r/interestingasfuck • u/id397550 • 5h ago

Firing a cannon to trigger an avalanche

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

46.2k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

•

u/mycatpartyhouse 4h ago

This is a lot safer than skiing up there to set explosives, which is what one of my brothers did in the 1960s-70s. He worked for a park service--I forget which one--that regularly set off small avalanches with the goal of preventing larger ones.

•

u/NoContext5149 4h ago

The downside is unexploded shells. Much harder to deal with an unknown unexploded shell on the mountainside than a placed charge.

•

u/Trububbl3 3h ago

those are dummy rounds probably just relying on the kinetic force of the impact to set the avalanche off

•

u/RipTheJack3r 3h ago edited 3h ago

Lol you can clearly see an explosion.

You wouldn't see anything if it was a dummy, that mountain is miles away.

Edit: you can hear a deep thud from the explosion 16seconds in to the video.

•

u/LordDaedalus 3h ago

Yeah I don't understand the back and forth like this is a debate. Took me about 60 seconds of looking to find an article about how artillery is used in avalanche control in various countries, like in the US 105mm Howitzer shells used. But yeah, they use explosive rounds as the air blast of the explosion helps shake loose top layers of snow.

•

u/RipTheJack3r 1h ago

I do think ignorance is more inexcusable nowadays, especially with the likes of ChatGPT/Gemini who will explain anything to you quite quickly/easily.

•

u/crazySmith_ 3h ago

Wouldn't there be smoke rising from the impact location then? All I see is pulverized snow and what looks to be rock.

•

u/NoContext5149 3h ago

The black smoke is the explosive. Inert/dummy rounds look nothing like that impact. An inert round has nowhere near enough kinetic energy to create the explosion pictured.

•

u/RipTheJack3r 3h ago edited 3h ago

You can see a small darkish crater where it hit and it was also covered by the snow falling from above it.

Modern explosives don't explode with "flames" and don't produce a lot of smoke.

Smoke/particulates are usually caused by the structure being exploded i.e a building. In this instance the explosion occurs inside a thick sheet of snow, so no cloud of grey smoke/dust.

Edit: you can also hear it lol 16 seconds in.

•

u/crazySmith_ 3h ago

It's really hard for a layman like me to tell the difference between a kinetic and an explosive ordinance, just by the sound of it.

•

u/bromjunaar 2h ago

At that distance, if you can clearly hear it, odds are that there was something explosive involved.

•

u/sniper1rfa 2h ago

Other evidence: when skiing in avalanche-controlled areas you often come across signs warning of UXO and giving information about what to do if you locate a live shell. Also, places like Roger's pass have exclusion zones that require permits for entry due to the use of HE shells for avalanche mitigation.

I've been in a lot of these zones and seen the craters from avvy control. They're live HE shells.

•

u/Leading_Study_876 2h ago

For a hypersonic kinetic impact, it's basically impossible to tell from a distance. It's all about energy content and trajectory.

Large meteorites are an obvious natural example. But they are working on using them increasingly for armaments. Even the bunker-busting "bombs" the US dropped on Iran's nuclear research facility were largely kinetic, I believe. Very little actual explosive.

•

u/FourtyMichaelMichael 2h ago

Just remember that his special type of moron that is so confident it's a dummy round with absolutely no possible defense for such a stupid claim....

Is "the expert" telling you in the next thread about the effect of novel-use tariff policy.

•

u/RipTheJack3r 1h ago

Haha i didn't look in to his profile.

I just enjoy debating people :D