Weaponization Of Space

[wade]

Once a typical ICBM ends it's powered ascent phase and begins to coast, it is traveling 15,000 mph, is 50 miles above the surface of the earth, and is about 25 minutes away from impact. No realistic amount of additional acceleration is going to propel a platform interceptor 35,000 more miles in the next half hour that it would take the standard ICBM to reach it's target. It would instantly have to be going 70,000 mph.

Cassini was cruising a few k below 70,000 mph. It took a 45 minute burn to reach that speed once it was already in orbit and going over 4,000 mph.

But the missile starts slowing immeadiately after the boost phase ends. It then decelerates until the end of the post-boost phase which carries it from approximately 50 miles to 800 miles above the earth before it enters the mid-course phase. Plotting and achieving an intercept to such a position is not unreasonable if the the ABM is fired shortly after the ICBM. ABM warheads are smaller than ICBM's and require no re-entry sheilding. Therefore they are much lighter and can affordably be made to accelerate much faster.

Diplomatic pouches would solve that problem nicely.

Hmmm.. I have never seen or heard of a diplomatic pouch large enough to hold a full size refidgerator. Anything smaller than that (and that's probably not big enough), should stand out like a sore thumb to our detection equipment.

Individual missile silo operators do not have independent authority to fire. Without clearance they cannot fire at all.

So? I don't understand why you think this is relevant.

Why? Are our bigger, slower, and louder ballistic missile submarines somehow impervious to the torpedos of smaller, faster, quieter boats?

I do not believe their detection systems are sufficiently advanced to overcome our advantage, and it will be a very long time before they are. Perhaps our submarine fleet needs to be improved. Should be easy to do, we can buy some real solid expertise from the former Soviet Union.

You're just wrong. I've worked we these guys. I've read their papers. There are already organizations that have worked out the logistics to minute detail. It is in their estimation that a lunar base could be constructed with the first lunar crew arriving at an operational base eight years after funding was approved.

http://vulcain.fb12.tu-berlin.de/koelle/lbq/LBQ2-01.pdf

Hmm.. first off this puts the first viable operational of such a station at 2019, this is in line with what I already posted. Second, this proposal assumes 90% of the O2 required for the station can be obtained from moon bases sources, which is an unknown. Third, to work as you propose raw nuclear material has to be transported to the moon, this would be very expensive given the figures proposed.

Getting the first crew up there and getting to a point of productivity are two very different things. This whole thing is based on the idea that such a base could produce rocket fuel, which is probably not unreasonable IFF moon based sources of water can be located (or perhaps other chemicals). But to assume moon based uranium will be locatable and mineable within any reasonable period of time is wishful thinking.

The additional uranium needn't have a high density to be fissile. The neutrons created from the fusion explosion induce fission absent critical mass.

Well, sort of. As I said it does not need to be weapons grade. In fact, it does not even need to be U-237, it can be U-238, but for a bigger bang mildly enriched U-237 is used. But if it is not realatively dense then it is likely to be blown away without fissioning, and the fission products are likely to be less intense. Just because it is not heavily enriched does not mean it is not heavy. In any case, you want pretty pure uranium (237 or 238), and that is heavy stuff. Don't confuse the quality of the material (in terms of weapons or non-weapons grade) with the weight of the material. To be "less dense" it would have to be less pure, and you don't want that!

A fusion warhead is a more devastating weapon than a fission warhead of the same weight. A pure fission warhead of equal power to any fusion warhead would be a heavier and larger warhead would it not? A pure fission warhead would have more plutonium in it than a fusion warhead of comparable power. Do you deny this? Or was I right when I said:

By using smaller but more powerful fusion devices with only fission triggers instead of pure fission devices, we can further reduce the amount of dangerous material that must be initially launched from Earth.

Hmmm. You are over simplifying the whole thing. Let me try to explain:

First lets consider pure fission bombs. To achieve a super-critical fission reaction (nuclear blast) requires a minimum amount of fissionable material be brought to sufficient density in proper geometry to create a blast before the material melts. This is done either by slamming two componets together (uranium style bomb) or by imploding a spehrical shaped component to achieve super-critical mass. In either case there is a minimum amount of material that will achieve the desired effect, this is true whether the device is used alone as a weapon or to be a trigger for a multi-stage explosion. There is also a maximum size for such a core, if it gets bigger than this, much of the material will fail to fission, being blown away by fissioning of other parts of the reaction. So for pure fission weapons, there is a minium size of a few kilos of uranium or a bit more of plutonium, and there is a maximum size which, I believe is about 80kg (don't hold me to this, I'm not confirming this and it's been years since I took the physics class where I learned this stuff). The thing to keep in mind is that the chain reaction is caused by free neutrons, and these are achieved through the decay of the uranium or plutonium, and they determine the rate of the reaction. Highly enriched uranium or plutonium is spittiong out more neutrons per second than less enriched material, which is why the material needs to be enriched to "weapons grade".

Now, lets consider a fission-fusion bomb. This bomb consists of the bomb listed above, but in the center of it (using either two uranium or a hollow sphere of plutonium) is a material containing a lot of Hydrogen (there are a number of options). The fusion reaction takes hydrogen (each with one proton) and converts it to heavier elements (deuterium, triterium, helium-3, helium-4, etc..). Lets just consider the simplest reaction, 2 hydrogens becoming one deuterium. Each hydrogen atom has one proton, but the deuterium nucleus that is formed has two protons emits an antielectron and a neutrino. Each stage of fusion emits neutrinos. This can increase the yeild of the bomb up to about 10 fold, with most of the additional yeild being in the form of neutrinos.

Now lets consider the fission-fusion-fission bomb. This is the same as above, except the whole thing is contained inside a uranium shell. Because of the very high number of neutinos comming out of the fusion bart of the above reaction, the material does not need to be weapons grade (see U-238 and U-237 discussion above), only relatively pure. Unlike the first fission stage, quite a bit of material can be involved, because the neutrino blast is nearly instantaneous, huge by comparison with the pre-fission neutrino emmision levels of the fissionable material, and there is much less concern for perfection of geometry and no concern for pre-reaction deformation from melting prior to chain reaction. This stage can enhance the output of the bomb by 100-1000 fold or even more.

What is important to understand is that while the fission fuel (uranium or plutonium) is very dense, the fusion fuel is not. So going by weight is over-simplifying the whole thing. To get maximum effect for the total weight and size of the warhead, you really want to use the 3 stage bomb. Also, the nature of the blast from the fission reaction is much different than that from the fusion reaction, generating not only large amounts of neutrino radiation, but also large amounts of beta and gamma radiation, which in most cases are more damaging. This can be an advantage or a disadvantage depending on application.

In any case, all the figures I gave were for simple 1 stage devices or for the triggers for 2 stage devices. I never even considered adding in the outer shell to make a full on thermo nuclear warhead, specifically to minimize the amount of dangerous material being considered for launch :teeth:

Thats all well and good, except there are no pure-fusion devices.

Not that we know of.

Well, again you are reaching into science fiction. Any means of generating the necessary temperatures is, using any technology even close to what we have today, going to require a huge device by comparison with a fission trigger. I suppose several of these chemical lasers, all focused on the fusable material, might be able to cause a fusion reaction. But it is impracticle for a deliverable weapon.

Are you reading anything I write? It's called a deterrent. The original statement I made was: even after we were destroyed we could fire back, and therefore the fear to attack would be too great. Of course it would destroy us, if there still was an us. In the worst case scenario that would require it's use, there would not be. The whole point is to demonstrate that there is no gain to attacking us.

If that is all you want to do, the answer is simple. We simply take a good number of our existing H-Bombs and pile them in the same location right in the center of the USA, deep within the earth. Then we say "if you strike, we will blow you up too". :alco:

Come on, it's silly. For any nuclear weapons systems to be worth the cost of building, they must offer the ability to deliver a fatal blow to the enemy, while recieving a less than fatal blow in return. I really think our existing ballistic weapons systems are sufficently protected to ensure a very large return strike capability against any enemy attack in the forseeable future. Any space based systems we put up should therefore be defensive in nature, and we should only consider such a course if we determine terrestrial based ABM systems cannot do the job.

Wade

 

[wade]

The main arguments against a space based weapons systems posited seem to be:

it's too hard.

it's too expensive.

it would take to long.

then they'd do it too.

Did you ever read the story of what happend to the people of Easter Island?

Wade.

 

[wade]

Wade the following article is a declassified site detailing a mobile laser designed for the same purposes as you previously described. I suspect the technology that you find impossible is progressing somewhere.

Not at all. The system described is fully within the constraints I have said are possible. Look at the ranges involved, that's the issue. What you are saying is possible requires extending the range several fold, which is impossible without a revolution in physics. We would need to develop some way of focusing light w/o using a lense. As far as I'm aware, the only alternative is gravity - something we understand far less well than light, and which I suspect (based upon my own theory of gravity) cannot be utilized for such a purpose on the kind of small scale we would need.

Please show me where this system is firing a beam more than a few hundred miles? In fact I think it is firing a beam less than 20 miles, probably less than 10 miles! Just take a look at the target types - "Rockets/Artillery/Mortars (RAM), cruise missiles, short-range ballistic missiles, and unmanned aerial vehicles". That's a far cry from taking out a medium range ballistic missile, let alone an ICBM!

Wade.

 

[Zhukov]

But the missile starts slowing immeadiately after the boost phase ends. It then decelerates until

Et cetera, et cetera, only to end with the phrase:

Therefore they are much lighter and can affordably be made to accelerate much faster.

Prove we can construct an interceptor missile that can go from launch to within strike range of geosynchronous satellite faster than say a submarine strike, launch to detonation. Because that's the point, all your extraneous information aside.

Hmmm.. I have never seen or heard of a diplomatic pouch large enough to hold a full size refidgerator.

So? Wether you've heard of them or not, diplomatic pouches range in size from briefcases to truck trailers. How about a mainframe server with classified information on it? Those are about the size of a refrigerator.

I don't understand why you think this is relevant.

I felt it was rather obvious, and I don't have the time to explain it to you right now.

I do not believe

Well, let's base our security priorities on your beliefs then shall we.

Hmm.. first off this puts the first viable operational of such a station at 2019,

So they want to put a crew on a base that won't be operational for 7 more years? Why don't you try to read it again.

As I said it does not need to be weapons grade.

What you said was it had to be of critical mass. It does not.

Hmmm. You are over simplifying the whole thing. Let me try to explain:

No. You're needlessly overcomplicating it as some sort of subterfuge. Just answer the questions.

Well, again you are reaching into science fiction.

It's fine when you speculate, but speculation is strictly off limits for me? Why precisely is that?

If that is all you want to do, the answer is simple. We simply take a good number of our existing H-Bombs and pile them in the same location right in the center of the USA, deep within the earth.

Same problem with all other land based missiles which was the whole point of the platform to begin with. A point you evidently missed.

Why am I not surprised....

 

[wade]

Et cetera, et cetera, only to end with the phrase:

Prove we can construct an interceptor missile that can go from launch to within strike range of geosynchronous satellite faster than say a submarine strike, launch to detonation. Because that's the point, all your extraneous information aside.

But sub-orbital launches cannot intercept such missiles either. Lasers cannot reach down far enough into the atmousphere. So what's the point? These kinds of weapons need to be intercepted by something much closer to the point of launch or they are not going to be stopped.

So? Wether you've heard of them or not, diplomatic pouches range in size from briefcases to truck trailers. How about a mainframe server with classified information on it? Those are about the size of a refrigerator.

Any such "pouch" would be subject to direct scrutiny. From close up, there is no hiding nuclear contents.

So they want to put a crew on a base that won't be operational for 7 more years? Why don't you try to read it again.

That is far from operational... ie: producing weapons grade material.

What you said was it had to be of critical mass. It does not.

I've lost whatever you're replying too. Try to be coherant. I'll take a guess though...

I never said the outer shell had to be of critical mass, but in fact the whole point of the bomb is that this material would be more than what is needed to achieve super-critical mass, which is limited for a direct fission reaction and is the real reason an H-Bomb has such a big bang. It'd be pointless to just put a small amount of fissionable material in the outer shell.

No. You're needlessly overcomplicating it as some sort of subterfuge. Just answer the questions.

Some questions don't have simple answers.

It's fine when you speculate, but speculation is strictly off limits for me? Why precisely is that?

Speculate all you want, but please try to keep the speculation within the bounds of reality. When you suggest for instance, that a workable "pure fusion" bomb can be made, espeically one in a deliverable form, when there is no evidence that it can be done, and convincing evidence that even Stars need a fission reaction to get the fusion reaction started, that is science fiction. Cold fusion has been proven to be a farce. I'm open to any new ideas about how it might be done - but so far there is nothing even close to a viable theory - the math never adds up.

Same problem with all other land based missiles which was the whole point of the platform to begin with. A point you evidently missed.

Why am I not surprised....

Are you seriously saying you think that such a stockpile of nukes, burried many thousands of feet beneath the surface of the Earth, protected by Granite, could be successfuly knocked out before it could be detonated?

Are you seriously saying that any nation in the world today or in the forseeable future has even close to the capacity to neutralize our existing land based ICBM systems?

Wade.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Wade, your obvious negativism regarding technology combined with your seeming overconfidence in our current invulnerability reveals your agenda: to render america apathetic. Well I'm here to mess up your day and reveal you to the world!

Wade is antiamerican!

 

[wade]

Wade, your obvious negativism regarding technology combined with your seeming overconfidence in our current invulnerability reveals your agenda: to render america apathetic. Well I'm here to mess up your day and reveal you to the world!

Wade is antiamerican!

Avenger -

Have you ever worked in a high-tech weapons lab? Have you ever worked in a high-tech medical lab? Have you ever developed high-tech survielience and communications equipment? Do you have any experiance to base your assertions upon?

you're an idiot and you don't even understand what it is to be an American.

 

[freeandfun1]

Avenger -

Have you ever worked in a high-tech weapons lab? Have you ever worked in a high-tech medical lab? Have you ever developed high-tech survielience and communications equipment? Do you have any experiance to base your assertions upon?

you're an idiot and you don't even understand what it is to be an American.

Have you? (in a capacity other than a solderer doing work on a bench)

I usually don't point out spelling errors as we all make them from time to time. But your spelling is ATROCIOUS and yet you claim to be be some scientist working on "high-tech" projects. Did you really graduate with an "EE" degree with such horrific spelling?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Avenger -

Have you ever worked in a high-tech weapons lab? Have you ever worked in a high-tech medical lab? Have you ever developed high-tech survielience and communications equipment? Do you have any experiance to base your assertions upon?

you're an idiot and you don't even understand what it is to be an American.

No. I work off gut instinct and heuristic models of human archetypes. I know you better than you know yourself. Your middle name is Myron.

 

[wade]

Have you? (in a capacity other than a solderer doing work on a bench)

I usually don't point out spelling errors as we all make them from time to time. But your spelling is ATROCIOUS and yet you claim to be be some scientist working on "high-tech" projects. Did you really graduate with an "EE" degree with such horrific spelling?

CS not EE, amoung others. Asside from soldering wire rap connectors to fit a DIP adaptor to a QFP socket, I have almost no soldiering experiance at all. And I'm not a Scientist - I have often worked with Scientists but I'm not one myself.

I do not worry about spelling on this board. Having programmed many hundreds of thousands of lines of code, I can no longer easily see a spelling error, as we use misspelled words all the time intentionally. And I've always had a spell checker for any written work I've done. If I worried about spelling, I'd not have time to even bother with this board - in fact I don't have time for it anymore as it is. I have a geo-thermal project to study for.

BTW: I have a hard time balancing my checkbook by hand too - too much HEX math.

I made telephone bugs in the mid 80's, was contracted to a major Def. Contractor in the late 80's to do pattern recognition work, was lead sw engineer on a med. research project at Duke U. in the very late 80's and early 90's, did some work for Ford after that, then became lead programmer for a company that made secure comms equipment. Several of these jobs afforded me the opportunity to travel to many of the nations we are talking about. Since that time I've been contracting with more consumer oriented companies. Also at the University I was floated between many different projects - they called us slave labor for a reason.

Wade.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

CS not EE, amoung others. Asside from soldering wire rap connectors to fit a DIP adaptor to a QFP socket, I have almost no soldiering experiance at all. And I'm not a Scientist - I have often worked with Scientists but I'm not one myself.

I do not worry about spelling on this board. Having programmed many hundreds of thousands of lines of code, I can no longer easily see a spelling error, as we use misspelled words all the time intentionally. And I've always had a spell checker for any written work I've done. If I worried about spelling, I'd not have time to even bother with this board - in fact I don't have time for it anymore as it is. I have a geo-thermal project to study for.

BTW: I have a hard time balancing my checkbook by hand too - too much HEX math.

I made telephone bugs in the mid 80's, was contracted to a major Def. Contractor in the late 80's to do pattern recognition work, was lead sw engineer on a med. research project at Duke U. in the very late 80's and early 90's, did some work for Ford after that, then became lead programmer for a company that made secure comms equipment. Several of these jobs afforded me the opportunity to travel to many of the nations we are talking about. Since that time I've been contracting with more consumer oriented companies. Also at the University I was floated between many different projects - they called us slave labor for a reason.

Wade.

Gosh everyone. Look how big and important wade is. Pretty smart for a sub par intellectual pygmy.

 

[Modu$OperanDi]

If the Chinese want us to give up a system that would give the USA an overwhelming advantage for about the next 30 to 50 years, then they had better be prepared to pony up something in exchange.

You fuckin people make me sick with this U.S. domination horseshit. American culture has become so extremely distorted. This war on terror is only speeding us up on our one way ticket to self-destruction. How about focusing on the next 300 years instead of the next 30.

 

[DKSuddeth]

CS not EE, amoung others. Asside from soldering wire rap connectors to fit a DIP adaptor to a QFP socket, I have almost no soldiering experiance at all. And I'm not a Scientist - I have often worked with Scientists but I'm not one myself.

I do not worry about spelling on this board. Having programmed many hundreds of thousands of lines of code, I can no longer easily see a spelling error, as we use misspelled words all the time intentionally. And I've always had a spell checker for any written work I've done. If I worried about spelling, I'd not have time to even bother with this board - in fact I don't have time for it anymore as it is. I have a geo-thermal project to study for.

BTW: I have a hard time balancing my checkbook by hand too - too much HEX math.

I made telephone bugs in the mid 80's, was contracted to a major Def. Contractor in the late 80's to do pattern recognition work, was lead sw engineer on a med. research project at Duke U. in the very late 80's and early 90's, did some work for Ford after that, then became lead programmer for a company that made secure comms equipment. Several of these jobs afforded me the opportunity to travel to many of the nations we are talking about. Since that time I've been contracting with more consumer oriented companies. Also at the University I was floated between many different projects - they called us slave labor for a reason.

Wade.

I'm such an insignificant slime. how can I ever live now?

hey wade snap out of it. I've known too many degreed engineers that look at me and say :duh: when I ask them if they ever heard of the patriot act. Trying to list your 'credentials' thinking you'll have us looking at your opinions in a better light only makes you look like an

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You fuckin people make me sick with this U.S. domination horseshit. American culture has become so extremely distorted. This war on terror is only speeding us up on our one way ticket to self-destruction. How about focusing on the next 300 years instead of the next 30.

People are always happy with our strength when it comes to saving their asses. Aren't they? People love all the money they make when we keep foreign investments safe all around the globe, don't they? You need to pull your head out of your ass. Neoliberalism aka (socialism combined with an irrational hatred of america) has failed. France and Germany are in the toilet ecopolitically. Our way is proving superior. Deal with it, numbnuts.

 

[Modu$OperanDi]

People are always happy with our strength when it comes to saving their asses. Aren't they? People love all the money they make when we keep foreign investments safe all around the globe, don't they? You need to pull your head out of your ass. Neoliberalism aka (socialism combined with an irrational hatred of america) has failed. France and Germany are in the toilet ecopolitically. Our way is proving superior. Deal with it, numbnuts.

Well since you didn't dispute that the war on terror is speeding us up to self-destruction, i guess you recognize that. Since you didn't say anything about focusing on the far future instead of the near, i guess that means you just wanted to state what big nuts republicans have. I don't give a fuck how happy people are with us, i would appreciate a mere 10 percent focus on the far future up from about .1 percent.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Well since you didn't dispute that the war on terror is speeding us up to self-destruction, i guess you recognize that. Since you didn't say anything about focusing on the far future instead of the near, i guess that means you just wanted to state what big nuts republicans have. I don't give a fuck how happy people are with us, i would appreciate a mere 10 percent focus on the far future up from about .1 percent.

You're fantasizing that I agree with any of your assinine points. I agree with none of them. Your boy John Kerry doesn't even know what he thinks from moment to moment. He's a laughable buffoon. Tell us one thing your retard candidate will do and how he will do it. Let's get a taste of HIS vision for america.

 

[Modu$OperanDi]

You're fantasizing that I agree with any of your assinine points. I agree with none of them. Your boy John Kerry doesn't even know what he thinks from moment to moment. He's a laughable buffoon. Tell us one thing your retard candidate will do and how he will do it. Let's get a taste of HIS vision for america.

JESUS! American debate is really fucking disgusting. You must see red all day. I try and talk intelligently about a few points and you ignore them, then move on to another insult. It's amazing how quick people catch onto trends. I find it amazing that the entirety of the human race cannot agree we need to focus on our long-term future as a SPECIES about a thousand times over.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

JESUS! American debate is really fucking disgusting. You must see red all day. I try and talk intelligently about a few points and you ignore them, then move on to another insult. It's amazing how quick people catch onto trends. I find it amazing that the entirety of the human race cannot agree we need to focus on our long-term future as a SPECIES about a thousand times over.

Keep your indignance to yourself.

So I take it you cannot think of one concrete thing kerry would do.

You want vision? Your boy can't keep a story straight for a three day period.

Bush has never wavered in his commitment to fight terrorism, promote job growth through tax cuts, improve health care with tort reform and individual savings accounts. on and on. solid position after solid position. Kerry is a visionless joke of a man.

W stands for wrong? That's like a sesame street slogan. That really sucks.

 

[Modu$OperanDi]

Keep your indignance to yourself.

So I take it you cannot think of one concrete thing kerry would do.

You want vision? Your boy can't keep a story straight for a three day period.

Bush has never wavered in his commitment to fight terrorism, promote job growth through tax cuts, improve health care with tort reform and individual savings accounts. on and on. solid position after solid position. Kerry is a visionless joke of a man.

W stands for wrong? That's like a sesame street slogan. That really sucks.

This is not how a conversation works... i'll explain it. I started up this conversation, I had comments which you didn't address, then diverted. How it works is: First you respond to what I say without changing topics, then you either see if i have anything else to add, or set a new topic.

I haven't said anything about Kerry in this convo. and you assume i'm riding his cock. Well I like to try and look at things objectively. Kerry has tons of faults and things about him that piss me off. But when you add them all up, Bush has way more. Simple.

Learn how to fucking converse like an adult... well... nevermind. Learn how to converse like a teenager, they seem to have it down better than the adults these days.

 

[wade]

I'm such an insignificant slime. how can I ever live now?

hey wade snap out of it. I've known too many degreed engineers that look at me and say :duh: when I ask them if they ever heard of the patriot act. Trying to list your 'credentials' thinking you'll have us looking at your opinions in a better light only makes you look like an

Not doing that at all, but when challenged I'll respond.

The "Patriot Act" is perhaps the least patriotic thing our Congress has ever approved.

=S=

Lunatic