
In 1975, the USSR fired a cannon from an orbiting space station - devNoise
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a18187/here-is-the-soviet-unions-secret-space-cannon/
======
creshal
The Soviet Union also launched an anti-SDI laser test satellite via the
Energia heavy lifter, casually demonstrating the highest payload capacity
since the Saturn V:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyus_%28spacecraft%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyus_%28spacecraft%29)

Thankfully, it failed to reach orbit due to a software bug.

(Said Energia rocket would then launch the Soviet space shuttle, Buran, on a
completely unmanned mission, including autopiloted runway landing – something
the US STS never could, because astronauts lobbied against any and every
automation for fear of being made redundant.)

~~~
drzaiusapelord
>casually

The mission was rushed, politically motivated, and a failure. There was
nothing casual about it. After the 60s the USSR space program was a mess of
failures and catching up to NASA.

>because astronauts lobbied against any and every automation for fear of being
made redundant.)

Well, when you don't live in an autocratic state, you actually get a say on
what gets done especially when its your ass on the line. Perhaps fears were
overplayed with the auto system dropping landing gear and killing everyone,
but a simple compromise was reached: a cable (which every compatible STS
shuttle had) would be plugged into the landing gear and then the computer for
full automation. Frankly, I wouldn't trust 1970s era automation to land the
spaceship I'm in.

Considering the massive bodycount of the USSR space program (Soyuz 1, Nedelin
catastrophe, Soyuz 11, etc) maybe erring on the side of caution made sense
instead of risking life and limb on "firsties." US Astronauts were very aware
of the early Soviet deaths and failures and wanted nothing of them. Cosmonauts
on the other hand, had no choice but to obey their communist masters unless
they wanted to spend the rest of their lives in a gulag. Komarov walked into
Soyuz 1 knowing he would die, for example. Polyus project managers knew it
wasn't going to work because top leadership rushed it and wanted to 'show up
the Americans,' etc. Environments built on fear perform sub-optimally.

edit: driveby downvoters, my comment is factually correct, please explain
yourselves.

edit2: cant post a new item right now so my reply to the parent below:

The era I'm discussing was prior to the Challenger. The US casualty numbers
was well below USSR numbers at the time (its a stupid comparison anyway
considering how many more people the HUGE STS could hold). Those astronauts
knew those numbers. They didn't want to take changes like the risky and deadly
USSR approach. That's why we didn't automate the Shuttle. NASA had a lower
tolerance for risk because it respected the lives of its astronauts. In an
autocracy you just throw bodies at the problem until you get the desired
results.

>the Nedelin catastrophe, which was completely unrelated to the space program

It was a rocket explosion at the Baikonur Cosmodrome using the same
staff/crew/engineers as the space program. The USSR didn't separate their
military and civilian space program, so yes, its perfectly appropriate to hold
them accountable for their lax safety standards that killed over 100 people!
Hell, the Soviets even buried it and tossed these poor people into a mass
grave and told the West that Nedelin died in a plane crash! So yeah, they saw
it as part of their space program and it shamed them enough to lie about it.

In that era, NASA had First pilot-controlled space flight, first orbital solar
observatory, first geosynchronous satellite, first satellite navigation
system, first geostationary satellite, first Mars flyby, eight-day human
spaceflight record, first orbital rendezvous, first 14-day human spaceflight
record, first spacecraft docking, first orbital ultraviolet observatory, first
humans on the Moon, first mobile rover driven by humans off earth, first
spacecraft to orbit another planet: Mars, first human-made object sent on
escape trajectory away from the Sun, first mission to enter the asteroid belt
and leave inner solar system,84-day human-crewed space record (skylab 3),
First Jupiter flyby, First planetary gravitational assist (Venus flyby), First
Mercury flyby,etc. AND THAT'S JUST UP To 1974!

Its clear that NASA was going for scientific and difficult technical
achievement and the Soviets were going for propagandist achievements. By the
mid 60's the USSR couldn't keep up with NASA's achievements and the USSR space
program became a joke with putting guns into space after the US moon landing
and of course, the US's STS which changed the game in regards to human
spaceflight from a crew/mass perspective. The ISS wouldnt be possible without
its lifting and cargo capabilities.

~~~
rdtsc
> US Astronauts were very aware of the early Soviet deaths and failures and
> wanted nothing of them.

So they jumped in an overengineered spacecraft, built by bureaucrats from
NASA, sometimes 8 at a time, and as a result more astronauts died.

The shuttle went the way of the dodo and we are using Soviet's 70s technology
to get into orbit. If anything, the history is hard to ignore. And the irony
is there too, staring us it the face.

Also nevermind that Soviet's Buran prototype was the first fully automated
space shuttle, so again autocratic state wins? (going by your labels here...)

> Environments built on fear perform sub-optimally.

History proves you wrong again. A lot of environments built on fear produced
rugged dependable products.

~~~
drzaiusapelord
>The shuttle went the way of the dodo and we are using Soviet's 70s technology
to get into orbit.

We're between systems, like the seven years between Apollo and the STS. Its a
happy coincidence Russia still has a legacy system for lifting people into the
largely STS built and ferried ISS. The SLS/Orion and SpaceX systems will be
the next generation of spaceflight that will take us out of the LEO. Neither
the Soyuz or the STS could leave LEO.

>was the first fully automated space shuttle, so again autocratic state wins?

The Buran sent as many men into space as Zimbabwe. Zero. That's not a "win" in
anyone's book. It was a prototype and a blatant copy of the STS.

The STS had automatic capabilities but astronauts, feared rightly, that if the
landing gear went down accidentally they would die. The Shuttle does NOT HAVE
the capabilities to lift its own landing gear. That's done by a ground crew.
If this went off accidentally in space then these people are stranded. If it
goes off during re-entry they would die.

Having a removable and stowed cable for plugging the flight computer into the
landing gear was a rational compromise. This allowed scenarios where an
abandoned shuttle could fly itself home.

~~~
rdtsc
> That's not a "win" in anyone's book.

It was a great win for two reasons -- they could do it technically and they
proved it, even automated the whole thing (just like Zimbabwe right ;-) ). And
the other win was they realized this was an expensive endeavor and not a very
good approach to taking people into space.

It took Americans many hundreds of billions dollars and lives to realize that?

> We're between systems, like the seven years between Apollo and the STS.

That makes sense, hadn't thought of it that way. It has been only 4-5 years
since last launch. Yeah I am looking forward to Orion/SLS!

> Its a happy coincidence Russia still has a legacy system for lifting people
> into the largely STS built and ferried ISS.

Is it? From a country that did pretty well with many firsts in space, builds
reliable military hardware, killed less astronauts/cosmonauts than our
Shuttle. I mean, yeah, we all hate Russia and their commie regime, but I think
it is a disservice a bit to downplay their engineers.

------
colanderman
The fact that Popular Mechanics scanned, traced, and digitally reconstructed
the exterior of the weapon from some grainy footage is almost more interesting
than the article itself.

~~~
maxerickson
I think it's fair to say that Anatoly Zak did it. I've never seen it before,
but look at all the renderings on
[http://www.russianspaceweb.com/](http://www.russianspaceweb.com/) (browse
around).

I would even guess that he shopped around first printing of it and they picked
it up, that they didn't commission it.

------
JoeAltmaier
I'm wondering about 'kick' when firing a cannon mounted in an aluminum can
(space station). Why didn't the thing rip a hole? And what about orbital
mechanics - the cannon ball goes that way, space station goes the other way.
And the gasses expelled from the breech - noxious fumes in an enclosed space!
It sounds like a fabulously dangerous thing.

~~~
drzaiusapelord
They just fired their rockets to compensate for the inertia.

If you want recoiless weapons in space, you could probably just buy a 1960's
era Gyrojet pistol or rifle. The launched rocket powered bullets instead of
conventional ammo and because the rocket ammunition was self-propelled, it was
nearly recoiless.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrojet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrojet)

Also, the weapons, especially the rifle, have this wonderful 1960's era
futurist design to them. The Gyrojet weapons are probably worthy of their own
posting.

~~~
ingas
Ha. It brings nostalgic feelings.

Gyrojet rifle was the ultimate weapon in Jagged Alliance 2 (my favorite game
in college times).

I always thought that it was pure sci-fi element in game until somebody on
forum posted information about this guns.

------
JamesBaxter
Was the purpose of the cannon to take down other satellites or just for
research purposes? Presumably whilst this appears to be a weapon with a
considerable range, satellites don't operate that close to each other?

The mathematics to calculate hitting another satellite traveling in a
different orbit and at a different speed sounds like an interesting challenge.

If you were trying to disable a satellite what would be the best target? Solar
cells?

~~~
lmm
> The mathematics to calculate hitting another satellite traveling in a
> different orbit and at a different speed sounds like an interesting
> challenge.

It's the exact same mathematics you already need to be able to dock
spacecraft, change orbits, or get into orbit in the first place. Any
organization capable of putting things in orbit would have no trouble, it's
just a case of plugging some different numbers in.

> If you were trying to disable a satellite what would be the best target?
> Solar cells?

Relative velocities are going to be enormous without even trying, so it
doesn't matter where you hit it - the energy will have to go somewhere.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _Relative velocities are going to be enormous without even trying, so it
> doesn 't matter where you hit it - the energy will have to go somewhere._

With so much energy, it really doesn't matter? I imagine it would look like
shooting a bullet through cardboard - the latter gains a hole, but otherwise
doesn't even notice. Energy generally stays in the bullet that continues its
flight.

~~~
lmm
What happens when you shoot a piece of cardboard with a bullet in a vacuum
though?

(I'm much less confident than I was FWIW)

