, no?
                if you can articulate even the barest hint of an idea for this I'll take you seriously
                also that other guy sounds moronic, smoke shells are cool

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >stand still while I fricking shoot you, see how you catch this bullet
                okay, so you do get at least one way that something could capture an object moving several km/s relative to them, although admittedly a rather inelegant one. I prefer a system with a catcher system on a tether that gets spooled out and bleeds off momentum through friction, then reels the shell back in, but ultimately the specific way you do it doesn't matter.
                >that other guy sounds moronic
                he sounded just like you
                >smoke shells are cool
                yeah
                >if you can articulate even the barest hint of an idea for this I'll take you seriously
                I've seen your pattern before, every time you say something is stupid by raising an objection that is obviously solvable, someone points out an obvious solution to it, then you raise some new objection that is also has an obvious answer to the new solution. When you reach a couple layers of this you forget what the previous answers were because you're not actually interested in having a real discussion, and then you raise objections you already raised and has answered.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >mass drivers used to reach orbit
                maybe on the moon - on earth its wise to get trough first dozen or so miles of atmosphere first and accelerate to orbital speeds later - doing so in reverse order means lots of heat generated by friction

                The book is called „the moon is a harsh mistress“

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                see my earlier post:

                gun launch systems or other types of mass drivers are only good for throwing trash from the moon at Tel Aviv

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              >mass drivers used to reach orbit
              maybe on the moon - on earth its wise to get trough first dozen or so miles of atmosphere first and accelerate to orbital speeds later - doing so in reverse order means lots of heat generated by friction

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    implessive

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Neat concept, but by their materials they haven't exceeded regular cannon muzzle velocities yet. The massive jet blast seems like a large constraint

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What's the difference with a regular mortar?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's worse

      • 2 weeks ago
        caius

        That is a test device that presumably has nothing to do with the artillery program. It was their proof of concept that they made on the cheap for pitching their space launch plans.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It seems like it operates as a sort of recoilless rifle, but with a 180° flame diverter so you don't have to worry about backblast, but it's really not clear.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          No.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Where are you getting recoilless rifle from when you can clearly see the recoil?
          You absolute dingus.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      It creates a long, focused jet from the muzzle which continues to accelerate the projectile after it has left the barrel.

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Seems like it might work but I don't really know enough to say for sure.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Now it's much clearer. I wonder what the accuracy of such a system might be, without a barrel to keep things pointed the right way, especially during acceleration.

      • 2 weeks ago
        caius

        Hopefully useful reference. "several modules of a main propellant installed around its tail boom" refers to propelling / augmenting charges, better known as cheese charges in western militaries. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA503149.pdf

        I think it's highly suggestive that they mention powered smart munitions and a range of calibers. The US still wants to push this type of shit: https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/61581262/#q61582146

        Given that mortar rounds are already locally optimal, in some sense – they're geometrically about as compact as they can be, given the current design concept – it doesn't strike me as likely that they'll be retained but with a novel firing mechanism anytime soon.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >cheese charges
          mon dieu! c'est un crim de guerre!

          Like the american wine perfidity!

    • 2 weeks ago
      caius

      Thanks

      Now it's much clearer. I wonder what the accuracy of such a system might be, without a barrel to keep things pointed the right way, especially during acceleration.

      Their FAQ is also sorta-useful, and they've tried to do multiple "elevator pitch" videos in 1 min:

      https://www.wavemotionlaunch.space/technology
      picrel. Note though that those values haven't updated since prior to their artillery work. So they might be out of date.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Holy shit it's the space gun all over again. I mean, the core principle is cool, but give me some CFD to prove feasibility, because going orbital in the span of a jet blast means high G no matter what, the only way around it is forming a collimated supersonic jet longer than the fricking HARP gun which is frankly even more bonkers than HARP itself.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/cJDamI7.png

      Thanks

      [...]
      Their FAQ is also sorta-useful, and they've tried to do multiple "elevator pitch" videos in 1 min:

      https://www.wavemotionlaunch.space/technology
      picrel. Note though that those values haven't updated since prior to their artillery work. So they might be out of date.

      Is this kind of like the high-low system from 40mm grenades?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Kinda? I guess? Conventional mortars work with a high-low system but this doesn't have a low pressure chamber, just atmosphere.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          > Conventional mortars work with a high-low system
          uh, what? Care to explain this because it sounds like utter nonsense. Where would the expansion chamber be in a mortar?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Ya man check out the pic here

            https://i.imgur.com/FVqd59V.jpeg

            Hopefully useful reference. "several modules of a main propellant installed around its tail boom" refers to propelling / augmenting charges, better known as cheese charges in western militaries. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA503149.pdf

            I think it's highly suggestive that they mention powered smart munitions and a range of calibers. The US still wants to push this type of shit: https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/61581262/#q61582146

            Given that mortar rounds are already locally optimal, in some sense – they're geometrically about as compact as they can be, given the current design concept – it doesn't strike me as likely that they'll be retained but with a novel firing mechanism anytime soon.

            The tail boom is the high pressure chamber with the igniting charge while the tube itself is the low pressure chamber.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        No, this focuses a rocket exhaust into a supersonic stream which pushes on the projectile (probably on a lightweight pusher plate sabot equivalent); which has a higher max velocity cap than a gun barrel.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Thank you for explaining it. Rocket nozzle to accelerate the gasses.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      The HVP is a perfect combo.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Does it work yet? Feels like it has been in development for years without much tangible news.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Yes it works. The Navy fired dozens of live rounds from a Burke's gun without issue. But it's been put on the shelf due to budget and bureaucracy.

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No. It's a jet of propellant that goes from the launcher to the projectile. Stop randomly comparing it to other things.
    >is this like the catepillar drive?

  13. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    I wish someone in this thread could actually explain how OP's gizmo is supposed to work.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Look at the picture in

      https://i.imgur.com/rg84kzz.png

      Seems like it might work but I don't really know enough to say for sure.

      In a regular gun a projectile can be accelerated only up to the speed of sound of the gas that's doing the pushing.
      In this ass backwards system the idea is to use a divergent nozzle to accelerate the gas beyond its speed of sound limit, and only then use this supersonic jet to push the projectile.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >divergent nozzle to accelerate the gas beyond its speed of sound limit
        please explain

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Laval_nozzle

          Ya man check out the pic here
          [...]
          The tail boom is the high pressure chamber with the igniting charge while the tube itself is the low pressure chamber.

          Oh, I think you're confusing two separate things.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            no, he's right. the high pressure chamber is inside the tail and the gases escape above the fins, where the mortar tube forms a low pressure chamber.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              No, he's grossly wrong and so are you. In a high-low system the propellant is ignited in one chamber and allowed to expand into a second used for propulsion. In a mortar, the blackpowder primer is used to ignite the cheese charges in the tube. The 'high pressure' reference has nothing to do with the propulsion system or the high-low system, it's simply a description of the relative primer conditions.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                many types of mortar do not have provisions for additional propellant like cheese charges and only utilize onboard propellant therefore it is high-low and you are wrong (and gay)

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Mortars are launched by the charge in the tail, which is the high pressure chamber. The launch cartridges are also not black powder.
                The cheese and ring charges are simply added for additional range. They are optional.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                many types of mortar do not have provisions for additional propellant like cheese charges and only utilize onboard propellant therefore it is high-low and you are wrong (and gay)

                I thought so. You know nothing about either the physics or the history. You saw a word, pattern-matched it to a phrase somewhere else, and are autistically repeating yourself to 'win' a discussion online because that matters more to you than improving your nonexistent understanding of internal ballistics.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >n-nuh uh you have AUTISM
                I accept your concession brainlet

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          He's probably a dunning-kruger. Explosions aren't limited to the speed of sound, just the pressure waves. How else would a gun propel bullets at Mach 2.76 if they are limited by the speed of sound?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            The propellant in a cartridge doesn't explode (glock joke here). The speed of sound of the gas pushing the bullet through the barrel is just much higher than ambient air.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              I think it has more to do with the pressure difference than anything pertaining to sound.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                I wonder if there is any way to describe how quickly a pressure differential can propagate through a fluid, as that might imply an upper limit to how fast the pressure differential could push the bullet down the barrel.
                Oh well.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                You're raising a lot of dunning-kruger flags here. Lots of big words and phrases that you don't understand, along with the incorrect description of the atmosphere as a fluid. I think it's fair to say that you believe you know what you're talking about.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                no he's right

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                He probably doesn't even understand that the shoulder on a brass casing acts like a nozzle to accelerate gas

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Could you explain to me real quick what is the fastest speed achievable in a converging nozzle? I'll take it in Mach number please.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                one, IIRC

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                One. At the smallest section the flow reaches M=1, at which point it becomes "chocked" and the nozzle cannot process any higher mass flow.
                t. Aerospace Engineer

                Excellent, we're making progress. So how could the Mach 1 propellant push the bullet to Mach 2-3 in the barrel? Critical thinking required!

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                trick question. there is no barrel

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                there's a teensy barrel

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                From the throat of a C-D nozzle the cross-sectional area then increases, the gas expands and the linear velocity becomes progressively more supersonic. This isn't complex stuff. You never took highschool physics or what?
                A typical bipropellant exit velocity is maybe 4000 m/s.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                In a barrel the projectile separates two regions of space in which gases with different characteristics exist. The gas generated by the gunpowder is way hotter than the gas (ambient air) on the other side; the speed of sound in an ideal gas is a function of absolute temperature, which means that in absolute terms the speed of sound in a gas can be faster than the speed of sound in a colder gas. What this sums up to is that a projectile can be accelerated at most up to Mach 1, relatively to the hot gas, and at speed higher than Mach 1 relatively to the ambient air.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                One. At the smallest section the flow reaches M=1, at which point it becomes "chocked" and the nozzle cannot process any higher mass flow.
                t. Aerospace Engineer

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                So do you know what term we use to describe how quickly a pressure wave could propagate through a fluid?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Oh the irony!

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            speed of sound increases with temperature and lower molecular weight of the gasses, this is how "light gas guns" work

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      ye aulde mortar: 330 meters per second
      this baby: 700 meters per second and soon more

      Imagine a howitzer which doesn't need a barrel. It'll be a lot lighter and a lot easier to hide in a garage in the drone age.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >stubs will return stronger than ever
        Neat.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      i think this is simply trolling - barrels keep the pressure from dispersing and allow for more energy transferred to projectile - in this gimmick you have practically a rocket nozzle attached to launching pad negating most benefits of this setup - longer barrels are more effective with the same load after all...

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Yes it's less efficient but the purpose of the nozzle design is to keep the energy as focused as possible, taking advantage of the wave motion of the high pressure exhaust. You see this with high exhaust velocity jets all the time.its not about maximizing efficiency, it's about maximizing compactness and velocity

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >you can just make the exhaust pinch itself like a long turd
          science has gone too far

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            no, it just does that on its own when you get it moving fast enough and everybody lost a few years of their life figuring out why the frick it does that

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              shit like this and lagrange points makes absolutely no sense to me
              why is the universe like this

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                you are suffering from a skill issue

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      stick a rocket engine backwards into the ground and propel stuff using the force of the rocket exhaust

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Imagine cutting the barrel down but you're able to recover some of the propellant gas from the part that got cut off. Bonus in that it changes the recoil impulse profile.

  14. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Oh I forgot to add I also had this idea for a car that runs on water but nobody seems to want to implement it.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >gets called out for being a moron who wants to feel smart by pretending other, smarter, people are actually dumb
      >posts logically fallacious comparison to pretend every new idea is stupid
      >doesn't even link to the post he's replying to in an attempt to avoid being called out on being a moron, probably wants the last word in the argument so he can feel like he won.
      you really are a petty fricking child. Have you considered becoming a creationist? Then you'd be able to pretend you are smarter than a whole bunch of people who are smarter than you.

      • 1 week ago
        Caius

        Lol, just got back to the thread. Everyone having fun?

  15. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Me after eating the new catalina chicken quesadilla at taco bell

    (F/D i got paid 50 cents by pepsico/dnc/raytheon/rnc/temu/pfizer/monsanto/SKOM for this post)

  16. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Let's try catching the projectile with a skyhook attached to a 100 km tether and then bleeding off multiple km/s of differential velocity with a friction brake on the reel all the while running the rocket engine to keep it from pulling the receiver station out of orbit, that's a good trick! Why hasn't anyone built this obviously effective system already?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >strawman arguments
      >still not linking to the post you are replying to
      you really are determined to be a fricking child aren't you? I'm done, you can pretend you won if you want.

  17. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    If someone hand fired this, would their arm break? I know nothing about impulse measurements of traditional firearms.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      If it needs a base plate, it's gonna frick you up. Fireworks people have a decent amount of information about recoil from mortar-like systems. https://www.jpyro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/K07_085_jka.pdf

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *