What is /k/'s opinion on kinetic bombardment? Weaponizing

File: homemade rocket launcher.png (1MB, 1428x792px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1428x792px

>>30012235

my personal rule of thumb is that if something can kill more than 100 people in one shot, it is not something that people should be playing with

lets try and leave at least this one civilisation-threatening doomsday device alone, yes?

NASA actually ran the math, and it's no more effective than conventional explosives.

Thank air resistance.

>>30012235

sorry to be the most illiterate retard in this thread but what exactly can I picture as "kinetic bombardement"

I mean, I get what kinetic means and shit, but how does that stuff work? Magnets?

>>30012263
It's a fucking meme, it's a shitty idea that is inferrior to a normal icbm in every way

>>30012271
It's a actually less effective because of air resistance

With the same rocket that I could put 30 tons of tungsten into orbit with, I could send 50 tons of explosive to anywhere in the world.

And the explosives would do a lot more damage.

>>30012275
>take heavy thing
>drop it from orbit
>????????
>things get blown up

>>30012275
The theory is that long, metal rods (without explosives) can be dropped from orbit to take out targets using kinetic energy alone. They would most conventionally be armed to a satellite of some kind, and shaped in a way as to reduce air resistance. Scary shit.

File: 10645029_1265552990126439_1817432238620476118_n.jpg (11KB, 300x179px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 300x179px

>>30012311
>>30012332

>mfw

thx

Satellites follow very predictable orbits. They are extremely vulnerable to ASAT weapons. The most effective defence vs ASAT consist on putting the thing on higher orbits, but that also means less precision. The ability to blow up the entire satellites infrastructure in hours will be soon within the reach of the major global powers even without an arm's race.

>>30012275
It's a shit meme from people who don't understand physics.

No reason to ever build any

>>30012351
Kys

>>30012357
Senpai the dod paid for the space shuttle for a reason, we have had the capability to fry evert hung with nukes since like 65, and we've had our fingers on the buttons since the 80's

While Tungsten is cool and that sort of stuff, i would love to see Iridium or Osmium penetrators because their density is way, way higher and Osmium itself is pretty hard too so the KE performance of an Osmium rod should be better then a Tungsten one.

>>30012357
This is going to be a stretch of an argument, but let's say that we invent other ways of conducting kinetic bombardment. Such as... A new form of aircraft similar to a Blackbird. Also imagine the faint possibility of lazer-designating the rods.
Now I just might be a retard who doesn't comprehend the science of the matter, but that makes the idea a whole lot more plausible in warfare. In shitty theory, anyhow.

>>30012235
>Weaponizing space is illegal
First, space is already weaponized, just try and take a space walk without a suit. Secondly, only nukes in space are illegal. and who are you gonna call if any of the big players put one in space? the nuke police?i wouldn't even blink if someone finds out either Russia or the US put some warheads on some "T.V" satalite.

>>30012362
>>30012277
Kys

The reality is that it's really expensive to move things into space. And since for KE bombardment, more mass = more KE, it costs a shitton to actually lift them into space. It's far more efficient to just use conventional ways to blow shit up

>>30012235
This is an idea that gets trotted out every few years by a new person in the DoD who thinks it's a brilliant idea until they get shown all the reasons it isn't.

>Weaponizing space is illegal for sure, but kinetic weaponary happens to find a loophole in this law.
No, it doesn't.

The typical suggested implementation also violates the Hague Convention agreements on use of flechettes.

Besides being astronomically expensive (pun intended), any country that embarked on making such a system is expected to incite its peers to threaten nuclear war.

Send probe into space. Land on iron asteroid. Push it into orbit that will have it hit earth. Subtle changes in trajectory to make sure either hits the country you want.

Plausible deniability

>>30012435

A bomber with inverted wings flying at orbital velocities around the Mesosphere with Osmium rods with rockets attached to its base and while the rod is falling, ignite the rockets to increase the rods speed to beyond orbital velocities and maybe beyond 10 KM/S.

That would be cool.

>>30012518
If I wanted to anonymously destroy a country, I'd buy a nuke off of the Pakis and have the intelligence attaches in my embassy set it off in their capital.

>>30012464
>First, space is already weaponized, just try and take a space walk without a suit.

I think that's oxygen deprivation, bud. Not really a weapon, unfortunately.

>Secondly, only nukes in space are illegal.

And chemical agents. Not sure how the fuck sending chemicals into orbit would work, but it is indeed illegal to do so.

>and who are you gonna call if any of the big players put one in space? The nuke police?

Well, if a nuke was to be dropped from orbit by, let's say... China, that's a war crime. They killed a fuckload of people by illegal means and they would most likely be on the recieving end of a full-scale invasion and/or nuclear strike of their own. But you're correct. Nobody can really do anything about it if someone actually did put a nuke in orbit.

>>30012235
>have to burn a shit ton of fuel to get them into orbit
>have to burn a shit ton of fuel to get them out of orbit
Might as well send an ICBM, way more efficient.

>>30012235
I can't imagine the blast radius would be very big. Wouldn't this just create an extremely powerful impact in a very small area?

File: 1463317530960.png (284KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 1920x1080px

>>30012464
>wouldn't even blink if someone finds out either Russia or the US put some warheads on some "T.V" satalite.

I certainly would.

Tell me how placing warheads in space isn't just caused for a first strike.

>>30012531
Sounds like something straight out of the next CoD shitfest. Cool on paper, but in reality, just really autistic and a complete waste of money and resources.

Fuck this kinetic shit... Just stick to MOABs and cruise missiles.

File: PlanetaryBombardment-SWGTCG.jpg (554KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

554KB, 1600x1200px

>>30012235

My personal opinion is that orbital bombardment only makes sense if you're bombarding a planet that isn't your own. It's great for keeping rebel scum in line, though.

>>30012571
>I think that's oxygen deprivation, bud. Not really a weapon, unfortunately.
Radiation too. but it's a perfectly viable weapon if you push some guy out an airlock.

>well, if a nuke was to be dropped from orbit
of course using one could get you into some shit, but just the act of putting one up there is hardly preventable. you can't even pull a satellite over at a checkpoint, let alone search it for nukes.

>>30012621
Tell me more how you're going to nuke the world over stuff that more than likely happened during the cold war.

>>30012679
Because it didn't.

>>30012688
>Because it didn't.
glad you're the all seeing eye on the government's black budget.

File: 1462410831506.gif (2MB, 248x204px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 248x204px

>>30012679

There is no evidence of anybody positioning nuclear weapons in space during the cold war.

>BUT IT WAS SECRET!!!!!

We would know by now.

>>30012707
>We would know by now.
Who says? i don't believe it myself but they can't even declassify simple shit sometimes.

The cost is so exorbitant and the payoff is actually negative compared to current weapons systems. It's a stupid idea.

Stop trying to make rods from god happen.

>>30012235
>Weaponizing space is illegal for sure
During a war, perhaps noone would care.

>>30012707
>We would know
>two headed people confirmed for 4chan posters

>>30012679
But why.

Even if you could secretly launch nukes into orbit and keep them controllable and have PAL and not have them crash out of orbit and cover some country in uranium.

You couldn't bring up enough of them to make a decisive difference.

It's still essentially impossible to intercept ICBMs or SLBMs with a high enough hit rate to protect yourself, and you aren't going to incapacitate a nuclear arsenal with anything under like 1000 warheads.

It seems like a pointless, risky endeavor.

File: 1463703068045.jpg (331KB, 976x990px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 976x990px

>>30012733

It would be a lot of work for very minimal benefit in comparison to ICBM's. So no, it didn't happen. Conspiracy faggots BTFO.

>>30012777
>>30012746

>it was stupid, therefore the people who spend $500 dollars on nuts and bolts and hundreds of thousands to research asian male prostitutes can't have done it.

>>30012812
>he thinks the money actually goes to nuts and bolts

This is an ancient DoD accounting trick. People look at the cost of aircraft carriers and tanks, but they don't look at the cost of small things on the budget nearly as often.

>>30012733
Satellites are too easily tracked for us to not know about that shit had it happened.

>>30012871
Sure you can see them, but can you see whats in them?

>>30012235
> kinetic bombardment in warfare would be more devestating than nuclear weapons

It's about 50% bigger boom than the same mass of TNT; has no camouflage and little maneuverability while in orbit, can't hide over the horizon, and takes a good 30 to 90 minutes to hit the ground. Oh, and it's hard/expensive to guide, thanks to the plasma sheath.

An Iskander or ATACMS is infinitely more useful than a rods-from-god satellite.

>>30012617
Imagine a small asteroid slamming into the earth. Pretty much the same concept, except the rod is shaped specifically to be aerodynamic, so... Probably more dangerous. In theory, anyhow.

>>30012518
>Plausible deniability

Not even close. There's no stealth in space* thanks to the rocket equation and cosmic background temp, so...lol.

*today, when space is only beginning to be militarized, really, really expensive contraptions of cooling, mirrors, and stealth coatings can hide small satellites for short periods from casual observation. Any determined search from a peer automatically finds them, and as sensors and attention improve, even metamaterial cloaks will be insufficient.

>>30012843
High strength bolts with special corrosion-resistant coatings are expensive.

t. DoD engineer

>>30013076

kek

This is the shit kojima should have done before adding fucking animal sanctuaries
GOD BLESS AMERICA
God bless this thread

>>30012518
>Land on iron asteroid
That's not easy. In fact it's incredibly hard.

>Push it into orbit that will have it hit earth.
That'd take sooooo much fuel

>Subtle changes in trajectory to make sure either hits the country you want.
We absolutely cannot do this. This is not at all possible right now. We simply are not able to compute anything that complex with as such ease as you seem to think.

>Plausible deniability
That's retarded.

And good luck finding, getting to, manuevering, and waiting for the asteroid to hit. That's a decades long proposition.

>>30012743
>be country
>in armed conflict with another country
>other country puts nukes in geostationary orbit above your capital city
>"lol i don't care"
ffs niqqa are you serious

>>30014441
I mean nobody would care if it was illegal or not, they'd just do whatever they want to win.

I don't know about nukes, but any other kind of weapon would probably be fair game.

>>30014480
this is the same simplistic view that makes every beer gut and trucker hat think carpet bombing ISIS is a good idea.
you'll win against some illiterate zealots with no air force
once you're fighting someone else with similar capabilities as yours, they'll remember the treatment of your past opponents and rightfully assume you'll do the same to them.
>sid, mike, and billy are boxing to win a prize
>sid and billy are boxing while mike waits to fight the victor
>suddenly, sid throws his pocket sand in billy's eyes, and wins the match
>mike sees this and knows he's next in line to fight
>mike grabs some pocket sand, since he knows what happened to billy

>>30014292
but but but KSP

>>30014647
>this is the same simplistic view that makes every beer gut and trucker hat think carpet bombing ISIS is a good idea.
No! I don't think that!

I do see your point, although, I do think it's just a matter of time until it is weaponized, simply because
>all that empty space
>no weapons

Additionally, the more people go there, which they without a doubt will, in the future. the more chance there is of people sticking weapons up there in my mind.

>>30014704
you've changed your argument from "nobody would care about weaponized space in armed conflict" to "as space travelers proliferate, so will their weapons"

ok so lets think about this for a second lads

your a satellite carry long shafts of metal in Low Earth Orbit (LEO). You are flying around the earth very fast with no apreciable altitude decline towards the earth. You are in orbit. You are constantly "flying past" the earth in a giant circle. If you detach something from yourself, it's just going to fucking sit there. There is no
"dropping" shit from a satellite. A projectile will need either a very large initial force imparted on it from the vehicle it was launched from, or it will need a rocket motor or other form of propulsion to slow it's velocity, cutting it's orbit and allowing it to fall or "drop" towards the earth.

In other words, retards, is that either the whole satellite is going to have to slow down to a declining orbit speed, let go of it's payload, and then speed itself back up to orbit, all while losing a tiny amount of altitude.

OR, the projectile can do that itself... also known as an ICBM.

>>30014760
I did exactly that. Just stop talking to me, it's 3am, I'm not going to make sense.

>>30014839
waaaay past your bedtime man

File: 1387406355510.png (222KB, 406x382px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 406x382px

>>30014853
If I go to sleep, someone might weaponize space.

>>30012277

Except for that whole radioactive fallout stuff.

Oh and you can initiate a strike without warning whereas the top nuclear nations would detect an ICBM launch in seconds and have retaliatory strikes launched within minutes.

Other than that, you're totally right bro!

>>30014794
>no apreciable altitude decline towards the earth.
Already wrong, satellites have to maintain an orbital.

>If you detach something from yourself, it's just going to fucking sit there.
If you simply 'detach' something, it will eventually reenter the atmosphere (though it may take a while)

>There is no
"dropping" shit from a satellite.
No.

>A projectile will need either a very large initial force imparted on it from the vehicle it was launched from, or it will need a rocket motor or other form of propulsion to slow it's velocity, cutting it's orbit and allowing it to fall or "drop" towards the earth.
And?

>In other words, retards, is that either the whole satellite is going to have to slow down to a declining orbit speed, let go of it's payload, and then speed itself back up to orbit, all while losing a tiny amount of altitude.

Well, no. That's not how that works. You place the rod (not the fucking satellite) into a trajectory that uses a declining orbit to gradually build up speed before impact. The satellite itself just holds the rods and serves as a relay center, IT doesn't maneuver. The rod would require some basic propulsion and guidance to enter the right position, but it itself would require less everything than an ICBM would. While having at least some clear benefits.

I'm not supporting the idea, it's kinda stupid and way too expensive, but YOU are wrong, and don't know what you're talking about.

Also
>Retards
There's no need for insults you flaming autistic cunt.

Oh, and please learn to spell and format better, it's a strain on the eyes.

>>30012277
>>30015027
Don't forget that they'd go too fast for current interception as well mate!

>>30012263
So then we should be fooling with KEWs then? Because a so called Rod from God is about as effective as a single JDAM against most targets.

>>30015027
>you can initiate a strike without warning

That's not how orbital mechanics work. It will take a minimum of 20-30 minutes for a rod to hit the ground, assuming the satellite is in perfect position. It will be a giant, blazing sheath of plasma, about 10x bigger than a MIRV'd reentry warhead.

In short...it's a ICBM that's easier to hit and takes at least as long as - possibly longer - to hit a target.

>>30015120

Point made. Personally I'd see it as a viable first strike weapon that could limit or even remove the target nation's retaliatory strike options (not counting SLBMs of course).

It's still to cost prohibitive. For now at least.

>>30012235
> do you think the introduction of kinetic bombardment in warfare would be more devestating than nuclear weapons?

yes.

Why?

because the introduction of an orbital weapon could not be hidden, after the first attack it, and any similar radar signatures would be priority threats. That would result in a strike, most likely an anti-satellite missile or the likes. that would result in debris, debris hits other satellites, and so on. Result, a full on kessler syndrome event. Within 6 months, that orbit is uninhabitable. And if its not a low earth orbit, but a higher-altitude one, then within two years, everything, from low earth orbit to geosynchronous would be inaccessible due to the pollution.

That would be worse than nuclear weapons. No satellite communication. No science satellites. No stations, no weather satellites. no GPS/satnav. No long distance broadcasts. Nothing. 200 years of no space missions. 200 years of no more small steps for man, or giant leaps for Mankind.

With the way things are going, Weaponising space would result in us being trapped here, in our cradle. It may well mean our species' extinction, in more profound ways than nuclear war could ever do.

>>30012275
The plan is basically to deorbit large slugs onto a target using aerobraking and impact. The major issues are fuel economy (achieving stable orbit is far more expensive than an ICBM's suborbital trajectory), favorable deorbit conditions (the POA isn't always reachable with available fuel; this can induce a large lag between a launch command and impact--likely far longer than with ICBM's), and the presence of our atmosphere (which will sap a large portion of the slug's energy if the slug comes down at too shallow an angle and exact conditions will affect POI at a time far too late to efficiently correct).

The idea is possible, but the most favorable positioning would be in a highly elliptical polar orbit, which makes the timeliness aspect particularly painful (when a complete orbit takes days or weeks, it's cheap to deorbit and acceleration will provide a massive boost in power, but it could take days or weeks to hit a target).

Overall, ICBM's are far more cost effective and responsive. If you were to launch slugs into space, you might as well add a nuclear warhead to guaranty destructive power. But if you were launching nukes into space, you'd forgo the slugs entirely and instead launch the warheads with a reentry vehicle. You'd have far more destructive power per pound and would be able to hit targets within an hour of launch. Plus you can more easily (re)fuel up your warheads and increase their range/precision.

>>30015169

How would it take longer, though? You're cutting out the launch phase and dropping shit right on top of your enemy. If they're not looking for it and don't recognize what it is, since they're looking for sub or surfaced launched missiles, how would they know to intercept it?

Unless they knew you had put them up there, there is no way they could launch a counter strike.

Kinetic weapons pack thousands of times less punch than nukes, and space-basing is no longer a sanctuary. Against 1st-world enemies, space is worse than land.

>>30015228
>How would it take longer, though? You're cutting out the launch phase and dropping shit right on top of your enemy.

And when you want to launch, but the launch vehicle is on the other side of the world, halfway round its orbit? that's 45 mins away, in LEO.

and if its a target at say, the latitude of Moscow, your satellite orbiting the equator isnt going to hit it - that's 6,000 km away, 1/3 of the way up the globe. so you need your orbit to have inclination. instead of -- like that around the equator, its angled, / like that. but now, your orbit isnt a line, but a Sine Wave, plotted over the map of the world. the peak might be at 50 degrees north, to target moscow, but now its also 50 degrees south, at the opposite half of its orbit. So now its 10,000km away, 1/4 of the globe. So now you need to wait for the peak point of the orbit to line up with the target. And that could take more than 24 hours.

that's how its not simply press a button, and the weapon drops form a magical place "up in the sky" Orbital position is far more complex than that.

Let's do the fucking math, shall we?

Let's say you stuck the things in LEO at about 400 km. Orbital velocity there is about 7 kps. If you're in retrograde orbit, you get an additional 1 kps against targets near the equator. So let's call it 8 kps for the sake of argument.

Since we're dealing with LEO, the standard Potential Energy = mass * distance * 9.81 m/s^2 equation is close enough. So every kilogram has about 4 megajoules of gravitational potential energy. Add that to the kinetic energy calculated using E=0.5*m*v^2 and you get 4 MJ + 32 MJ = 36 MJ/kg of energy.

Sounds pretty amazing, huh? Except TNT is right at about 5 MJ/kg. So you're only at 7x the energy of TNT.

Then you have to adjust your orbit to impact, which is an inevitable decrease in orbital velocity. Probably on the order of 20% of it. Which ends up being about 16 MJ/kg. Yep, losing 20 percent of your velocity costs almost half your kinetic energy. Now we're down to 24 MJ/kg. You'll lose another 10-15% of your energy from friction and ablation of mass, so call it an impact energy of 20 MJ/kg, of 4x its mass in TNT.

Now the final impact will be at an oblique angle. This is because you'll want to change the orbit as little as possible so the impact has the maximum kinetic energy preserved. Don't believe me? Go play some KSP then. You'll learn something. Also, since it's in retrograde to get that extra 1 kps at the equator, it will always come in from the east. That means bunkers can be built on the western side of hills and forces can camp in canyons or to the west of large landforms. Or move there since there will probably be about a forty five minutes - half an orbital period - between the attack being ordered and it arriving. And since it's built to penetrate atmosphere, it will penetrate the ground rather than explode on impact, meaning it's useless against ground troops or armor.

>>30015228
You're not going in a straight line down (orbital mechanics 101). You're going in a curve as you deorbit (assuming you are in the right position, which only exists every 1 1/2 hours or so, unlike ICBMs which can fire 24/7).

They know you put them up there because KEI weapons weigh a lot. Hence they require giant rockets to put up, and then to move around once they are up.

Very big rockets, BTW. It will be impossible to conceal an extra hundred SpaceX launches per year, or the giant increase in defense spending (you ain't hiding this with gold-plated toilets).

Ordinary radar can see the deorbiting projectiles (it probably needs to be reoriented though). But it's kinda superfluous, because backyard telescopes are all you need and hiring a couple amateur bloggers will suffice for 24/7 tracking. Apply the rocket equation to the sightings to determine launches without radar.

>>30015327
(2/2)
On the other hand, a PGM dropped from a stealthed bomber or UCAV would give you a little less bang per kilogram and might be a little slower to arrive, but would be more accurate and effective against bunkers or mobile forces.

And in terms of expense, it's quite a bit cheaper since you also don't have to deal with the inefficiency of launching the mass to orbit. Hint: every kilo you send to orbit costs a couple thousand dollars. That's not including any guidance and maneuvering packages you'd have to include for any reasonable endurance.

There's also lead time. Once you have an airfield, you can stage as many bombers out of it as you'd like. Just transport the men, fuel, parts, and munitions and you can carry out multiple strikes. With KEWs, it's one and done. It'll take months to plan, prepare, and launch replacements.

So, basically, KEWs are shit compared to standard munitions.

>>30015101
Satellites only have to maintain an orbital because of minute resistance and planetary shifts. It's negligible at best and most of their RCS thruster's are used for re-tasking, i.e changing orbit directions around the earth.

>If you simply 'detach' something, it will eventually reenter the atmosphere (though it may take a while)

And what practical use does an unguided metal rod slowly decaying back to earth over the period of a year do?

>And?

And it means that kinetic weapons are not based in reality and are a half-baked science fiction idea.

>Well, no. That's not how that works. You place the rod (not the fucking satellite) into a ...

One of the two is going to have to slow down to return to earth. Either the body carrying the weapon or the weapon itself. It would make more sense for the weapon to do it, but giving it a propulsion system and all that would essentially make it an ICBM, and a really heavy and obvious one at that.

>I'm not supporting the idea, it's kinda stupid and way too expensive, but YOU are wrong, and don't know what you're talking about.

I am not wrong. Go take physics and learn how orbits work. Just because you don't understand what I am talking about doesn't make me wrong, it just makes you blind.

>There's no need for insults you flaming autistic cunt.

I'm just going to leave that there.

>Oh, and please learn to spell and format better, it's a strain on the eyes.

I adopted your format, straight out of pic related. Maybe it will be easier for you to understand.

File: retard.jpg (37KB, 300x442px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 300x442px

>>30015621
FUCK

File: Space_probe_trajectory_example[1].png (45KB, 600x350px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 600x350px

>>30012235

Putting a satellite up there with rods from god? No.

Putting a probe with a solar sail to bring an asteroid into a trajectory that will slam into your opponent years from now? Perfect crime if you can get the probe to detach.

>>30012419
Tungsten is a hell of a lot more common and cheaper though.

TL;DR The carrier rockets themselves are better weapons, nukes are even better

Here's some food for thought.
Say these things yield 100% of their kinetic energy when they impact, in a grand perfect explosion. This doesn't happen of course, no kinetic impactor is perfect, the projectile doesn't vanish when it strikes and leaves behind a puffy cloud of magic explosion. This is further mitigated because it slows down as it comes down from space, because of drag. But let's say it keeps its velocity and blows up perfectly.

The energy that these things posses as they come down from space is exactly the same energy that the carrier rocket put in to get them into LEO in the first place, and it's bound by the energy of the propellant the rocket uses. Of course rockets are flawed machines and the propulsive efficiency to LEO is stupidly low (<15%) but let's say 100% of the energy in the fuel goes into the rod and call it a day.

The biggest LV currently operating is ULA's Delta IV Heavy, at 24 tons to low earth orbit. But let's go bigger, the Saturn V's about the biggest thing to have flown. We'll assume its entire 635 tons of rp-1 (at 46MJ/kg) and 87 tons of liquid hydrogen (at 142MJ/kg) combust perfectly (which is very far from the truth, especially with the hydrogen) for a grand total of 41 and a half GIGAJOULES or 10 kilotons of TNT, impressive.

Congratulations you broke half a dozen laws of physics and used what's essentially a 140 ton to LEO vehicle to deliver what a 5 ton nuke could easily achieve.
This is all assuming 100% efficiency across the board, in reality even using the biggest carrier rocket, accelerating a 140 ton impactor to orbital velocity would yield about 1kt, and a lot of that will be lost along the way during entry.

Energy wise stuff traveling at orbital velocity is worth about 7 times its mass in TNT
C4 is about 1.5 times its mass in TNT
Nukes go from 1000 (davy crockett) to about 5000 (hiroshima) to about 5 million (b41), times its mass in TNT

>>30012235
Putting shit in space and into the proper orbit is expensive.

If we talk strictly fuel, you would have the fuel to get it up, then the fuel to put it into the desire orbit, and the fuel for each change for orbit. This thing could be put on a path that kinda covers the entire globe but it would have to be a lot of waiting.
Source, I got an A in propulsion systems in Uni.

File: 1455594303862.jpg (64KB, 492x559px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 492x559px

I'd just like to mention that space is useful for things like GPS and communications and stuff. If we put a weapon up there, someone else will blow it up. Then little bits of metal travelling at mach 8 destroy all the useful satellites, it would be unsafe to have any satellites for a few thousand years, and be bad for everyone but goat fucking terrorists. So we don't weaponize space, it's a bad bad very bad idea. China will do it anyway because fuck you.

File: 1446443325213.gif (2MB, 437x244px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 437x244px

>>30015327
>>30015388
Fucking outstanding post /k/iller, you beat me to the punch. Other good posts are: >>30015303 >>30012969 >>30012921 >>30015236 and other guys I missed.

Here's another point against this stupid idea: reentry velocity would need to be absurd to cut travel time and to provide enough energy at the target. This brings up another problem: air resistance once you drop below the stratosphere. Something moving that fast (ideally one would just change the orbit to intersect the target coordinates) would air-burst before it could even reach the target. This is also why relativistic projectiles would be a retarded idea: a fucking balloon in the way would be devastating to the projectile. Whenever these two ideas are brought up I just shake my head, because the people who present them are almost always easily excitable retards.

>>30015209
There is a lot of junk up there up. But if something happened like a nuke most affected junk would re-enter earth's atmosphere or be blown out of earth's orbit. Maybe a year or so till it clears it's self up. There is still a ton of space in earth's orbit for satellites even now.

Why don't we just bomb ISIS with old satellites. Just need Anther space robot to push satellites out of orbit and it would clear up some space for new satellites.

>>30012235
>Weaponizing space is illegal for sure
What are they going to do, cry about it on Facebook, which they can't access because all their satellites and ground cables were destroyed by a single killsat?

File: 1458601574265.jpg (219KB, 531x471px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 531x471px

>>30012939

Except the mass and velocity of a tungsten rod is vastly smaller than that of a small asteroid.

'Rods from god' is a shit meme from people who have no understanding of physics.

To get the kind of oft-quoted yield of 'a small nuke' from the impact of one of these rods, the orbit would have to extend out past the fucking moon for it to build up enough speed.

>>30018038
>>30016470
>>30015388

You're all right, but perhaps does the psychological impact suffices. I mean, in this thread alone we see the memetic power of those things.
Also, would gravitational slingshot be a thing to make them accelerate, by going to the edge of the solar system, then going back many years later, like >>30015966 ?

>>30018400

>our enemy is retarded enough to spend billions on a weapons system that does what an ICBM already does at an extreme fraction of the cost.

Yeah it would be a great morale booster

Something that Hollywood has yet to equip obligatory fictional space invaders yet with.

File: 1449336697654.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>30012235
Takes more energy lifting something out of a gravity well than you get back by lowering it (including losses).

It works but Toteming some goatfucker is hardly worth it. You could wazoo VVTs but then again it's a logistical nightmare for little return.

A whole barrage of missiles (enough to overcome any amount of defense) would cost less than a single space pylon strike.

>>30018400
>Also, would gravitational slingshot be a thing to make them accelerate, by going to the edge of the solar system, then going back many years later

Are you seriously suggesting a weapon system that'll take fucking decades to get the payload to target? That's going to be extremely fucking useful for sure!

>>30018444

> takes more energy...

Wut? Why? Cause of drag?

>>30018462
Just send enough of them to have one close to earth each month. The system would need decades to be set up, but after that the wait delay would be smaller.
Also, time is not a problem if it's meant to exert retaliation.

>>30012235
takes the same amount of Dv to get rods into space as it would to directly launch them at the enemy.

there's no point, unless your nation uses Orion-like launch vehicles and dispenses of chemical rockets.

>>30018538

What's Dv?

>>30018477
force required to bring a big rod to space.

>>30018546
Change in velocity. Pronounced delta-vee.

That's...weird. Why are you talking in terms of force and not just energy? The force to bring it up just has to be big enough to overcome gravity. The force to shoot it down would be immensely greater, because it would be applied over a tiny fractions of the displacement (barrel length of the weapon vs. entire trip of the rocket lifting it up). Plus the slug needs to fight drag and needs to arrive at high speed, when it should be arriving much closer to rest on the way up.

wouldn't something like upwards of 70% of the mass burn on during re-entry? like what happens to meteorites and such?

>>30018682
I'd get hot, certainly. But depends on the material. Man-made metal slugs can get a lot more dense than meteorites are likely to be.

>>30018671
>Why are you talking in terms of force and not just energy?

They don't really know what either are.

>>30015633
>I've lost the argument due to a long well thought out rebuttal
>must be autism!!

>>30018400

Gravitational slingshot increasing speed is just a bonus.

The real reason is because just like a sail you can't go back in the direction of the wind/sun. So capturing an asteroid from the asteroid belt and then steering it around would need a planet/moon/whatever big enough to slingshot it back to the earth.

... It may take decades, but just how much cold war weapons and ICBMs have been sitting around doing nothing during all this time?

Tunguska event estimate is anywhere from 60-190m.

>>30018538
>takes the same amount of Dv to get rods into space as it would to directly launch them at the enemy.
No, it does not. My god, you are fucking retarded. Kill yourself.

Achieving orbital velocity takes many times the delta-v of a simple sub-orbital ICBM. Even fractional orbit weapons would take much less.

Not to even mention you need even more delta-v to deorbit the weapons with steep re-entry trajectory.

>>30018400
>I mean, in this thread alone we see the memetic power of those things.
>what nuclear tipped ICBM

>>30018738
>... It may take decades, but just how much cold war weapons and ICBMs have been sitting around doing nothing during all this time?

This isn't a missile sitting in a silo. It's a missile that's on its way to the target, a shot fired. So we're suppsoed to launch a fucking doomsday weapon at someone we might be at war with in twenty years time, and then hope we will be at war when it finally arrives, without having triggered a response when you were setting it up?

>The real reason is because just like a sail you can't go back in the direction of the wind/sun

While in solar orbit, burn retrograde?

>>30013076
and outside on turbines and other hi temp hi pressure environs an A2 ss bolt will last just as long.DOD engineers are lazy with writing manuals so just used one bolt over the whole machine. Then again you are paying some idiot who could not get a better job 20k are year to maintain it. But still cost of education v bolt?

File: cen1.jpg (28KB, 640x439px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 640x439px

>>30012235
>Weaponizing space is illegal for sure
Illegal?

Ink on a page.

>>30015621
not him but I just used even more basic science in another thread and got crickets. I think /k/ needs and intellectual thread.

>>30018477
>>30018616

When you send something to space, it requires fuel. To use fuel at any given altitude, you need to use more fuel to get it there. So you end up using several times the final KE of the payload just to get it into orbit. Look up the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation if you don't believe me.

>>30019227

I know it's true with rockets because you have to lift the fuel you use up. But the way you stated it made it sound like a general principle.

>>30018785

Considering that we may not be at war at the time is pacifist thinking that may not be shared by a fanatical regime that is in for the long run. This is something that will cripple a target and if the probe is gone it looks like just the work of nature and gravity.

The moon missions happened during the height of the cold war, and launches of other spacecraft happened throughout. They triggered responses all right, but this is something easily disguised as a planetary probe.

>>30018867
We're using J429 grade 8 on almost everything (yes the standard mcmaster fasteners). A2 doesn't have the yield strength required for the application. The only problem is yellow zinc doesn't last outdoors for years and comes off with use.

If you're relying on techs not to fuck up maintenance, you're delusional. It doesn't matter how detailed the manual is. Techs will use whatever bolt is on-hand because they didn't design the equipment and they don't know the fastener limits. It's better to use the same bolt everywhere, so spares can be shipped with the equipment.

>>30018477
it takes no energy to put something to a gravity well. its the exact same thing as pushing a bolder up a hill vs down a hill.

>>30014292
>We absolutely cannot do this. This is not at all possible right now. We simply are not able to compute anything that complex with as such ease as you seem to think.

New Horizons arrived at Pluto less than ten seconds off from its predicted arrival time.

>>30020612
That's not the same as bringing a fucking asteroid to Earth you nob

Never mind giant tungsten rods.
What about using something the shape and size of a .50 BMG (so it doesn't melt during reentry) to cover the battlefield with bullets.
Like a literal hail of bullets.
Cloudy with a chance of bullets.

>>30020657
Not that anon but you're right: it's harder. Putting a rock down on Earth where you want it would be piss easy, we have ICBMs designed to do the harder thing and fly in a suborbital trajectory while also somehow hitting a target. When you're in orbit it's a simple matter of changing your inclination (a fucking high schooler can do the math) and slowing down, it is truly that simple.

You're vastly overestimating the difficulty, actually doing this isn't hard at all it's just counter-intuitive and stupid. Take for example this fuck: >>30021488
>1488
First off, Heil Hitler, secondly, no, that's retarded. It will melt during reentry because size doesn't matter, the fact remains if you're going to put something into the atmosphere from orbit it's going to be going VERY fucking fast. Melting isn't even the right word, it's going to burst into a cloud of plasma mid-air so all you'll do is just pollute the atmosphere with some weird heavy metal oxides.

Nothing we can put in orbit to be used in kinetic bombardment would be more devastating than nuclear weapons.


Also, yes when you do the math it's possible for a tungsten telephone pole to have energy normally associated with nukes, but unless whatever it hits puts up incredible resistance to it, there's just no way in hell to transfer all that energy... So it most likely would have less energy than a conventional explosive of the same weight.

>>30021624
>it's harder.
No it's not, holy shit. Finding an asteroid, finding the RIGHT asteroid, getting to it, LANDING on it, MOVING it to Earth, and AIMING it to hit a SPECIFIC place is way the fuck harder than going to a planet, let alone a god damn flyby.

>When you're in orbit it's a simple matter of changing your inclination (a fucking high schooler can do the math) and slowing down, it is truly that simple.
Which is why we always reenter to exactly where we want and without any issues amirite?

And you're assuming it's already in orbit, which it wouldn't be. Now please, shut up, and stop talking.

>>30019273
It is a general principle. It all comes from Newton's Laws and the conservation of momentum. To change velocity, you have to impart velocity to something else. In vacuum, that means you have to carry that something else along. Which takes even more stuff to get that stuff you're planning on using to the point you want to use it.

File: fucking great idea.jpg (80KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 500x500px

>>30021758
>No it's not, holy shit. Finding an asteroid, finding the RIGHT REEEEEEEEEEE
Shut the fuck up. You weren't talking about the entire process of going and getting an asteroid initially, and the conversation has been specifically about dropping ~something~ out of orbit anyway. Also lmao the "RIGHT asteroid" is any asteroid with mass, the end result is going to be the exact same shit: air-burst over target because you're throwing something down at the planet at orbital velocity with the intent to crash the son of a bitch with enough energy to fuck shit up. Either you're trying to displace a fucking tactical nuke (at least) or you're just making a mess, there isn't a middle ground here.

>Which is why we always reenter to exactly where we want and without any issues amirite?
So because sometimes there's problems that means there's problems every time? Jesus woodworking Christ you are truly an idiot.

>And you're assuming it's already in orbit, which it wouldn't be.
Where the fuck else would it be? This entire fucking discussion is about moving things from orbit to not orbit, are you even in the right thread?

>>30021844
Are YOU retarded? The initial post I was replying was this >>30012518 which said
>Send probe into space. Land on iron asteroid. Push it into orbit that will have it hit earth. Subtle changes in trajectory to make sure either hits the country you want.

I WAS talking about the entire process you cunt.

> the conversation has been specifically about dropping ~something~ out of orbit anyway.
Not the one I was having.

> Also lmao the "RIGHT asteroid" is any asteroid with mass, the end result is going to be the exact same shit: air-burst over target because you're throwing something down at the planet at orbital velocity with the intent to crash the son of a bitch with enough energy to fuck shit up.
That isn't how asteroids work retard, read a book. Different asteroids act differently, to do what you're thinking of you need a metallic one to survive enough reentry, other kinds can just break apart first. And PRETENDING it is just the mass, you STILL HAVE TO FIND ONE WITH ENOUGH MASS YOU DILETTANTE AND GET IT.

>So because sometimes there's problems that means there's problems every time?
>Sometimes
Name how many times we've fucking landed EXACTLY where we've wanted you cunt. I'm waiting.

>Where the fuck else would it be? This entire fucking discussion is about moving things from orbit to not orbit, are you even in the right thread?
THE POST I REPLIED TO WAS TALKING ABOUT BRING AN ASTEROID HERE YOU CUNT. READ THE GOD DAMN THREAD. AND IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE FEASIBILITY OF A WEAPON YOU CAN'T JUST HAND WAVE AN EXCUSE LIKE' it's already in orbit'. WITH A FUCKING ASTEROID IT HAS TO GET HERE FIRST.

GOD DAMN. YOU ARE RETARDED

Now shut the fuck up, you have no idea what you're talking about. I'm out.

>>30012235

There is no reason to use it right now.

It will become viable in the future when we colonize other planets and so on since you merely have to put engines on something and point it towards the target.

In fact, if aliens want us wiped out they could do that from any part of the solar system or beyond and simply point a kinetic payload towards Earth and wipe us out.

File: 1444600179324.gif (1MB, 256x144px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 256x144px

>>30021844

>>30021983
>>30021844

Neither of you are mentioning how quickly you'd get busted for it.

It's not exactly something can do without leaving a trace, even if it takes a decade or two to strike.

File: i_came.gif (1MB, 211x203px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 211x203px

>>30021983
>> the conversation has been specifically about dropping ~something~ out of orbit anyway.
>Not the one I was having.
Okay then, sorry for giving you the benefit of the doubt!

>That isn't how asteroids work retard
>PRETENDING
>STILL HAVE TO FIND ONE WITH ENOUGH MASS
>DILETTANTE
>ASTEROID
>ASTEROID
>ASTEROID
>GOD DAMN. YOU ARE RETARDED

I think >>30022079 was supposed to be at you. Pic related is my official response to your all caps anger.

>>30022156
>Neither of you are mentioning how quickly you'd get busted for it.
I'm not making the absolutely retarded case for throwing asteroids at the planet, I never felt the need to mention it since the whole thing is stupid to begin with. This entire thread is based on a stupid premise and Dumbshit McGee up there is trying to make it even worse.

File: Fengyun-1C_debris.jpg (34KB, 663x452px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 663x452px

>>30018400
Energy kills, memetic power doesn't kill.
Putting one of these shits into LEO, all you'll succeed in doing is being the douchebag neighbour and piss off foreign powers.
In 2007 china decided to be just that. So they tested an anti satellite weapon. These aren't "rods from god" but they're a subset of the same kind of weapon. As a result earth now has a ring, just like jupiter. America and russia are still ticked off about that.

File: intelligent design.jpg (19KB, 320x323px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 320x323px

>>30022804
>>I think >>30022079 (You) was supposed to be at you.
>No, it was for you. You're an idiot, and have no idea what you're talking about.
Way to miss the fucking joke while also confirming my suspicions that you're samefagging you gigantic retard lmao

Oh sweet baby Jesus this is glorious.

>>30012235

The time is now to build a giant space colony for the soul purpose of dropping it on Australia.

>>30022789

Please tell me more?

Nobody is telling them to clean it up?

If I pulled shit like that, I'd have people bitching at me.

File: you DILETTANTE.jpg (69KB, 773x320px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 773x320px

>>30021844
>>30021983
>>30022079
>>30022645
>>30022804
>>30022866
since the anon tried to delete his shame

>>30022914
Since*

One more thing:
Next time you want to venture off-topic and call everyone else retards, try to do it without screaming and mashing your keyboard. I would have replied to you and explained myself but you got emotional. While that was -hilarious- I'm not going to continue a discussion with somebody who gets so worked up over minor disagreements; things were relatively civil until you showed up.

>>30022898
Article from 2007
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/fury-at-space-destruction/2007/01/19/1169095981210.html
Of course they have people bitching at them. And space organizations being "deeply concerned" about it.
It's not getting cleaned up, there's still some 100000 fragments up there as of now, and the ISS is still dodging pieces of it. Best they can do is not launch satellites in that plane and wait for mother nature to do its thing. And plan for emergencies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOKf5r_JMAo

>>30022977

Fug, can't copy/paste anymore.

>>30016002
Osmium is pretty dangerous stuff to work with, too.

Reagans Star Wars defense program with the laser sats shouldn't of got shitcanned. Laser satellites could double for scientific research and a lot of other useful things.

>>30022977

Any idea on when all that debris will fall from orbit?

How long will it take

>>30023342
It's pretty high, most of it is above 800km which means it's there to stay. If you're to believe the /k/ and /pol/, "the end is nigh, it's happening" culture, we'll nuke each other out of existence and the ring will still be up for years.
The red line's the relevant one. Should clear out by 2050-2100, we may well develop debris clearing technology by the time it decays on its own.

File: 2007-2011-events.png (71KB, 735x621px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 735x621px

>>30023492
>>30023342
>pic

File: 900x900px-LL-ce3ed42d_This-will-be-the-sixth-time-we-have-created-a-thread-about-it.gif (46KB, 408x410px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 408x410px

>>30012235

>>30015228
>I have no idea about orbital mechanics: the post
just fuck off please
you're defending an idea without possessing any actual technical knowledge about it

>>30022866
>>30022914
Wait, how does that prove he samefagged? Am I missing something? It just looks like an anon deleted a post. I'm confused.

>>30022958
>Next time you want to venture off-topic and call everyone else retards
He only called you a retarded.

> things were relatively civil until you showed up.
Well, you didn't help either.

>venture off-topic
Wow, you sound like a faggot.

>>30022914
>>30023842
Nothing? I'm seriously not seeing it.

It's cool and that's all that matters.

>>30021771
>>30019273
>>30019227
>>30018616
Simpler than that.
The energy you have to put (use) into a system (you lifting a rock off the ground to eye level) is equal to the energy you get from dropping (lowering) the rock thereafter from eye-level to the ground.

If you include stuff like atmospheric loss, drag and general inefficiency then the amount of energy that was used for the first action is higher than for the second.

In this case, the losses of energy (toward something else than what you want) is enormous.

>>30023842
>>30023955
Look at the (you) after 3022079, then look at the one immediately above it. That's me, it tells me plainly. So when he linked himself it showed him plainly, and then he said "30021983 is right" implying that he's somebody entirely different.

I'm going to guess that's the reason why he deleted it.

>>30023915
>He only called you a retarded.
Oh, I'm sorry, are we being unnecessarily pedantic right now? I'm not going to carefully comb over this entire thread to see who said what to whom just to soothe your autism: even if he didn't call anyone else "a retard" anyone who's even semi-fluent in the English language would have understood what I meant. Since we're here I'll help you understand by explaining what I meant in the subtext, "if you're going to insult other people, try to at least be coherent and level-headed. You're getting way too emotional over 4chan of all things, even though I'm laughing at your misfortune and being snide and condescending right now I do feel pity for your mental health situation."

I hope that clears things up for you.

>Well, you didn't help either.
Completely true, but,
>Wow, you sound like a faggot.
Neither are you, what is your fucking point?

>>30024190
Wait, why wouldn't the 30022079 have a "you" after it? If the guy who posted 30022079 just copy pasted what you said, then it would have his "you" in it.

I mean, for instance.

>>>30023842 (You)
>>30023955 (You)
>Look at the (you) after 3022079, then look at the one immediately above it. That's me, it tells me plainly. So when he linked himself it showed him plainly, and then he said "30021983 is right" implying that he's somebody entirely different.

I just copy pasted your reply, and it should show the yous I got from your reply. So how does your picture show he samefagged?

>>30024190
>>30024287
Another example

>>>30022914
>>>30023842 (You)
>Nothing? I'm seriously not seeing it.

It shows the "you"s from my self reply because I didn't bother to delete them. So if 30022079 just copy pasted from your reply then it would show the "you"s. That doesn't mean he samefagged

>>30024287
>>30024336
No, I copy-pasted what -he- said, the (you) was an artifact from his quote, that's it's origin. My original post was >>30022645 where I said,
>I think 30022079 was supposed to be at you. Pic related is my official response to your all caps anger.
He then quoted me, which came up as,
>I think 30022079 (You) was supposed to be at you.

Meaning the post 30022804 is the same person as 30022079 and that's why it showed (You) to him.

This is an excessively silly thing anyway, I think we've taken this much further than it had any right to go.

>>30024435
>Meaning the post 30022804 is the same person as 30022079 and that's why it showed (You) to him.
Yes that's right, I'm not arguing that. But how does that mean he (30022804/30022079) is the same person as who you were arguing with? It just means that (30022804/30022079) is the guy who posted the mlp-autism gif. That's it.

>This is an excessively silly thing anyway, I think we've taken this much further than it had any right to go.
I mean, I don't disagree, but I'm not seeing the proof you're giving, it doesn't match with your claim. And I don't feel falsely accusing possibly two different people of something is a silly thing, regardless of whether or not you mean to do so.

From what I can tell, mlp-autism guy replied to
>>30022645 by just copying the entire part regarding him, in which case it would show the you from his screen. Leading to you saying he samefagged. Nothing there shows he samefagged. The you shows nothing other than the guy behind 30022079 replied to your post.

how did this degenerate into reddit tier dickwaving?

>>30012419
>Thinking Ke has anything to do with density.

Google physics formulas.

>>30024190
Are you sure you're not the one being autistic? You just wrote a 130+ word reply, about being "unnecessarily pedantic", to a 17 word one, while getting awfully upset over it.

>>30024582
Because 4chan is full of turbo-autists

(Plus it's the weekend so day/k/are is in)

File: I HAVE LUBRICANT.png (57KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 400x400px

>>30024568
>It just means that (30022804/30022079) is the guy who posted the mlp-autism gif. That's it.
Oh I see what you meant, sorry about that anon. One of my posts didn't make it through, I had to repost >>30024190 and there was a copypasta problem that caused some stuff to get cut out.

No, I don't have any conclusive proof that the guy I was arguing with is the mlp guy. There was supposed to be an explanation for my reasoning before "I'm going to guess that's the reason why he deleted it." My bad.

I'm glad we had this talk, anon. Pic is unrelated, but I have to run to Jimmy John's because my girlfriend is probably going to yell at me about our (my) blankets again and I want to fart a lot while she does it.

>>30024599
But it does, while coming down through space these things need to pass through hundreds of kilometers of air.
A penetrator's aspect ratio would be limited by it's material resistance.
If it's too thin and it would snap under turbulence or buckle. A long thin penetrator also puts more area in contact with the exterior which increases heating, so a material which retains its strength at higher temperatures is better. Between two identically shaped penetrator, the denser one has a higher mass with respect to it's frontal area (a higher ballistic coefficient), thus retains speed better.
Osmium is denser, harder and more resitant to compression, has a higher melting point and lower thermal conductivity.
It's also a pretty autistic material to use seeing as space borne KEs are retarded and don't work

>>30024802
meant KIs not KE, KE is kinetic energy
you should probably just disregard my entire post and i should sleep

>>30024798
Just to fuck with him, I can confirm he samefagged. He's flipping out about how he won 'cause you have no proof.

>>30024172
Except in this case the energy wasted (not directly contributing to the potential and kinetic energy of the projectile) to get the payload to orbit exceeds that wasted in drag by an order of magnitude.