Why Did The Space Age Die?

[Mushroom]

How would you target a tank from outer space? They can move you realize, right?

Don't bother. If you have not noticed, they have an answer for everything. Meanwhile completely ignoring things like weather, air density, optical deviation due to atmosphere and somehow they will manage to steer these with a high degree of precision.

And I am sure that you are seeing exactly how off the rails most of them are. I mean, why on earth would we design and build aircraft and helicopters to destroy tanks in battle, when we can spend tens of billions in order to destroy parked tanks on the ground from space!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Probably more likely to kill parked tanks, not fast moving tanks.

You still did not answer the question. How would you target the tanks?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

E=MC2.

That is a famous formula, and in the most basic estimates the energy released. And in case you missed it, "C" is a key part, and is actually velocity. Mass times velocity squared. Decrease the mass, increase the velocity.

Now, let's actually examine how much mass that would be.

Tungsten is actually one of the densest metals commonly available. A rod 20 feet long and 1 foot in diameter comes in at around 13 metric tons. Now figure that this fictional 13 ton object would be slamming into the earth at Mach 10+. One does not need to be Einstein to see that the impact would be huge.

Of course, the very idea that somebody somehow launched 13 ton telephone poles into space and nobody noticed it is laughable in the extreme. Which is why I always dismiss it as conspiracy nonsense.

After all, it is not always mass that matters. A duck does not weigh much compared to a jumbo jet. And yet, jets are grounded each year simply because they ran into such creatures (or did the duck run into the jet?).

C is speed of light. You are saying these rods travel at the speed of light squared?

I know that is not what you meant.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You still did not answer the question. How would you target the tanks?

They have these things in space called satellites.
They have pretty decent resolution. Of course you still need to know which "rod" to deorbit at what time on what trajectory. Luckily, we have computers that could do that.

 

[westwall]

E=MC2.

That is a famous formula, and in the most basic estimates the energy released. And in case you missed it, "C" is a key part, and is actually velocity. Mass times velocity squared. Decrease the mass, increase the velocity.

Now, let's actually examine how much mass that would be.

Tungsten is actually one of the densest metals commonly available. A rod 20 feet long and 1 foot in diameter comes in at around 13 metric tons. Now figure that this fictional 13 ton object would be slamming into the earth at Mach 10+. One does not need to be Einstein to see that the impact would be huge.

Of course, the very idea that somebody somehow launched 13 ton telephone poles into space and nobody noticed it is laughable in the extreme. Which is why I always dismiss it as conspiracy nonsense.

After all, it is not always mass that matters. A duck does not weigh much compared to a jumbo jet. And yet, jets are grounded each year simply because they ran into such creatures (or did the duck run into the jet?).

Ummm, that is the Special Theory of Relativity. That deals with the speed of light, among other things. Has nothing to do with this.

You are thinking of K=1/2⋅m⋅v2

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ummm, that is the Special Theory of Relativity. That deals with the speed of light, among other things. Has nothing to do with this.

You are thinking of K=1/2⋅m⋅v2

It's a shame his mistake wasn't the case.
We really could have megaton range "rods of god".

Of course, in that case, life would have never gone very far on Earth.

 

[Mushroom]

C is speed of light. You are saying these rods travel at the speed of light squared?

I know that is not what you meant.

No, but it still shows how velocity increases the energy release more than just the mass alone.

So you deny the increase due to velocity?

 

[Mushroom]

Ummm, that is the Special Theory of Relativity. That deals with the speed of light, among other things. Has nothing to do with this.

You are thinking of K=1/2⋅m⋅v2

I am aware of that, but it was a formulaic example that uses and velocity to increase energy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I am aware of that, but it was a formulaic example that uses and velocity to increase energy.

E=MC2 "was a formulaic example that uses and velocity to increase energy."?

Can you translate that into English?

 

[Mushroom]

E=MC2 "was a formulaic example that uses and velocity to increase energy."?

Can you translate that into English?

Baseball hits brick wall at 10 mph, how much kinetic energy?

Baseball hits wall at 100 mph, how much kinetic energy?

Baseball hits wall at 300 mph, how much kinetic energy?

Baseball hits wall at Mach 10, how much kinetic energy?

So tell me, do you deny that the kinetic energy went up exponentially, or did it remain the same. Based entirely upon the mass and the velocity made no difference?

I said it was "an example", and I still stand by that. Or do you deny that both mass and velocity are equally important in that formula?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Baseball hits brick wall at 10 mph, how much kinetic energy?

Baseball hits wall at 100 mph, how much kinetic energy?

Baseball hits wall at 300 mph, how much kinetic energy?

Baseball hits wall at Mach 10, how much kinetic energy?

So tell me, do you deny that the kinetic energy went up exponentially, or did it remain the same. Based entirely upon the mass and the velocity made no difference?

I said it was "an example", and I still stand by that. Or do you deny that both mass and velocity are equally important in that formula?

Those are all awesome examples.
But E=MC2 isn't "using velocity to increase energy".

Did you ever figure out how the rods are in any way a weapon of mass destruction?

Or are you running away from that claim too?

 

[Stryder50]

"Rod of God" A kinetic energy weapon that conspiracy nuts believe were placed into orbit for use in the next world war.

Note that "A kinetic energy weapon" is also something like the bullet coming out of the barrel of your rifle or pistol, or an armor piercing round of 'solid shot' from larger caliber "machine gun" or canon.

RFG = "Rods From Gawd" is another term sometimes used.

What makes these of interest, and potential controversy, is that they are intended to be used from overhead release with downward direction for impact. Either from high altitude (atmospheric) or from orbit with descent to Earth surface(targets).

In case of use against say armored vehicles, tanks~AFVs~APCs, etc., usually the armor thickness on top is rather thin and easier to penetrate than frontal and side armor platings. Similar considerations apply in regards to other target types such as bunkers or fortified installations.

Deployment could be similar to other cluster munitions where the "rods" are essentially unguided and just drop down via gravity acceleration, letting "luck" decide if they hit anything of value.

More refined use would see attachment of steering devices such as fins or thruster motors, with target sighting and directional control on-board computer devices to provide more precise steering/targeting. Another tweak would be some form of rocket motor for final velocity increase in terminal~near impact stage to add velocity to the device's mass for greater kinetic energy effect.

Major point of appeal and interest is this could be another form of targeting munition that doesn't involve use of explosives, just solid mass/material; and could produce destructive effect without being a nuclear warhead.

One variation would be to make main body mass a mix of 'slag' iron and nickel, similar to composition of some meteorites, which if combined with guidance, steering, and thrust(velocity) boost devices that would "vaporize" upon impact, the use could be attributed to meteor impact, hence an "Act of Gawd"(Nature) (Better plausible deniability).

Of course, if such devices existed in one's arsenal such would be kept highly secret and denied to exist so if ever used, there would be no trace back to source. Assuming track of "launch" and trajectory can also be shielded/masked of course.

 

[Stryder50]

I first recall coming across the concept of ROG/RFG in a sci-fi/future war novel of about 30+ years ago. Though it's likely the concept was already bandied about in some Defense and Aerospace circles before that.

David's Sling Paperback – January 2, 1988​

by Marc Stiegler
Amazon product

 

[westwall]

Note that "A kinetic energy weapon" is also something like the bullet coming out of the barrel of your rifle or pistol, or an armor piercing round of 'solid shot' from larger caliber "machine gun" or canon.

RFG = "Rods From Gawd" is another term sometimes used.

What makes these of interest, and potential controversy, is that they are intended to be used from overhead release with downward direction for impact. Either from high altitude (atmospheric) or from orbit with descent to Earth surface(targets).

In case of use against say armored vehicles, tanks~AFVs~APCs, etc., usually the armor thickness on top is rather thin and easier to penetrate than frontal and side armor platings. Similar considerations apply in regards to other target types such as bunkers or fortified installations.

Deployment could be similar to other cluster munitions where the "rods" are essentially unguided and just drop down via gravity acceleration, letting "luck" decide if they hit anything of value.

More refined use would see attachment of steering devices such as fins or thruster motors, with target sighting and directional control on-board computer devices to provide more precise steering/targeting. Another tweak would be some form of rocket motor for final velocity increase in terminal~near impact stage to add velocity to the device's mass for greater kinetic energy effect.

Major point of appeal and interest is this could be another form of targeting munition that doesn't involve use of explosives, just solid mass/material; and could produce destructive effect without being a nuclear warhead.

One variation would be to make main body mass a mix of 'slag' iron and nickel, similar to composition of some meteorites, which if combined with guidance, steering, and thrust(velocity) boost devices that would "vaporize" upon impact, the use could be attributed to meteor impact, hence an "Act of Gawd"(Nature) (Better plausible deniability).

Of course, if such devices existed in one's arsenal such would be kept highly secret and denied to exist so if ever used, there would be no trace back to source. Assuming track of "launch" and trajectory can also be shielded/masked of course.

The only problem is guidance, and the fact that it costs orders of magnitude more to put one in orbit than a TOW costs.

They simply aren't economically feasible.

 

[Stryder50]

The only problem is guidance, and the fact that it costs orders of magnitude more to put one in orbit than a TOW costs.

They simply aren't economically feasible.

Last I knew, TOW doesn't go into orbit. TOW is a tactical battlefield weapon, direct fire against armor targets: tanks/AFVs/APCs/Etc.; and is close in and direct sight and shoot.

The concept of ROG/RFG is more in line with "air to surface" weapons meant to strike form above/overhead. Could be air(craft) launch or higher up to orbital.

Also, as the concept has evolved, not meant so much for tactical use, but rather for operational to strategic targets and applications. Further back than the immediate 'Front Line of Battle', rather going for targets in greater depth, and of operational to strategic importance. Say underground HQ bunkers, or operational to strategic weapons systems/sites, etc.

Given progress in recent decades on computer chip, IC, and miniaturization technologies, guidance may not be the "problem" you think it is. Target finding and definition might be more in that category, but even then there may be work-arounds.

Economic feasibility depends upon mission needs and alternatives to achieve those goals/targets.

I can think of a couple or more applications which might be awkward for overt strikes, but if using a system/tech that could pass for "an act of Gawd/Allah" and effect a strategic goal/advantage, then such an unconventional weapon system might have a cost effectiveness over other options.

 

[Ringo]

Why did it die? Cos capitalist pigs don't look at the sky.

 

[fncceo]

Why did it die? Cos capitalist pigs don't look at the sky.

Then why did the Soviet manned space program die even faster.

The Soviets, when they failed to keep up with America in the Space Race, despite being way out in front in the beginning, have NEVER left Earth orbit.

 

[fncceo]

John F. Kennedy's Science Advisor, Jerome Wiesner, was actually a major opponent of manned space. He urged Kennedy to cancel Mercury and to not announce The Moon as a national goal.

Wiesner argued that the commanding lead The Soviet's had in manned space flight could never be equaled and certainly never surpassed by NASA.

 

[Mushroom]

The Soviets, when they failed to keep up with America in the Space Race, despite being way out in front in the beginning, have NEVER left Earth orbit.

To be fair, I would quantify that by stating "never left Earth orbit in manned aircraft".

For a time their robotic craft were more advanced than ours were. And they still hold the record for the longest a craft has lasted on the surface of Venus.

They also had the edge for a great many years for space stations.

 

[Ringo]

The Soviets, when they failed to keep up with America in the Space Race, despite being way out in front in the beginning, have NEVER left Earth orbit.

Are you saying that soviet spacecraft to Venus, Mars and the Moon never left Earth orbit?