Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[AceSV]

Before you start taking this seriously, you might want to examine some of the more serious weapons topics:  http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=149993 

This is already reminding me of this suggestion:  http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=149730

[BoredVirulence]

... A satellite that drops tungsten telephone poles?...

This is totally not the place, but the tungsten poles of doom theory has always bothered me. If it releases the same amount of energy as X explosion on impact, its going to require the same amount of energy to get it in orbit, actually more! The cost just isn't worth it until we have space elevators and can not waste energy on lifting the propellant...

Not an attack on you AceSV. I just needed to let that out...

[Putnam]

Not to mention the energy required to get it out of orbit.

[BoredVirulence]

Not to mention the energy required to get it out of orbit.

Yeah forgot about that. It really bothers me, thank you for making it even less realistic and bother me more.

[StagnantSoul]

It'd be easier to put a ship Halo style up in orbit covered in cruise missiles.

[AceSV]

... A satellite that drops tungsten telephone poles?...

This is totally not the place, but the tungsten poles of doom theory has always bothered me. If it releases the same amount of energy as X explosion on impact, its going to require the same amount of energy to get it in orbit, actually more! The cost just isn't worth it until we have space elevators and can not waste energy on lifting the propellant...

Not an attack on you AceSV. I just needed to let that out...

No, you're right, this is why the orbital hammer doesn't exist yet.  (though there's conspiracy talk that the USA has launched and tested one)  The orbital hammer is not an economic weapon, it's supposedly super-fast, super-accurate and almost indefensible, except that satellites themselves are incredibly vulnerable.  Basically what you're doing is taking the amount of energy it would take to launch a rocket full of tungsten into space and then storing it as potential energy until you push a button that drops it on an unsuspecting dictator.  De-orbiting the tungsten bars is just a matter of pushing it out the door and letting gravity do the work.  A man-made meteor, essentially. 

[Solarius Scorch]

Basically what you're doing is taking the amount of energy it would take to launch a rocket full of tungsten into space and then storing it as potential energy until you push a button that drops it on an unsuspecting dictator.

Yeah, I'd just add that it's not as simple as mechanically releasing the tungsten for it to fall down to the surface. A satellite does not use engines to remain in place, but instead it is parked on a stable orbit - which means it has a certain angular velocity that is related to its altitude. Therefore, if you simply release the load, it will not fall down, but will continue orbiting the Earth together with the satellite. Of course satellites normally have rudimentary engines for course corrections while free-falling loads do not, so the tungsten will eventually lose the altitude and fall to Earth, but it'll likely take a long time and cannot be aimed with any reasonable efficiency at anything, even a particular continent.

The solution? The tungsten bomb must be fired with an explosion that will give it high velocity towards the planet (probably by blowing up the entire satellite). Which makes the entire idea much more complicated than it seemed initially.

[Disclaimer: I am not an engineer, and I possess no specific knowledge about orbital bombardment at all. I used simple logic here.]

[StagnantSoul]

I happen to be studying an aeronautical engineer course. You are correct, unless the "satellite" was purposely destabilized and thrown off course, even with engines, there'd be no way to promote accuracy. Losing mass would draw the satellite closer to the Earth, making any armed satellite a potential hazard. An armed ship, however, would be more controllable, if it had a large enough mass that one pole would mean nothing. A railgun, however, would be the perfect solution. Easier to control, no need for useless fuel, less mass needed, faster shot, more destructive. It's an all around better idea for a militarized space platform. Hence why I said earlier a Halo style approach would be more useful. The only thing you'd need to do is stabilize the ship with it's boosters, which is already one with verniers. The current idea of an accurate tungsten phone pole launching satellite it impossible without it being a single shot device.

[Bumber]

Of course satellites normally have rudimentary engines for course corrections while free-falling loads do not, so the tungsten will eventually lose the altitude and fall to Earth, but it'll likely take a long time and cannot be aimed with any reasonable efficiency at anything, even a particular continent.

They're supposed to have small fins for mid-fall guidance.

[BoredVirulence]

The "eventually" falling to Earth thing is going to be a long time. Weeks, months, maybe even years depending on the particulars of the orbit and how it was released. If it was mechanically released with no force, it may stay in orbit indefinitely, or for several years. If it has a small rocket booster to nudge it, weeks or months. There really is no accuracy, or speed. An ICBM with a tungsten rod would do much better, except, you know, propellant. But if we're gonna bother getting it in orbit, we can throw it on an ICBM, get it to an unstable low earth orbit, and let gravity do the trick much faster than from a satellite.

Good thing the Navy is working on rail guns. So I can have peace about my orbital bombardment mega-weapons of the future. Sorry to derail the thread, but this has always been a subject that has intensely bothered me. I'm glad to know I can always go to Bay12 to talk about how to correct other peoples malformed mega-weapons.