Before we start counting our goats before they’re launched, we need to make a working prototype. Something smaller, designed for, say, chickens.
But as far as the goat goes, I think “safety first” should be our ever-present motto. A helmet is therefore required for the rocketing ruminant, and we shouldn’t stop there. I think a shiny metallic asbestos goat suit with a large stars-and-stripes pattern embroidered on it - a la Evel Knieval - would give the whole enterprise a panache it might otherwise lack, and bring in a more refined stamp of observer than the usual hoi-poloi, this in turn giving the event social respectability. An added engineering advantage would be that, if reinforced with the proper material, the suit would help hold the ungulate athlete together against the explosive effects of the launch.
Another issue is whether we want to use a whole goat. We might get a better barrel fit if we remove the legs first, but some may feel that the purity of the whole endeavor is diluted by the use of a truncated animal. Or, perhaps we could encase the legs in some sort of silicone mass that fits snugly against the belly, thus removing the offending air spaces. On the other hand, sufficient wadding should allow a very satisfactory launch even with the unavoidable spaces between the appendages. Besides, removing or encasing the legs might be seen as inhumane in some circles, and nobody wants that.
One question I have is, why exactly do we need rifling anyway? I was under the impression that height was the principle concern, not accuracy vis-a-vis the landing site. Do we really care where the plummeting perissodactyl returns to this speck of dust? As long as we are in a sufficiently rural area and legal liability is solidly assigned to our sponsors, I foresee no problems. Even if a human dwelling or even, by some act of God, a human should happen to be at the bull’s eye of the, well, “heavenly butt” if you will, I think the notoriety (after which all men hunger) and potential story right profits should negate any incipient unfriendly impulses.
Furthermore, I must object that this is the sort of weapon that would need to be smuggled through an airport only if we intended to use it for terrorist purposes. If that is the case, I will have nothing to do with it. If this power is not to be used ethically, it should not be created in the first place. If, on the other hand, it is to be used only within the full apparatus of our society’s decision-making processes, and our duly-elected commander in chief is the one with his finger on the button, then I feel a working goat cannon can only strengthen the nation. If that is the case, then the device could be mounted on a Navy destroyer or even, perhaps, a submarine. Sneaking it through an airport is both unnecessary and the very debate bespeaks a questionable moral character. Let’s try to keep goat-launching clean.
Without rifling or airport-security concerns, the problem becomes much simpler. The next major questions are, as I see it:
- Proper propellant. It sounds like compressed gas has the lower acceleration we need to maintain integrity of the athlete, and with wadding and/or a sabot we should still be able to get the muzzle velocity we want by sufficiently extending the barrel.
- Barrel material. Stainless is expensive, and given our propellant may not be necessary. I’m not an engineer, but could corrugated aluminum be employed? If it comes down to it, the barrel need not be entirely constructed of the same material, if it saves money.
- Cost. We need to start looking for corporate sponsorship. I think Nike would be hard pressed to find a better set of spokesmen to go with their “just do it” campaign. If we play up the chicken prototype angle, we might get the Colonel interested. Any other obvious candidates? Daisy rifles? NASA? The American Dairy Council?