|
the spiral
Neuroscientist
Registered: 05/13/02
Posts: 1,769
Last seen: 8 years, 8 months
|
Kinetic Projectiles from Orbit
#17381882 - 12/12/12 06:57 PM (11 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I read (I think in a comment section on a gizmodo thread) that the military discovered (some time ago) a way around various treaties that restrict weaponizing space. The general idea was that a bar of tungsten with the dimensions of a telephone pole, if simply lobbed towards the earth from an orbital platform, would have so much kinetic energy upon impact with the ground that it would be about as effective as some tactical nuclear weapons (with the added bonus of no fallout).
I'm curious as to how true this is, but I can't seem to find an answer about exactly how much energy (in kilotons of TNT) that, say, the space shuttle or an Atlas V uses to reach orbit. Conservation of energy mandates that the tungsten rod you launch from space can't have more energy when it hits the ground than was expended to lift it into orbit.
Can anyone out there confirm or debunk this idea? I'd ask Randall Munroe but he'd take at least a week to get back to me on his "what if?", and that's only if he picked my question out of the many he gets!
-------------------- "A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism." - Carl Sagan
Edited by the spiral (12/12/12 07:01 PM)
|
jjjcmzzt
That guy
Registered: 06/17/12
Posts: 624
Loc: United States
Last seen: 3 years, 27 days
|
Re: Kinetic Projectiles from Orbit [Re: the spiral]
#17381903 - 12/12/12 07:00 PM (11 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Well the law of conservation cant apply here. Unlessthey are bringing the rod into space and letting it free-fall, chances are they are launching the rod towards the earth at high speeds. This would mean the rod is getting energy from an external force, and that isnt accounted for in the law of conservation.
-------------------- Psychedelics i want to take: Mushrooms, Salvia (weak), Salvia (strong), Cannabis, LSA, Cactus, LSD, DMT, Bufotenine, 5-meo-DMT, 4-aco-DMT, Bufocin (theoretical as of now), and a long long time from now, Datura (deliriant). "LSD is a psychedelic substance which occasionally causes psychotic behavior in people that have never taken it." DEATH METAL \m/
|
the spiral
Neuroscientist
Registered: 05/13/02
Posts: 1,769
Last seen: 8 years, 8 months
|
Re: Kinetic Projectiles from Orbit [Re: jjjcmzzt]
#17381917 - 12/12/12 07:02 PM (11 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
jjjcmzzt said: Well the law of conservation cant apply here. Unlessthey are bringing the rod into space and letting it free-fall, chances are they are launching the rod towards the earth at high speeds. This would mean the rod is getting energy from an external force, and that isnt accounted for in the law of conservation.
For the sake of simplicity, let's assume the rod of tungsten isn't significantly propelled by additional chemical fuels, and is simply "lobbed" towards the target on the Earth.
Edit: The law of conservation actually does apply, come to think of it, because the rod would have the same amount of potential energy if you used all your propellant to lift it into a higher orbit and dropped it from there as it would if you used the propellant to "shoot" it back down towards the Earth.
Edited by the spiral (12/12/12 07:05 PM)
|
jjjcmzzt
That guy
Registered: 06/17/12
Posts: 624
Loc: United States
Last seen: 3 years, 27 days
|
Re: Kinetic Projectiles from Orbit [Re: the spiral]
#17381963 - 12/12/12 07:09 PM (11 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
The potential energy of the object is determined by gravity, the mass of the object and how high up the object is. Hence the name Gravitational Potential Energy. It has nothing to do with how much fuel is required to lift the object that high. So in this case, if you use fuel to propel the rod at a high speed towards the earth, you ARE infact adding energy.
-------------------- Psychedelics i want to take: Mushrooms, Salvia (weak), Salvia (strong), Cannabis, LSA, Cactus, LSD, DMT, Bufotenine, 5-meo-DMT, 4-aco-DMT, Bufocin (theoretical as of now), and a long long time from now, Datura (deliriant). "LSD is a psychedelic substance which occasionally causes psychotic behavior in people that have never taken it." DEATH METAL \m/
|
the spiral
Neuroscientist
Registered: 05/13/02
Posts: 1,769
Last seen: 8 years, 8 months
|
Re: Kinetic Projectiles from Orbit [Re: jjjcmzzt]
#17381990 - 12/12/12 07:14 PM (11 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
jjjcmzzt said: The potential energy of the object is determined by gravity, the mass of the object and how high up the object is. Hence the name Gravitational Potential Energy. It has nothing to do with how much fuel is required to lift the object that high. So in this case, if you use fuel to propel the rod at a high speed towards the earth, you ARE infact adding energy.
You can only gain gravitational potential energy by expending energy to propel yourself out of the gravity well. The gravitational potential energy of the rod would be directly related to the energy it took to lift it out of the gravity well.
Imagine a launch into a highly elliptical orbit that is so elliptical it intersects the Earth - in this case, unlike with a circular orbit, you wouldn't need to expend any energy changing the rod's trajectory in order to have it come smashing into your target.
Sure, you lose some potential energy because you have to lift the fuel and the launch vehicle, but I'm simply looking for a ballpark figure to examine whether this method could be as devastating as a small nuke?
|
jjjcmzzt
That guy
Registered: 06/17/12
Posts: 624
Loc: United States
Last seen: 3 years, 27 days
|
Re: Kinetic Projectiles from Orbit [Re: the spiral]
#17382108 - 12/12/12 07:36 PM (11 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Alright put that way it makes sense. I have been picturing a rod being dropped from a circular orbit, in which case if you propel the object instead of just dropping it, this in fact WOULD affect its energy.
Sorry for the confusion, i understand what you're saying now. I feel like the ridiculous amount of fuel required to do this would make it quite impractical. If they really wanna do something like this, when a satellite is falling out of orbit, they should just have backup boosters to propel it towards a specified target and crash the entire satellite into the desired location. Seems much easier and the satellite would have served its purpose as a telescope/space station AND military weapon. Sounds like a win win.
-------------------- Psychedelics i want to take: Mushrooms, Salvia (weak), Salvia (strong), Cannabis, LSA, Cactus, LSD, DMT, Bufotenine, 5-meo-DMT, 4-aco-DMT, Bufocin (theoretical as of now), and a long long time from now, Datura (deliriant). "LSD is a psychedelic substance which occasionally causes psychotic behavior in people that have never taken it." DEATH METAL \m/
|
404
error
Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 14,539
|
Re: Kinetic Projectiles from Orbit [Re: the spiral]
#17382174 - 12/12/12 07:47 PM (11 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
launching tungsten telephone poles from space. interesting.
|
the spiral
Neuroscientist
Registered: 05/13/02
Posts: 1,769
Last seen: 8 years, 8 months
|
Re: Kinetic Projectiles from Orbit [Re: jjjcmzzt]
#17382287 - 12/12/12 08:02 PM (11 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
jjjcmzzt said: Alright put that way it makes sense. I have been picturing a rod being dropped from a circular orbit, in which case if you propel the object instead of just dropping it, this in fact WOULD affect its energy.
Sorry for the confusion, i understand what you're saying now. I feel like the ridiculous amount of fuel required to do this would make it quite impractical. If they really wanna do something like this, when a satellite is falling out of orbit, they should just have backup boosters to propel it towards a specified target and crash the entire satellite into the desired location. Seems much easier and the satellite would have served its purpose as a telescope/space station AND military weapon. Sounds like a win win.
The only problem with this scenario - which is why the rod of tungsten was chosen as an example - is that (so far as I know) communications/spy/GPS satellites that reenter the atmosphere would completely or mostly burn up before reaching the ground (though nowadays they usually are boosted up into a "parking" orbit rather than dumping hydrazine all over half a continent by falling to earth and the ends of their service lives). If you used an aerodynamic rod of tungsten, however, which could survive the heat of reentry largely intact, then it could transmit a far greater of kinetic energy into its target.
Maybe our spy satellites have some sort of metallic core just for this kind of use?
Plus there's that "classified" launch vehicle (the x-37 I think) that there's been a lot of talk about lately; that vehicle could easily house a kinetic projectile in its payload bay.
Maybe I should submit this question to XKCD after all =)
|
the spiral
Neuroscientist
Registered: 05/13/02
Posts: 1,769
Last seen: 8 years, 8 months
|
Re: Kinetic Projectiles from Orbit [Re: the spiral]
#17383374 - 12/12/12 11:02 PM (11 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Other than bothering Mr. Munroe at xkcd.com , does anyone know where else I could ask this question?
It seems to me that this questioin could be easily solved by one (or two) equations if you know the delta-V and mass of the object n question. The problem is that I'm a neuroscience guy and applied physics isn't my forte (not even close).
I should look around more, but as far as I can tell XKCD doesn't have an easy method to send in questions via email. I'd use IRC, but ... meh, t's been years since I've had an IRC client installed.
Maybe the engineering students visit the Pub at the same crazy-insomnic hours as me.
Edited by the spiral (12/12/12 11:17 PM)
|
Konyap
Registered: 06/30/07
Posts: 33,945
Loc: Planet Piss
Last seen: 4 years, 4 months
|
Re: Kinetic Projectiles from Orbit [Re: the spiral]
#17383411 - 12/12/12 11:09 PM (11 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
in metal gear they got the launcher to cruise on the ground and keep speeding up and up until it fired a warhead guide by its magnetic railgun
|
Kada
Asha'man
Registered: 02/15/05
Posts: 12,395
Loc: Buckeye
Last seen: 10 days, 20 hours
|
Re: Kinetic Projectiles from Orbit [Re: Konyap]
#17383606 - 12/12/12 11:52 PM (11 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I read about this in a book called the moon is a harsh mistress. A mining colony on the moon launches mining debris. At the earth to achive the same thing. It's a science fiction book but I thought that it related pretty well.
-------------------- ~The Cultivators Motherload~ "I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do." -Robert A. Heinlein "There is no need for temples, no need for complicated philosophies. My brain and my heart are my temples; my philosophy is kindness."-Dalai Lama Live long and prosper.
|
circularvortex
Bass Head
Registered: 08/31/06
Posts: 12,148
Loc:
Last seen: 26 days, 14 hours
|
Re: Kinetic Projectiles from Orbit [Re: jjjcmzzt]
#17383645 - 12/13/12 12:00 AM (11 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
jjjcmzzt said: The potential energy of the object is determined by gravity, the mass of the object and how high up the object is. Hence the name Gravitational Potential Energy. It has nothing to do with how much fuel is required to lift the object that high.
This.
-------------------- No statements made in any post or message by myself should be construed to mean that I am now, or have ever been, participating in or considering participation in any activities in violation of any local, state, federal, or fashion police laws. All posts are works of fiction. For well you know that its a fool who plays it cool By making his world a little colder. Under closer inspection I realised it was a funky ball of tits from outer space.
|
the spiral
Neuroscientist
Registered: 05/13/02
Posts: 1,769
Last seen: 8 years, 8 months
|
|
Quote:
Kada said: I read about this in a book called the moon is a harsh mistress. A mining colony on the moon launches mining debris. At the earth to achive the same thing. It's a science fiction book but I thought that it related pretty well.
This is one of my favorite books ever! Heinlein actually partially inspired this question (the gravity well between the Earth and the Moon would be quite a problem for the politicians on Earth if they ever tried to mess with a Lunar independence movement)
Quote:
circularvortex said:
Quote:
jjjcmzzt said: The potential energy of the object is determined by gravity, the mass of the object and how high up the object is. Hence the name Gravitational Potential Energy. It has nothing to do with how much fuel is required to lift the object that high.
This.
So what you're saying is that it is more practical to calculate the kinetic energy at impact by first calculating the gravitational potential energy (using its mass and velocity (momentum) for a given distance above the Earth, and that this will provide a maximum bound for the energy the tungsten rod could deliver upon impact?
This sounds like a reasonable approach.
My earlier question was based on the principle that the amount of energy you expend pushing an object out of a gravity well is always more than the amount you get back when the object lands. Otherwise you'd be able to drop a rubber ball and have it bounce up higher than you dropped it from.
For this reason I thought that it might be useful to try to calculate the energy of a kinetic projectile by estimating how much energy it took to put said projectile into orbit, since the fuels and details of rockets like the Atlas V are well known.
It does seem that forgetting about the rocket might lead to easier math; math that I am not exactly very good at doing.
So , does anybody know the answer to the question? How devastating could our hypothetical, aerodynamic tungsten rod be if lobbed towards the Earth with existing rocket technologies?
For extra credit, how much MORE devastating could it be if we used a trajectory with one or more gravity assist(s)?
Would this be a cheaper and comparably effective way to make life miserable for "the enemy" than, say , developing a nuclear weapons program?
|
the spiral
Neuroscientist
Registered: 05/13/02
Posts: 1,769
Last seen: 8 years, 8 months
|
Re: Kinetic Projectiles from Orbit [Re: the spiral]
#17384040 - 12/13/12 02:40 AM (11 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
does anybody know how to easily get in touch with Randall Munroe of XKCD, aside from IRC? i think this question would make for a great "What if?", especially because it's scaleable. Munroe seems to enjoy scaling the questions he receives into the realm of the ridiculous, which is often very entertaining (see the "laser pointers pointed at the moon' post if you are skeptical).
I guess I can be more proactive and just do the IRC thing, but that can't be the ONLY way, can it?
Besides: I figure the Shroomery has to have at least a couple rocket scientists/engineers/experts in aerodynamics who visit this forum occasionally and could give me a much better answer than XKCD. I hope!
|
Individual
Bass Addict
Registered: 12/20/06
Posts: 6,666
Loc: Reality Loophole
|
Re: Kinetic Projectiles from Orbit [Re: the spiral]
#17384227 - 12/13/12 04:46 AM (11 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Just use an web based irc client. It's easy.
http://www.wsirc.com/
-------------------- THE PHILOSOPHY OF LIBERTY <---
|
circularvortex
Bass Head
Registered: 08/31/06
Posts: 12,148
Loc:
Last seen: 26 days, 14 hours
|
Re: Kinetic Projectiles from Orbit [Re: the spiral]
#17388303 - 12/13/12 08:59 PM (11 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Okay...so a 10" wide 20' tall pole has a volume of about 43 cubic feet. Tungsten is 1210lbs/ft^3.
52,030lbs rod.
http://www.calctool.org/CALC/eng/aerospace/terminal
Using this it puts the rod's terminal velocity at about 280MPH, with some number I felt described the situation.
http://calculator.tutorvista.com/impact-force-calculator.html
A few quick metric conversions using this (Why didn't I just start in metric? Gah) and the impact force is 737,500N
http://www.convertunits.com/from/newtons/to/kiloton+[long,+UK]
Using this it's about 0.7 kilotons of force.
Not even close to a nuke.
{Important disclaimer: I'm really stoned, this math might be totally fukakta
-------------------- No statements made in any post or message by myself should be construed to mean that I am now, or have ever been, participating in or considering participation in any activities in violation of any local, state, federal, or fashion police laws. All posts are works of fiction. For well you know that its a fool who plays it cool By making his world a little colder. Under closer inspection I realised it was a funky ball of tits from outer space.
|
the spiral
Neuroscientist
Registered: 05/13/02
Posts: 1,769
Last seen: 8 years, 8 months
|
|
Quote:
circularvortex said: Okay...so a 10" wide 20' tall pole has a volume of about 43 cubic feet. Tungsten is 1210lbs/ft^3.
52,030lbs rod.
http://www.calctool.org/CALC/eng/aerospace/terminal
Using this it puts the rod's terminal velocity at about 280MPH, with some number I felt described the situation.
http://calculator.tutorvista.com/impact-force-calculator.html
A few quick metric conversions using this (Why didn't I just start in metric? Gah) and the impact force is 737,500N
http://www.convertunits.com/from/newtons/to/kiloton+[long,+UK]
Using this it's about 0.7 kilotons of force.
Not even close to a nuke.
{Important disclaimer: I'm really stoned, this math might be totally fukakta
That terminal velocity doesn't seem right. The shuttle came in FAR faster than that, and it wasn't nearly as aerodynamic (and resistant to bleeding off its energy as heat) as a properly machined rod of tungsten would be. Hell, a human who skydives in a head-down position can nearly reach 200 mph.
I'll check those calculator tools you provided; hopefully we can tease out an answer.
|
the spiral
Neuroscientist
Registered: 05/13/02
Posts: 1,769
Last seen: 8 years, 8 months
|
Re: Kinetic Projectiles from Orbit [Re: the spiral]
#17389838 - 12/14/12 03:57 AM (11 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
too stoned to be getting math right at this hour.
I'll look again at this later lol
Edited by the spiral (12/14/12 04:07 AM)
|
Adden
Registered: 06/04/03
Posts: 39,201
Loc:
|
Re: Kinetic Projectiles from Orbit [Re: the spiral]
#17399310 - 12/15/12 11:16 PM (11 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I smoked too much weed for my own good and wanted to revisit this thread so bare with me.
For my own sanity, can someone confirm that multiple tungsten rods specifically placed in orbit would prevent / save us from a magnetic polar shift.
The one that's overdue.
Also, spiral, do that math? I have a vested interest.
Inb4 12/21 since it's a crock of shit.
Ty guys.
|
Ellis Dee
Archangel
Registered: 06/29/01
Posts: 13,104
Loc: Fire in the sky
Last seen: 5 years, 15 days
|
Re: Kinetic Projectiles from Orbit [Re: the spiral]
#17399717 - 12/16/12 01:59 AM (11 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
the spiral said: I read (I think in a comment section on a gizmodo thread) that the military discovered (some time ago) a way around various treaties that restrict weaponizing space. The general idea was that a bar of tungsten with the dimensions of a telephone pole, if simply lobbed towards the earth from an orbital platform, would have so much kinetic energy upon impact with the ground that it would be about as effective as some tactical nuclear weapons (with the added bonus of no fallout).
I'm curious as to how true this is, but I can't seem to find an answer about exactly how much energy (in kilotons of TNT) that, say, the space shuttle or an Atlas V uses to reach orbit. Conservation of energy mandates that the tungsten rod you launch from space can't have more energy when it hits the ground than was expended to lift it into orbit.
Can anyone out there confirm or debunk this idea? I'd ask Randall Munroe but he'd take at least a week to get back to me on his "what if?", and that's only if he picked my question out of the many he gets!
Correct. It's the "rod of god" project. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_
-------------------- "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do."-King Solomon And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
|
gary gnu
Stranger
Registered: 09/16/12
Posts: 315
Last seen: 11 years, 3 months
|
|
Quote:
circularvortex said: Okay...so a 10" wide 20' tall pole has a volume of about 43 cubic feet. Tungsten is 1210lbs/ft^3.
52,030lbs rod.
http://www.calctool.org/CALC/eng/aerospace/terminal
Using this it puts the rod's terminal velocity at about 280MPH, with some number I felt described the situation.
http://calculator.tutorvista.com/impact-force-calculator.html
A few quick metric conversions using this (Why didn't I just start in metric? Gah) and the impact force is 737,500N
http://www.convertunits.com/from/newtons/to/kiloton+[long,+UK]
Using this it's about 0.7 kilotons of force.
Not even close to a nuke.
{Important disclaimer: I'm really stoned, this math might be totally fukakta
Not to mention the fact that it costs something like $10,000 a pound to launch something into space. That's one expensive tungsten rod.
I would think it's terminal velocity would be way higher than 280mph though. Especialy if it were possible to keep it from tumbling as it fell. If it fell straight like an arrow, I'm sure it would be hauling some serious ass when it hit the ground. Are you sure you didn't miss a decimal point somewhere?
The space shuttle would break into the atmosphere at mach 25 and would still be doing something like mach 8 when it flew over my house, and I'm only 50 miles from the cape, and that thing is about as aerodynamic as a brick. I'm sure a 50,000 pound tungsten rod would be going faster than 280mph when it hit the ground.
I don't know though, I really suck at math.
|
Ellis Dee
Archangel
Registered: 06/29/01
Posts: 13,104
Loc: Fire in the sky
Last seen: 5 years, 15 days
|
Re: Kinetic Projectiles from Orbit [Re: gary gnu]
#17399772 - 12/16/12 02:27 AM (11 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Magnetic launchers would be utilized. Think of a rail like a mag lift train goes on to get up speed. A mach 3 starting speed seems reasonable given a long enough track/launch barrel. It would be the orbital version of a catapult.
-------------------- "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do."-King Solomon And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
|
gary gnu
Stranger
Registered: 09/16/12
Posts: 315
Last seen: 11 years, 3 months
|
Re: Kinetic Projectiles from Orbit [Re: Ellis Dee]
#17399778 - 12/16/12 02:33 AM (11 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Rail_Gun said: Magnetic launchers would be utilized. Think of a rail like a mag lift train goes on to get up speed. A mach 3 starting speed seems reasonable given a long enough track/launch barrel. It would be the orbital version of a catapult.
Don't you need to hit mach 7 to get into orbit? I've seen those railgun designs before. That's a pretty cool idea, but that gun would have to be like 20 miles long to launch something that heavy into space.
|
Ellis Dee
Archangel
Registered: 06/29/01
Posts: 13,104
Loc: Fire in the sky
Last seen: 5 years, 15 days
|
Re: Kinetic Projectiles from Orbit [Re: gary gnu]
#17399809 - 12/16/12 02:49 AM (11 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I was imagining a weapon launch method from orbit for the kinetic projectiles rather than an exotic launch platform for spacecraft. Sorry I was unclear. I sometimes think things and forget to write them for other people to know clearly. However, using a mag rail to get some initial speed during a rocket launch seems like a good idea too!!! It would cut down on the fuel needed in the thruster stage.
-------------------- "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do."-King Solomon And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
|
Adden
Registered: 06/04/03
Posts: 39,201
Loc:
|
Re: Kinetic Projectiles from Orbit [Re: Adden]
#17399813 - 12/16/12 02:52 AM (11 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Dystopia said: For my own sanity, can someone confirm that multiple tungsten rods specifically placed in orbit would prevent / save us from a magnetic polar shift.
|
Konyap
Registered: 06/30/07
Posts: 33,945
Loc: Planet Piss
Last seen: 4 years, 4 months
|
Re: Kinetic Projectiles from Orbit [Re: Adden]
#17403725 - 12/16/12 07:34 PM (11 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Thats weird I was reading the other day how the earth wobbles in its orbit and sometimes becomes more elliptical or circular.
|
the spiral
Neuroscientist
Registered: 05/13/02
Posts: 1,769
Last seen: 8 years, 8 months
|
Re: Kinetic Projectiles from Orbit [Re: Ellis Dee]
#17410752 - 12/18/12 05:13 AM (11 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Rail_Gun said:
Quote:
the spiral said: I read (I think in a comment section on a gizmodo thread) that the military discovered (some time ago) a way around various treaties that restrict weaponizing space. The general idea was that a bar of tungsten with the dimensions of a telephone pole, if simply lobbed towards the earth from an orbital platform, would have so much kinetic energy upon impact with the ground that it would be about as effective as some tactical nuclear weapons (with the added bonus of no fallout).
I'm curious as to how true this is, but I can't seem to find an answer about exactly how much energy (in kilotons of TNT) that, say, the space shuttle or an Atlas V uses to reach orbit. Conservation of energy mandates that the tungsten rod you launch from space can't have more energy when it hits the ground than was expended to lift it into orbit.
Can anyone out there confirm or debunk this idea? I'd ask Randall Munroe but he'd take at least a week to get back to me on his "what if?", and that's only if he picked my question out of the many he gets!
Correct. It's the "rod of god" project. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_Bombardment
The kinetic bombardment article you provided offers pretty much all of the answers I was looking for - I should have been less lazy in my search habits!
-------------------- "A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism." - Carl Sagan
|
Circle Jerk
η λέξη είναι ζωντανός
Registered: 08/08/11
Posts: 827
Loc: Reality
Last seen: 10 years, 2 months
|
Re: Kinetic Projectiles from Orbit [Re: the spiral]
#17410951 - 12/18/12 07:54 AM (11 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
The system described in the 2003 United States Air Force (USAF) report was that of 20-foot-long (6.1 m), 1-foot-diameter (0.30 m) tungsten rods, that are satellite controlled, and have global strike capability, with impact speeds of Mach 10.[3][4][5]
From Wikipediphilia
Heard about this a few years ago on prison planet.
Seemed a bit far fetched but not improbable, especially if you put some of aerospace's best scientist on the task. I kinda set it aside in my mind next to project blue beam and haarp, and my favorite "Project keep them guessing".
I think "they", the power structure, put out stuff like this to make us feel that resistance is futile.
-------------------- "With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind." Charles Darwin "DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music." Richard Dawkins
|
Gilgamesh18
Herbivore Man
Registered: 03/01/12
Posts: 11,671
|
Re: Kinetic Projectiles from Orbit [Re: Circle Jerk]
#17410973 - 12/18/12 08:02 AM (11 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I know the military has contingency plans for stuff like this SDI was only the beginning.
--------------------
|
|