UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

srmeaney · 2005-05-27 21:20:13

The only thing that poses that much of a threat to justify that level of investment is a president. You can dispose of one cheaply by driving through Dallas with the top down.

"And if you look to your right, you can see the grassy knowl. Made infamous by a soviet assassin using a rifle disguised as a movie camera to pick off JFK...Look, there's one now!"

or if you prefer

UN Secretary General adressess UN Nations regarding Terrorism:
"...and if you look closely..."
Brings up the realtime feed from KEYHOLE 24,
"You will see a band of terrorists crossing a border..." Boom, big flash of light, Switches to KEYHOLE 25. Small Mushroom Cloud on the Border,
"Isn't that pretty?"
Switches to KEYHOLE 7.
"and this is their home town". Boom, big flash of light...

reddragon · 2005-05-30 17:43:32

If the military does decide to put weapons in space, I hope that someone high up gets stuck on the idea of large manned platforms requiring frequent resupply and crew rotation missions. This is not particularly useful from a military standpoint, but it would greatly help space exploration, a much more useful enterprise than war. Such weapons systems would require the development of cheap, reusable transportation to orbit, which would greatly move the space program forwards. The military has the money needed to develop this that NASA does not. If it actually makes the country safer in the process, so much the better.

On a side note, it might be good to find a new name for "rods from god." The name puts even more religion into war at a time when we are fighting a war already too mixed up with religion. It really promotes the idea of "god is on our side." The name doesn't particularly bother me, but it would probably offend many middle-eastern Muslims including those who are not terrorists or enemies of the US. American conservatives would of course claim that god did give us this weapons to crush the infidels, only making the situation worse. It's probably not a big deal, but I can certainly see people making an issue out of it.

srmeaney · 2005-05-30 22:29:57

How about Spear of Chaos?

Or the other Spear from ancient history described as of a metal that had to be kept in a cauldron of water least it burned the air.

They realy missed an opportunity with the rebuilding of the PENTAGON. They should have put an arrow head shaped building extension where a gallery of their September 11, 2001 failure was detailed for every visitor and employee for all time as a reminder that if you build weapons, sell them to killers, train the killers and turn them loose, that there is enevitably a point when they turn on you...

SpaceNut · 2005-06-15 10:37:55

Kinetic Energy Interceptor Successfully Completes First Wind Tunnel Test

Raytheon recently completed the first in a series of risk-reduction high speed wind tunnel tests of the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI) missile in preparation for future flight testing.
The testing focused on acquiring aerodynamic force and moment data, as well as high frequency pressure and acoustic data on the second stage vehicle.

Palomar · 2005-06-15 14:07:04

*I'm wondering what -the- pretext for the weaponization of space will be; the actual starting point which will justify what follows.

Probably will start with the point made in the article: Protection of commercial/unarmed satellites.

And of course the protection factor will be "overkill."

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-06-15 14:29:03

*I'm wondering what -the- pretext for the weaponization of space will be; the actual starting point which will justify what follows.
Probably will start with the point made in the article: Protection of commercial/unarmed satellites.
And of course the protection factor will be "overkill."
--Cindy

Dont]http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/005369.html#005369]Don't Panic

Trebuchet · 2005-06-15 17:01:04

Actually, the whole "Rods From God/Lawn Darts From Hell" weapon system could probably be most cheaply implemented by mounting them on top of decommissioned ballistic missiles. Just how many secret underground nuclear complexes do you need to destroy? We happen to be taking the nukes of some of those missiles anyways, might as well do something useful with the booster, and people won't get as exercised about "OMG weapons in space!" if it's stay in space is only a few minutes long.

As far as other weapons in space, they're coming, but UCAVs are probably a more cost-effective new option to explore. Robot bombers are good against both the sorts of enemies we're now fighting (long loiter times mean bombs-on-demand for local commanders) and any main event wars that could break out against higher tech foes (cheap unmanned bombers are faster and less expensive to replace).

BWhite · 2005-06-15 17:12:54

Actually, the whole "Rods From God/Lawn Darts From Hell" weapon system could probably be most cheaply implemented by mounting them on top of decommissioned ballistic missiles. Just how many secret underground nuclear complexes do you need to destroy? We happen to be taking the nukes of some of those missiles anyways, might as well do something useful with the booster, and people won't get as exercised about "OMG weapons in space!" if it's stay in space is only a few minutes long.

I recall reading that in Gulf War I, worn out cannon barrels (37mm? 75mm?) were filled with explosive and modified to strike nose first with the hardened steel of the barrel directing the blast like a shaped charge. These busted bunkers previously deemed unreachable.

Apparently an F-16 could carry it under its wing, it just took off a little "tilted" from the extra weight.

Instead of orbiting spent uranium, take a used 120 mm tank gun barrel from an M1 tank (or if you have a Very Large Aircraft - an 8 inch or 16 inch naval gun barrel) and fill with the most powerful conventioanl explosive and make a masonry nail to drop from 50,000 feet.

Gravity induced terminal velocity is terminal velocity, right?

= = =

Two space writers - - Oberg and Dwayne Day - - have recently told both sides to just stop getting excited about space weapons because the USAF just cannot do (technically that is) what some junior officers lust after doing.

Trebuchet · 2005-06-15 18:21:01

Gravity induced terminal velocity is terminal velocity, right?

Actually, no, terminal velocity is a function of air resistance... there is no air in space, hence, no air resistance. The projectile can build up a lot more speed, much of which will be bled off by friction on re-entry, but it will still hit faster than otherwise.

BTW, those cannon barrels were, IIRC, 155mm ones, significantly larger than the ones off the tanks, which are 120mm in diameter. And the delivery platform was the F-111, which is larger than an F-16. But basically right; they improvised. The current 'bunker buster' bombs have custom built steel tubes... I suppose there weren't that many artillery tubes just lying around.

If you want to boost speed, you need to stick a rocket engine on the back of the bunker buster. Now, the Air Force had a project to see about the penetrating capabilities of such a weapon, but figured the enemy response would be to simply dig bunkers beneath the new effective penetration depth, which was what people have done on account of the first generation of bunker busters.

BWhite · 2005-06-15 19:29:56

Gravity induced terminal velocity is terminal velocity, right?
Actually, no, terminal velocity is a function of air resistance... there is no air in space, hence, no air resistance. The projectile can build up a lot more speed, much of which will be bled off by friction on re-entry, but it will still hit faster than otherwise.

Yup. okay. I see that. 155s? Those guys were big, weren't they?

Okay, but down from orbit is not straight down - - lots of sideways momentum to offset - - I suppose the math on final velocities depends on a huge number of variables. 50,000 feet or 75,000 feet or a sub-orbital ballistic missile will achieve some pretty high impact velocities.

Now, if Blue Team has "rods from God"

then the Red Team bunker should include some cavities and mixed density materials above the real bunker and maybe put the vital bits inside an hardened concrete inverted "v" to attempt to deflect the projectile away from the essential target.

False cavities also allow for bad intel and maybe give Red Team some wins.

Given launch costs, a "lawn dart from the heavens" that destroys a false cavity costs Blue a whole lot of money for nothing.

Trebuchet · 2005-06-15 21:14:46

Correct... however, it's probably cheaper than having a bomber shot down performing a similar mission, and preferable in most instances to simply whacking it with a thermonuclear bomb. Generally speaking, the Secret Mega Underground Base is inconveniently sited in/near a city or within the best AA the enemy can buy or both.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2024-05-06 05:05:11

Escalation of Madness, why people can't live in toxic places or on radiated parts of Earth, North Korea, Pakistan, India and in the 1990s the France bombs and French nuclear testing in the Atolls.

Russia said it would hold a military exercise that will include practice for the use of tactical nuclear weapons after what the defence ministry said were provocative threats from Western officials.

from the news report on Putin, not sure if he's checking a missile or testing a bomb

Russia to practice tactical nuclear weapon in southern military district
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/news/russia-p … 56639.html

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2005-05-27 21:20:13

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#52 2005-05-30 17:43:32

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#53 2005-05-30 22:29:57

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#54 2005-06-15 10:37:55

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#55 2005-06-15 14:07:04

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#56 2005-06-15 14:29:03

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#57 2005-06-15 17:01:04

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#58 2005-06-15 17:12:54

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#59 2005-06-15 18:21:01

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#60 2005-06-15 19:29:56

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#61 2005-06-15 21:14:46

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#62 2024-05-06 05:05:11

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

Board footer