The militarization of space is the next step for the United States. SpaceX and lasers in orbit

An important element to reduce tensions between the leading powers of the world are international treaties that restrict the development of one or another direction of the armed forces of the participating countries. If in the 20th century, the United States and Russia actively concluded such agreements, trying to prevent a suicidal conflict, the beginning of the 21st century is characterized by the rejection of previous agreements and increased uncertainty. The hands of the Doomsday Clock show the maximum threat level from 1953 of the year.


The United States took the first step, unilaterally rejecting the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems (ABM) in 2001, justifying it with a missile threat from Iran and North Korea. True, by a strange coincidence, most of the missile defense elements are deployed in such a way as to ensure the effective interception of Russian strategic missiles.

Despite the statements by the United States that the missile defense system they deployed is unable to withstand the massive strike of Russian ballistic missiles, we must not forget that in the case of the first sudden strike by the United States, the alignment of forces may change, and in this case the role of strategic missile defense cannot be overestimated. Who knows, do not start Russia updating its strategic nuclear forces and missile attack warning systems, to which all this would lead ...

The next victim was the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE), and this time the initiator was the Russian Federation. Despite the fact that formally the Russian Federation remains a party to the agreement, its execution has been suspended since 2007. The formal reason was the accession to the NATO bloc of new members to whom the CFE Treaty does not apply, and whose entry has allowed an increase in the number of NATO forces in Europe.

And finally, last, at the beginning of 2019, the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (SPLM) fell, the initiator of which was again the United States. As an excuse for the release, the 9М729 rocket existing in Russia was selected with characteristics that supposedly went beyond the scope stipulated in the INF. Along the way, China was dragged by the ears, which had nothing to do with the INF. It seems like their medium-range missiles threaten Russia, therefore, she herself is interested in the new DISMD, including as a member of the PRC.

In fact, the US withdrawal from the INF Treaty can and should be considered in conjunction with the withdrawal from the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Defense Systems. By deploying medium-range and shorter-range missiles in Europe, especially on the territory of the new members of NATO, one can gain significant advantages in delivering the first disarming strike, in which the US strategic missile defense system plays its role. Russia did not receive such advantages when leaving the INF Treaty. Yes, in the event of a conflict, we will destroy the missile defense and nuclear weapon in the USA in Europe, but it will be late, “the birds will fly away”. The United States itself is indifferent to what will be left as a result of Europe, if at the same time they can neutralize the Russian Federation, the main thing is that as few as possible warheads can reach them.

There is another international treaty - the Treaty of Space. Among the principles, the ban for the States parties to deploy nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction in Earth’s orbit, placing them on the Moon or any other celestial body, or at a station in outer space, restricts the use of the Moon and other celestial bodies only to peaceful purposes and directly prohibits their use for testing any kind of weapon, conducting military maneuvers or creating military bases, structures and fortifications.

Despite the fact that the Outer Space Treaty does not prohibit the deployment of conventional weapons in orbit, in fact no country has so far deployed weapons in outer space capable of delivering strikes from outer space on the Earth’s surface. Can we assume that this was due to the goodwill of the superpowers? It is unlikely, rather, it was due to the fact that the deployment of strike weapons in orbit could upset the balance of forces and lead to a sudden and unpredictable development of the conflict, and the roughly equal opportunities of superpowers in space exploration guaranteed the rapid emergence of similar weapons systems from a potential enemy.

Based on this, it can be argued that in the event that one of the parties gets an advantage in deploying weapons in space, it will definitely take advantage of them.

At the moment there are three powers capable of creating and deploying weapons in outer space - the United States, Russia, and the People's Republic of China (the rest is much less able).

China is actively developing its space technology, but it is still necessary to recognize that at the moment it is significantly inferior to both the United States and Russia. On the other hand, with the existing course, the capabilities of China in space in the near future may increase substantially.

Thanks to the ongoing corruption, the lack of clearly defined goals and the loss of production of many critical components, Russia is gradually losing its position as one of the leading space powers. Numerous incidents with both carriers and payloads (payloads) lead to an increase in launch costs, a key commercial advantage of the national space program. Most of the launches are made on carriers developed during the USSR, and new carriers such as the Angara launch vehicle (PH) are often criticized because of the high development and production costs, as well as the use of dubious technical solutions.

New hopes of the Russian cosmonautics are associated with the active development of the Soyuz-5 rocket launcher, the Yenisei super-heavy rocket launcher, and the Federation, a promising reusable manned spacecraft (KK). How these hopes are justified, time will tell.


Image of the promising carrier rocket "Soyuz-5"



Models of the Federation spacecraft


The US space industry has recently received rapid development. This was achieved by attracting private companies, whose ambitions and approach to work made it possible in the short term to create carrier rockets that significantly moved the Russian Federation on the space transportation market.

First of all, this refers to SpaceX, repeatedly discussed and criticized. The initial message “they won't succeed”, numerous analytical articles about what SpaceX is doing wrong and what SpaceX has stolen from the Soviet / Russian cosmonautics, were replaced by questions to Roscosmos: “Why doesn’t we have this?” Russia has a large part of the space transportation market, and perhaps in the near future will slaughter the last “cash cow” of Roscosmos - the delivery of Americans to the ISS.


SpaceX - Crew Dragon - reusable manned spacecraft


Also, SpaceX already has the Falcon Heavy launch vehicle with the payload capacity of 63,8 tons in a low reference orbit (LEO) in the world at the moment.

But the most ambitious and interesting development of SpaceX is a super-heavy reusable BFR rocket with the Starship (Star Ship) spacecraft. It should be a fully reusable two-stage system with engines on methane, with the ability to output 100-150 tons of payload to NOU. The founder of SpaceX, Ilon Musk, expects that the cost of putting the load into orbit at BFR / Starship will be comparable to that of SpaceX main workhorse of the Falcon-9 rocket.


BFR rocket with starship "Starship"


Successes of SpaceX push other players of the American space market. Blue Origin, the richest man in the world, Jeff Bezos, is developing his own new Glenn heavy rocket project on BE-4 methane engines with a load of NOU in 45 tons. By the way, the BE-4 engines should replace the Russian RD-180 engines on the promising American PH Vulcan, the successor of the Atlas-5 launch vehicle, which is currently equipped with the RD-180. Blue Origin lags behind SpaceX, but in general, work is being done successfully, and cooperation with the ULA (United Launch Alliance) - a joint venture owned by major contractors of the US Department of Defense, Boeing and Lockheed Martin, is a guarantee that at least methane engines BE -4 will be brought for mass production.

Finally, another important player is the Boeing company with its SLS (Space Launch System) super-heavy rocket, 95 carrying capacity - 130 tons per NOU. This super heavy rocket, the engines of all stages of which run on liquid hydrogen, is being developed by order of NASA. The SLS program has repeatedly become the target of criticism because of the enormous cost, however, NASA stubbornly clings to this program, which will ensure that NASA is independent from SpaceX-type private contractors in mission critical situations.


SLS super heavy rocket


Thus, in the near future, the United States will receive a significant amount of PH on promising methane and hydrogen fuel. Disruption of one or several programs will not leave the USA without promising RN, but will only give additional impetus to the development of competing projects. In turn, competition in the space cargo market will lead to a further reduction in the cost of placing a payload into orbit.

This advantage may spur the US Department of Defense to actively militarize outer space. US President Donald Trump 20 February 2019 of the year signed a memorandum on the establishment of the US Space Forces. Among the goals of the Space Forces are the protection of US interests in space, "repelling aggression and defending the country", as well as "projecting military force in space, from space and into space."

At the moment, the military use of space is limited to providing intelligence, communications and navigation to the traditional types of armed forces, which in itself is an extremely important task, since this repeatedly “catalyzes” their capabilities.

One of the most secret projects of the US armed forces are flights of an unmanned spacecraft Boeing X-37. According to open data, this spacecraft (SC) is designed to operate at altitudes from 200 — 750 km, and is able to quickly change orbits, maneuver, perform reconnaissance tasks, deliver to space and return the payload. The launch of the Boeing X-37 spacecraft into orbit can be carried out by the Atlas-5 and Falcon 9.

The exact goals and objectives of X-37 are not disclosed. It is assumed that it serves, among other things, to develop technologies for intercepting enemy space vehicles.


Boeing X-37 Unmanned Spacecraft


The basis for the rapid growth of the private space industry in the United States are promising projects for the deployment of low-orbit satellite networks that provide global access to the Internet. There are several competing projects that require several thousand to several tens of thousands of satellites to be deployed to orbit, which in turn creates the need for promising RNs.


SpaceX plans to launch 12 000 satellites into Earth orbit as part of the Starlink project


There is no doubt that the low-orbit networks will be used by the armed forces of the countries whose companies are implementing these projects. Low-orbit Internet connection satellites will reduce and reduce the cost of both terminals and access costs, and increase the speed and throughput of communication channels. As a result, a large number of unmanned and remote-controlled vehicles for various purposes may appear.

The low cost of delivering payloads to orbit, and the presence of heavy and extra heavy-class rocket launchers, can make American generals wipe off dust from old developments to militarize space.

First of all, it concerns the missile defense system. Placing in orbit not only satellites capable of tracking the launch of strategic missiles and targeting ground-based interceptor missiles, but also combat platforms with missile or laser weapons, can significantly enhance the capabilities of the missile defense system due to the impact of both the combat units and the missile itself. , in the initial phase of flight (until the moment of dilution of warheads). For those who doubt the capabilities of laser weapons, we can recall the YAL-1 project, designed to hit ballistic missiles at the initial phase of flight using a laser, with a power of the order of one megawatt, placed on a Boeing 747-400F aircraft. As a result of the tests, the principal possibility of such interception was confirmed. The defeat of the target was envisaged at a distance of 400 km. The closure of the program is most likely due to the ineffective type of laser used — chemical reagents. Modern technologies quite allow you to create laser weapons with power up to megawatts based on fiber-optic or solid-state lasers.

The density of the atmosphere overcome by a laser beam when working from space will be significantly lower. Based on this, a spacecraft capable of changing the orbit height, with a high-energy laser on board, will pose a serious threat to existing and future ballistic missiles.

The militarization of space is the next step for the United States. SpaceX and lasers in orbit

The president and chief operating officer of SpaceX Gwinn Shotwell during the annual press conference of the United States Air Force announced that the company is ready to participate in the deployment of weapons in space to protect the United States.

It is noted that at the moment in the United States are working on the idea of ​​creating orbital weapons of directed energy, to detect and destroy missiles from Russia, China and North Korea. According to the former head of NASA and current US Deputy Secretary of Defense for Technical Affairs Michael Griffin, America plans to create a “touch shield” in space by 2023 to counteract the hypersonic missile systems of Russia and China.


Another direction in the militarization of space could be the creation of a space-to-surface weapon. Projects of such weapons were worked out in the USA within the framework of the program “Rods from God”.

As part of this program, massive tungsten rods with a length of about 5-10 meters and a diameter of 30 centimeters were supposed to be placed on special satellites. When flying around the target, the satellite drops the rod and makes adjustments to its flight until the target is hit. The target is hit by the kinetic energy of a tungsten rod moving at a speed of the order of 12 kilometers per second. Shy away from such a blow or oppose it is almost impossible.

Another type of warhead was developed as part of the Prompt Global Strike program. In the warhead of a ballistic missile was supposed to load several thousand small-sized tungsten damaging elements. At a certain height above the target, the warhead must be undermined, after which the target will cover a shower of tungsten pins that can destroy all manpower and equipment in an area of ​​several square kilometers. This technology can be adapted for use from space.


Estimated shape of orbital shock platforms of the program "Wands of God"


How realistic are these projects? With the current level of technology, they are quite realizable. Reducing the cost of launching a PN into orbit will allow developers to actively conduct testing of promising types of weapons, bringing them to working condition.

The militarization of space by the leading powers will create an arms race that many countries will never be able to master. This will divide the world and the powers of the first rank and all the others who are not capable of space weapons. The threshold for entering this technological level is significantly higher than for creating airplanes, ships or armored vehicles.

The ability to strike from space will significantly affect the balance of power between countries. The US armed forces will finally be able to realize their dream of a “Fast Global Impact”. Orbital percussion platforms, if implemented, can strike the enemy within a few hours after receiving the order. All stationary targets are hit, and if the ammunition correction capabilities allow, then mobile targets, such as ships or mobile strategic missile systems.

The new capabilities will be gained by the missile defense system, if the deployment of laser weapons can still be skeptical, then the placement of interceptors of the “Diamond Pebble” type in orbit is quite real.


The alleged appearance of the interceptor satellite system "Diamond Pebbles"


Finally, thanks to the deployment of low-orbit communication systems, new types of remote-controlled means of reconnaissance and target destruction will appear.

For Russia, this means the appearance of another challenge threatening to shift the balance of forces towards the likely enemy. The appearance of the space-to-surface weapon, along with the deployment of medium-range missiles and an increase in the effectiveness of the missile defense system, will require new solutions to ensure the possibility of delivering a guaranteed nuclear strike.

Most likely, the means to counter space weapons are already being developed. The development of the “killer” satellites was carried out back in the Soviet years, with a high probability Russia continued to develop this area. Similar projects are probably being worked out in the PRC.


Satellite interceptor


Unfortunately, asymmetric measures can only keep the fragile balance of US strategic nuclear parity. In conventional wars, the capabilities of low-orbit space communications and percussion orbital platforms will provide enormous advantages to their own side.

Low-orbit networks providing global access to the Internet throughout the world will contain a huge number of satellites, which can be more expensive to destroy than deploying new ones. Yes, and in many cases there will be no formal reason, since initially the projects are civil. And what kind of information on VPN tunnels runs, come and understand.

The capabilities of the orbital strike platforms will make it possible to exert a tremendous influence on the leaders of states daring to oppose the United States. On the dissenters collapse tungsten shower, which is not visible, and from which it is not protected.

Based on the foregoing, it becomes clear that it is critically important for Russia to preserve and increase the possibilities for deploying systems of a similar class.

Our advantages include a huge backlog of the national astronautics, a developed infrastructure, including several spaceports. It may be worth “updating the blood” by allowing previously purely defense enterprises, for example Makeyev’s SRC, to work for the space industry. Healthy competition will benefit the industry. In the event of a favorable development of events, the great advantage of Russia can be provided by Rosatom in terms of creating space-based megawatt-class nuclear reactors.

It is imperative to create efficient and reliable methane fuel carrier vehicles that ensure low cost of placing the payload in orbit, to provide domestic enterprises with a modern element base capable of operating in outer space.

This will allow you to implement your own projects of low-orbit Internet communication satellite systems such as the “Sphere” project, provide the armed forces with a sufficient number of reconnaissance and targeting satellites, develop and test orbital attack platforms and other space systems that will be needed to solve military or civilian tasks in the interests of Russia. Federation.
Author:
Photos used:
bastion-karpenko.ru, ria.ru, lenta.ru, forums.airbase.ru, bastion-opk.ru
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

115 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Hole puncher 7 March 2019 05: 43 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    The author’s fears are undoubtedly justified. Here are just a few points. The launch cost for each type of launch vehicle will be different. The Volcano launch vehicle that is paid by the US Air Force is one-time and the launch cost will be as horse-like as Atlas 5, even higher given the new taxiway. Therefore, the Volcano is not promising for the mass withdrawal of the military payload; the military budget will not be able to afford such expenses. SLS is even worse, there every launch will cost half a billion. Bezos and Musk and their personal moral imperatives remain, if they allow you to support the idea of ​​the militarization of space, then the thing is bad. Here it is important what China will do in this regard, which is not bound by any treaties and which clearly has a plan for military space exploration. For the USA, any step by China in this direction will require anticipatory action, i.e. launch of an arms race in space.
    1. Shopping Mall 7 March 2019 08: 54 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: Puncher
      ... Remain Bezos and Mask and their personal moral imperatives, if they allow to support the idea of ​​militarization of the cosmos, then the worst thing ...


      SpaceX essentially agreed:
      The president and chief operating officer of SpaceX Gwinn Shotwell during the annual press conference of the United States Air Force announced that the company is ready to participate in the deployment of weapons in space to protect the United States.
      1. Hole puncher 7 March 2019 09: 29 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Quote: AVM
        SpaceX essentially agreed

        This company is still partly media and depends on public opinion, if Musk says no to weapons in space, then Shotwell will have no choice but to take his words back. On the other hand, they have the task of taking away all launches from ULA, and here of course you can give up the principles. So most likely yes, they will agree.
        1. Cherry Nine 7 March 2019 10: 59 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          Quote: Puncher
          then Shotwell will have no choice but to take his words back

          1. Shotwell is a girl, not a boy.
          2. Regarding the fact that former Russian friends need to be brought into the shores somehow, quite a consensus has been formed in the States. Specifically, Mask several years ago was pushing for a red threat when he attacked the Yule monopoly on military launches with their Soviet engines. So protests in California hippies should not be expected.
    2. Narak-zempo 7 March 2019 09: 15 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Puncher
      Bezos and Musk and their personal moral imperatives remain

      BABLO - this is their imperative.
  2. Hole puncher 7 March 2019 05: 52 New
    • 7
    • 3
    +4
    Our advantages include

    PS: Our advantages are leveled by the endless greed of people responsible for questions.
    the creation of efficient and reliable methane-propelled launch vehicles that provide a low cost of putting payloads into orbit, and provide domestic enterprises with a modern elemental base capable of operating in outer space.

    Parasites are not able to build up a priori, only sucking the juices from the carrier even realizing that this will destroy the latter, but that's okay, because you can find another object ... Therefore, all the author’s hopes for asymmetric measures will remain hopes. No, there will be a lot of applications, as well as animation pictures, exhibition layouts and gift sets ...
    1. Shopping Mall 7 March 2019 08: 56 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Puncher
      ... Therefore, all the author’s hopes for asymmetric measures will remain hopes. No, there will be a lot of applications, as well as animation pictures, exhibition layouts and gift sets ...


      Asymmetrical can and will be, interceptor satellites are still developed in the USSR, they are still capable of us now. And you can display them even though the Union even Proton. The problem is that here I would just like symmetric measures, i.e. we need our own satellite communications, reconnaissance and target designation, shock platforms in perspective.
      1. Hole puncher 7 March 2019 09: 26 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Quote: AVM
        The problem is that here I would just like symmetric measures, i.e. we need our own satellite communications, reconnaissance and target designation, shock platforms in perspective.

        I would like to take pictures of Jupiter of the national AMC, to be honest with you, on intelligence and target designation ...
        1. Shopping Mall 7 March 2019 09: 28 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Puncher
          Quote: AVM
          The problem is that here I would just like symmetric measures, i.e. we need our own satellite communications, reconnaissance and target designation, shock platforms in perspective.

          I would like to take pictures of Jupiter of the national AMC, to be honest with you, on intelligence and target designation ...


          I am also very interested in a peaceful space, and no longer even AMC. It’s more interesting to send men somewhere - the Moon, Mars, Ceres.

          But unfortunately we live in a non-ideal world. So without intelligence and target designation, too, in any way.
          1. Hole puncher 7 March 2019 09: 35 New
            • 3
            • 2
            +1
            Quote: AVM
            So without reconnaissance and target designation, either.

            Everything is interconnected here, if a country can launch an AMS to Jupiter and the mission is 100% complete (400% better), then there is no doubt that such a question as a satellite constellation providing communications, reconnaissance and missile defense is quite feasible.
            PS: I believe that for the current government, the space Internet is much worse than missile defense lasers, but technically they can’t do anything, they won’t find any asymmetric answers. And honestly they are not.
            1. ZAV69 8 March 2019 17: 03 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              The space Internet of the current government is absolutely not terrible. Do not need this nonsense.
      2. Cherry Nine 7 March 2019 11: 07 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        Quote: AVM
        the interceptor satellites were still developed in the USSR; they are still capable of us now. And you can display them even though the Union even Proton.

        One of the trends in Western satellite building is light and cheap serial platforms, both cubsat and more serious. The deployment of huge low-orbit factions will give a new quality to this process. It is hard to believe that the interceptor launched by Mr. Rogozin, launched by the Union or Angara from East (who told you that the launches from Kazakhstan will remain available?), Will cost less than any low-orbit trick of the bourgeois.

        Moreover, taking into account the achievements of the bourgeoisie on ship-based missile defense, it is not a fact that the interceptor satellite will fly to the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
        1. Shopping Mall 7 March 2019 11: 11 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Quote: AVM
          the interceptor satellites were still developed in the USSR; they are still capable of us now. And you can display them even though the Union even Proton.

          One of the trends in Western satellite building is light and cheap serial platforms, both cubsat and more serious. The deployment of huge low-orbit factions will give a new quality to this process. It is hard to believe that the interceptor launched by Mr. Rogozin, launched by the Union or Angara from East (who told you that the launches from Kazakhstan will remain available?), Will cost less than any low-orbit trick of the bourgeois.

          Moreover, taking into account the achievements of the bourgeoisie on ship-based missile defense, it is not a fact that the interceptor satellite will fly to the middle of the Pacific Ocean.


          Exactly. Kubsat except laser burn. From the ground, or from a higher orbit, to which the ship-based missile defense will not reach.
        2. Setrac 10 March 2019 22: 53 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          The deployment of huge low-orbit factions will give a new quality to this process.

          In fact, the orbits are quotas, due to whose quotas will deploy a "huge" group?
          1. Cherry Nine 10 March 2019 23: 10 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Setrac
            In fact, the orbits are quota

            You confuse GSO and NOU.
            1. Setrac 11 March 2019 19: 59 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              You confuse GSO and NOU.

              Maybe I'm confusing
    2. Shopping Mall 7 March 2019 10: 51 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Puncher
      PS: Our advantages are leveled by the endless greed of people responsible for questions.
      Parasites are not able to build up a priori, only sucking the juices from the carrier even realizing that this will destroy the latter, but that's okay, because you can find another object ... Therefore, all the author’s hopes for asymmetric measures will remain hopes. No, there will be a lot of applications, as well as animation pictures, exhibition layouts and gift sets ...


      Excellent article in confirmation of your words:
      https://habr.com/ru/post/442846/
  3. KCA
    KCA 7 March 2019 06: 15 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    How's that?
    When flying around the target, the satellite drops the rod and makes adjustments to its flight until the target is hit. The target is hit by the kinetic energy of a tungsten rod moving at a speed of the order of 12 kilometers per second. Shy away from such a blow or oppose it is almost impossible.
    How can a satellite correct a drop in tungsten scrap? The power of thought?
    1. Shopping Mall 7 March 2019 08: 59 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: KCA
      How's that?
      When flying around the target, the satellite drops the rod and makes adjustments to its flight until the target is hit. The target is hit by the kinetic energy of a tungsten rod moving at a speed of the order of 12 kilometers per second. Shy away from such a blow or oppose it is almost impossible.
      How can a satellite correct a drop in tungsten scrap? The power of thought?


      Obviously scrap is not quite scrap, in the tail part of the control unit with drives and antenna, or telecontrol in a laser beam, as in the Cornet ATGM. But rather all the same radio channel.
      1. KCA
        KCA 7 March 2019 09: 13 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        In ATGM "Cornet" flight speed 12km / s? And how can you manage the crowbar flying in a cloud of plasma? Avant-garde, it seems, has a homing system, but so that the Americans can control the object in the plasma cloud, never once heard, read about China, there are developments there, but how much they are implemented is not up to date
        1. Shopping Mall 7 March 2019 09: 22 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          Quote: KCA
          In ATGM "Cornet" flight speed 12km / s? And how can you manage the crowbar flying in a cloud of plasma? Avant-garde, it seems, has a homing system, but so that the Americans can control the object in the plasma cloud, never once heard, read about China, there are developments there, but how much they are implemented is not up to date


          Firstly, there can be a window in the tail section (possibly) if the nose section is correctly formed. Secondly, the rod falls almost vertically downwards, you can release a flexible thin antenna from durable material to receive radio commands.

          It seems that they invented something else in Germany, they will probably share with the USA.
          https://topwar.ru/110676-pobeda-nad-plazmoy-novyy-metod-dlya-svyazi-s-kosmicheskim-apparatom.html
        2. Vadim237 7 March 2019 11: 55 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Plasma in front - rear control.
    2. Sasha_rulevoy 9 March 2019 06: 31 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: KCA
      How can a satellite correct a drop in tungsten scrap?


      The correct answer: no way. To begin with, the satellite will not see the target at all. A satellite is not a helicopter hovering over positions. Suppose an orbit in which a modern reconnaissance satellite can detect a target is 400 km. The time it takes for the projectile to reach the atmosphere, i.e. fly the first 350 km, root (350 000 x 2 / 10) = 264 with. Well, we must also add a couple of minutes of operation of the brake jet engine attached to the projectile in order to sharply zero its speed. Total: 380 with. For these 380 from the satellite will be removed from the discharge point on 3 000 km. Satellite horizon distance is root (400 000) x 4 = 2500 km. The target on the surface of the earth will already be beyond the horizon. But even if it were, modern radar does not allow to determine the coordinates of the target at a distance of 1000 km with an accuracy of at least ten kilometers. So targeting will be useless. But besides the target, the satellite still needs to calculate the location of the projectile. Total: the satellite sees the target in the form of a pixel 10x10 km and sees the projectile also in the form of a pixel 10x10 km, and gives the last radio command, let's take more to the left, more to the right .... will whistle into the ground, past the top of the enemy president.

      This has not yet been considered the path of the projectile in the atmosphere, where it will slow down sharply, lateral drift from the wind will appear, and the antennas will burn, burn and simply overheat.

      The article is not bad and interesting until the moment of stating the fact of the threat of militarization of space, followed on this and stopping, but then, where the "fun projects, happy ideas" begin - they all look ridiculous and absurd.
      1. Shopping Mall 10 March 2019 11: 05 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Sasha_rulevoy
        Quote: KCA
        How can a satellite correct a drop in tungsten scrap?


        The correct answer: no way. To begin with, the satellite will not see the target at all. A satellite is not a helicopter hovering over positions. Suppose an orbit in which a modern reconnaissance satellite can detect a target is 400 km. The time it takes for the projectile to reach the atmosphere, i.e. fly the first 350 km, root (350 000 x 2 / 10) = 264 with. Well, we must also add a couple of minutes of operation of the brake jet engine attached to the projectile in order to sharply zero its speed. Total: 380 with. For these 380 from the satellite will be removed from the discharge point on 3 000 km. Satellite horizon distance is root (400 000) x 4 = 2500 km. The target on the surface of the earth will already be beyond the horizon. But even if it were, modern radar does not allow to determine the coordinates of the target at a distance of 1000 km with an accuracy of at least ten kilometers. So targeting will be useless. But besides the target, the satellite still needs to calculate the location of the projectile. Total: the satellite sees the target in the form of a pixel 10x10 km and sees the projectile also in the form of a pixel 10x10 km, and gives the last radio command, let's take more to the left, more to the right .... will whistle into the ground, past the top of the enemy president.

        This has not yet been considered the path of the projectile in the atmosphere, where it will slow down sharply, lateral drift from the wind will appear, and the antennas will burn, burn and simply overheat.

        The article is not bad and interesting until the moment of stating the fact of the threat of militarization of space, followed on this and stopping, but then, where the "fun projects, happy ideas" begin - they all look ridiculous and absurd.


        "fun projects, happy ideas" belong not to the author, but to developers in the USA.
        1. Sasha_rulevoy 11 March 2019 22: 10 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: AVM
          "fun projects, happy ideas" belong not to the author, but to developers in the USA.


          Common to all the idiocy "wunderwaffe." You can also recall how the Americans in all seriousness suffered a magical "invisible ship" during World War II.
  4. Evil echo 7 March 2019 07: 31 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    We would save Roscosmos from "effective management" and then we can not worry about the future.
  5. Sidor Amenpodestovich 7 March 2019 07: 39 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    There are also territorial waters. It may well be that, with time, territorial space will appear. That is, at an altitude of less than, for example, five hundred kilometers above Russian territory, it will be possible to fly only with the knowledge and permission of Russia.
    1. Shopping Mall 7 March 2019 09: 01 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Quote: Sydor Amenpospestovich
      There are also territorial waters. It may well be that, with time, territorial space will appear. That is, at an altitude of less than, for example, five hundred kilometers above Russian territory, it will be possible to fly only with the knowledge and permission of Russia.


      This can be said only when the orbital shock platforms themselves appear. Then others will have an incentive to enter into such contracts. Otherwise, it’s like trying to conclude an agreement on the limitation of the number of nuclear charges, without having them, the enemy will say, why should I have something to restrict myself?
      1. KCA
        KCA 7 March 2019 09: 20 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Does Russia have no orbital combat platforms? Were the same at the USSR fighter satellites, successfully tested, where did they go? Stopudovo lie in the bins, and probably will fly to deal with satellites, throwing tungsten crowbars, and all sorts of inspector satellites already from modernity, is also not just like that, well, the YET for space is also not just developed, and maybe already flew
        1. Hole puncher 7 March 2019 09: 40 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Quote: KCA
          There were satellite fighters under the USSR, successfully tested, where did they go?

          A satellite fighter is the same satellite, only with a propulsion system and a radar. His task is to enter the orbit of an enemy satellite and make a collision with it. Now count the number of all enemy satellites and the ability of Roscosmos to infer the required number of anti-satellites to destroy them. Especially think in what orbits they are located.
          The entire MORF budget will have to be spent only on anti-satellites, not to mention the means of their removal.
          1. KCA
            KCA 7 March 2019 09: 42 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            You don’t know a bit about the IS-1, it destroyed the satellites with a recoilless gun, and not a ram
            1. Hole puncher 7 March 2019 09: 53 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              Quote: KCA
              You don’t know a bit about the IS-1, it destroyed the satellites with a recoilless gun, and not a ram

              And how much did he destroy? No one. In issue project for fact. In reality, they were only intercepted by the device itself without any devices.
              1. KCA
                KCA 7 March 2019 10: 13 New
                • 0
                • 2
                -2
                Look on the Internet for a satellite fighter, now this is already open information, even a whole dock. film on "Star" was shown, open, most likely, not just like that, hit that kill is an American strategy
        2. Shopping Mall 7 March 2019 09: 52 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: KCA
          Does Russia have no orbital combat platforms? Were the same at the USSR fighter satellites, successfully tested, where did they go? Stopudovo lie in the bins, and probably will fly to deal with satellites, throwing tungsten crowbars, and all sorts of inspector satellites already from modernity, is also not just like that, well, the YET for space is also not just developed, and maybe already flew


          Satellites-interceptors space-space probably is. But we will not have a formal reason to bring down other platforms, while they do not work for us, and the fact that they can beat Syria, Venezuela, is not a reason to start a war.
          The United States fusses only when we have space-to-surface orbital platforms.
      2. Sidor Amenpodestovich 7 March 2019 09: 20 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Therefore, I wrote: "over time."
    2. Cherry Nine 7 March 2019 11: 14 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Sydor Amenpospestovich
      If there is less than five hundred kilometers above Russian territory, for example, it will be possible to fly only with the knowledge and permission of Russia.

      There is a space treaty of the 67th year. Space is free, sovereignty extends only to space objects.
      Banana republics, which at one time tried to earn money in a geostationary orbit, the projection of which to Earth passes through their territory, were sent on an erotic foot trip.
  6. Zaurbek 7 March 2019 08: 54 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    "Wands of God"

    What what, and the design and names of the Americans come up well. The Russian Federation, in principle, has all the components for a shock system in Cosmos .... only there are questions:
    1. the station with launchers and rockets is not eternal, how to reduce it from orbit with all the buns?
    2. How will the US itself react to the appearance of the “Wands of God” resemblance?
    1. Narak-zempo 7 March 2019 09: 20 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Zaurbek
      a station with launchers and missiles is not eternal, how can it be brought out of orbit with all the goodies?

      In much the same way as the decomposed, but not used, “Fly” - a shot towards the enemy.
      1. Zaurbek 7 March 2019 09: 21 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        so there are no fly 10 pieces of wands with YABCH .... and the power of this device is likely to be nuclear.
        1. Shopping Mall 7 March 2019 09: 49 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Zaurbek
          so there are no fly 10 pieces of wands with YABCH .... and the power of this device is likely to be nuclear.


          There will be no YABC, it’s just a tungsten alloy rod (with a control system). The defeat is carried out by kinetic energy upon impact. The power of the platform is also unlikely to be nuclear, it makes no sense, it is low-energy-consuming.
          1. max702 7 March 2019 14: 33 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: AVM
            it's just a tungsten alloy rod

            Did you consider, with dimensions 10x0,3m, the weight under 13.6t would not tire of putting such weights into orbit?
            1. Shopping Mall 7 March 2019 18: 08 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              If Musk does relatively inexpensively on his BFR, he may not get tired. Here the question is not in mass, but in possibility. When the leader of any country knows that for 30-120 minutes it can crash, destroy any base, any object, and cannot be protected from this, they will be much more docile. To beat out the mines of the Strategic Missile Forces with rods, or ground complexes with tungsten complexes is also a super task, they will not spare money for it.
            2. abrakadabre 8 March 2019 07: 10 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Did you consider, with dimensions 10x0,3m, the weight under 13.6t would not tire of putting such weights into orbit?
              While the damaging effect on non-point objects is greatly exaggerated
              1. Zaurbek 8 March 2019 08: 50 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                In general, the theme with a kinetic blow is strange. Even in the ship. Well, make a hole .... And in the building?
                1. Shopping Mall 8 March 2019 09: 49 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Zaurbek
                  In general, the theme with a kinetic blow is strange. Even in the ship. Well, make a hole .... And in the building?


                  It is difficult to say, I have no data on this. It depends on what kind of force there will be a kinetic strike, whether it will be possible to transfer most of the energy to the target, or the “scrap” will fly through. In the first case, the goal is likely to end, in the second, only if the vital nodes are touched.
                  1. abrakadabre 8 March 2019 21: 58 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    whether it will be possible to transfer most of the energy to the target, or "scrap" will fly right through. In the first case, the goal is most likely to end, and secondly, only if it touches the vital nodes.
                    For it to transmit a lot of kinetic energy, it must be blunt. But in this case it will be more inhibited by the atmosphere. And most importantly, instability will increase with an increase in CVO, and even the danger of somersaults.
                    Maximum aerodynamic efficiency increases accuracy. but reduces the transfer of kinetic energy when hit. That is, this scrap will sew through the target like oil and go deeper into the soil under the target by dozens (maybe a hundred) meters. And that’s all. With minimal destructive effect. For a ship, it will be a neat hole with a section slightly larger than the scrap diameter. No more.
                    1. Zaurbek 9 March 2019 08: 26 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      There was another theme with a warhead with uranium rods ....
                      1. abrakadabre 9 March 2019 14: 09 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        There was another theme with a warhead with uranium rods ....
                        Uranus is pyrophoric. So, most likely it will not reach the surface, burnt in the atmosphere like a Bengal fire. Like most small meteorites.
                      2. Shopping Mall 10 March 2019 11: 07 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: abrakadabre
                        There was another theme with a warhead with uranium rods ....
                        Uranus is pyrophoric. So, most likely it will not reach the surface, burnt in the atmosphere like a Bengal fire. Like most small meteorites.


                        Heat insulation will be made on them, providing heating less than the ignition temperature, or ablative heat protection.
  7. Shopping Mall 7 March 2019 09: 25 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Quote: Zaurbek
    "Wands of God"

    What what, and the design and names of the Americans come up well. The Russian Federation, in principle, has all the components for a shock system in Cosmos .... only there are questions:
    1. the station with launchers and rockets is not eternal, how to reduce it from orbit with all the buns?
    2. How will the US itself react to the appearance of the “Wands of God” resemblance?


    1. The shuttle had a huge payload compartment, the new Starship Mask too, they can be reduced. And it is possible to transfer the shock unit from the ship on duty to the ship on duty.

    There is also such a thing - shot recycling. I think Americans will find their goals ...

    2. We'll do it - we'll see) I think it will make them negotiate.
  8. Cherry Nine 7 March 2019 11: 16 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Zaurbek
    There are only questions:

    One answer to both questions.
    1. As usual, to the bottom of the Pacific Ocean.
    2. Do not fly.
  9. Vadim237 7 March 2019 11: 58 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    It will be necessary to create an orbital rocket plane — or a reusable ship near Mask that will appear soon, for an additional fee — will remove all spent satellites from orbit and return them to the ground.
  • g1washntwn 7 March 2019 09: 06 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Now the conclusion to space resembles Genghis Khan's raids, everyone throws there what he wants. If there is no comprehensive control over mutual inspections of the load placed in orbit, nothing and no agreements will prevent the use of space as a battlefield. The existing treaty is as fictitious as the promise of the Americans not to expand NATO to the East, in the present it is purely declarative in nature.
    1. Hole puncher 7 March 2019 09: 42 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: g1washntwn
      If there is no comprehensive control over mutual inspections of the load placed in orbit, nothing and no agreements will prevent the use of space as a battlefield.

      So the Chinese let you into their space objects, live.
      1. g1washntwn 7 March 2019 09: 47 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        ... or IAEA specialists at facilities in Israel. Examples already much more, so the probability of the appearance of weapons in space is much higher than the statistical error of the entire mass of objects put into orbit.
        1. Hole puncher 7 March 2019 09: 55 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: g1washntwn
          the probability of weapons in space is much higher

          The fact that there will be in my opinion is obvious. Let not tomorrow, but the day after tomorrow.
  • Narak-zempo 7 March 2019 09: 16 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    What is the difference whose cosmos will be if heaven is already ours?
  • The seventh 7 March 2019 11: 09 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    In general, there are no problems here, besides the mental values ​​and the will of the Russian top leadership ..). In the 60s of the past, the USSR would have brought to a similar, but “oncoming” combat gring-lasers and other space stray probable friends and partners, an orbit ... a couple of tons of fine river sand and gently scattered “orbital tubes” on the right area in the cross section ".... New space echelon .. improbable foreign friends ..))
    1. Blackmokona 7 March 2019 13: 00 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Only all this sand is no different from cosmic dust and micrometeorites, from which even civilian satellites have long been reliably protected
      1. Corn 7 March 2019 14: 26 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Such a problem for yourself, so be it, the place of sand grains will be the path of gram needles (you can run more than 10 millions of damaging elements with one "alliance"), do satellites have tank armor too?
        1. Shopping Mall 7 March 2019 14: 46 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Quote: Corn
          Such a problem for yourself, so be it, the place of sand grains will be the path of gram needles (you can run more than 10 millions of damaging elements with one "alliance"), do satellites have tank armor too?


          The problem is that not only enemy targets will suffer, but also those of their own, allies and other powers. So you can become the enemy of the whole world. Spot destruction is preferable.
          There is no atmosphere in space. A maneuvering device, such as the same X-37, only larger, with a laser on board, can reach the range 300-500 km from the target and destroy the enemy’s satellites.
          1. Corn 7 March 2019 15: 04 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: AVM
            The problem is that not only enemy targets will suffer, but also their own, allies

            Firstly, you yourself described the role of space weapons in the “Fast Global Impact”, when the very existence of Russia as a state, the bulette is put on the crates, the last thing that should concern us is the integrity of some pieces of iron (soy and “allied”) in orbit
            Secondly, missile defense launched from the ground can easily cope with single targets.
            Third, go down from heaven to earth. Russia has long had no allies. Generally. Absolutely.
            Fourthly, they simply will not be allowed to openly place weapons in orbit, the question of monitoring all the devices being put into orbit has so far dawned, and they will surely be squeezed in the foreseeable future.
            Maneuvering device, such as the same X-37, only larger, with a laser on board
            and why come up with restrictions and shove into a samlet, isn’t it easier to make a kind of analogue of the Death Star ??? Let it hang in its orbit, the satellites fail, the base of the barmalei from space burns out.
  • Romario_Argo 7 March 2019 12: 03 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    mdya ... soon it will be necessary to restore production again under the orbital Diamonds
    1. Vadim237 7 March 2019 16: 09 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Better new Bora.
  • Corn 7 March 2019 14: 17 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    It is imperative to create efficient and reliable methane-propelled launch vehicles that provide a low cost of putting payloads into orbit.

    I remember that about 5 years ago I wrote the same thing under articles about a “promising” hangar, then all the ministry officials and tomatoes threw themselves, could it really be enlightenment ?!
  • prosto_rgb 7 March 2019 16: 10 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The founder of SpaceX, Elon Musk, expects that the cost of putting the load into orbit with BFR / Starship will be comparable to that of the main workhorse of SpaceX rocket Falcon-9.

    Now it is counting on 50% of the cost for Falcon-9.
    If such prices are reached, then the rest of the companies will have to make almost complete copies of BFR / Starship or close.
    1. voyaka uh 7 March 2019 17: 29 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Musk launches satellites weighing up to 9 tons on Falcon-24 in low orbits for $ 62 million. Moreover, for starting up on used steps, a 10% discount is not always given. One of the stages of Block 5 will fly with cargo in June for the fourth time.
      That is, the cost of such a 4th launch on a rough estimate is not more than 20 million.
      1. Cherry Nine 7 March 2019 17: 37 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Quote: voyaka uh
        Musk launches satellites weighing up to 9 tons into Falcon-24 in low orbits

        I am forced to note that Falcon-9 never launched satellites of such mass into this orbit due to the lack of need. Not only that, it is believed that for the same reason, the 24t rating for a DOE is an estimate energy rocket capabilities. The bottle displays satellites of a smaller mass, but into much higher-energy orbits.
      2. prosto_rgb 8 March 2019 18: 37 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: voyaka uh
        Musk launches satellites weighing up to 9 tons on Falcon-24 in low orbits for $ 62 million. Moreover, for starting up on used steps, a 10% discount is not always given. One of the stages of Block 5 will fly with cargo in June for the fourth time.
        That is, the cost of such a 4th launch on a rough estimate is not more than 20 million.

        I agree.
        But this is with regard to what has already been achieved.
        By the way, of the achieved DM-1 successfully splashed up on the ship.
      3. Setrac 10 March 2019 22: 57 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: voyaka uh
        That is, the cost of such a 4th launch on a rough estimate is not more than 20 million.

        Pre-launch preparation of the pH for reuse is free?
        1. voyaka uh 10 March 2019 23: 52 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          The most expensive part of these 20 million is the second tier.
          Although even the halves of the head
          they also return the fairing - they pick it up in the ocean.
          The rest: fuel, transportation
          1st stage, its visual inspection, satellite loading.
          On the little things.
          (The most expensive part of the rocket is the 1st stage. 70-80 percent of all expenses.)
  • Operator 7 March 2019 18: 35 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Shaw this bulo: horror story SOI-2? laughing

    The most useless type of space weapon is the “rod of God” in the form of a tungsten telegraph pole 12 meters in length, dropped from orbit, slowed down in the atmosphere along a ballistic curve, falling on a target blindly (in a plasma cloud) under the control of inertial GNS and intended to destroy small bunkers - with accuracy plus or minus bast.

    All other types of space weapons are disabled by an elementary high-altitude explosion of a leading megaton nuclear charge, disabling radar and optoelectronic target sensors for the duration of the OUT of Russian ICBMs / SLBMs and building combat order from combat units / false targets.
    1. Shopping Mall 7 March 2019 19: 17 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Operator
      Shaw this bulo: horror story SOI-2? laughing

      The most useless type of space weapon is the “rod of God” in the form of a tungsten telegraph pole 12 meters in length, dropped from orbit, slowed down in the atmosphere along a ballistic curve, falling on a target blindly (in a plasma cloud) under the control of inertial GNS and intended to destroy small bunkers - with accuracy plus or minus bast.


      You were given this plasma cloud. Already found ways to overcome this barrier. In almost vertically falling rods this may be an extended derived antenna, beyond the plasma cone, or the plasma in general will not close the tail, control is from above. What makes you think that there will be inertial guidance?

      Or it may be necessary:
      To use "Zircons" against aircraft carriers, it is necessary to have on board a highly sensitive gravitometer (for example, quantum) for homing and / or to ensure the reception of the outer target designation from the satellite in the X-ray range (the radiation of which passes through the plasma)


      Quote: Operator
      All other types of space weapons are disabled by an elementary high-altitude explosion of a leading megaton nuclear charge, disabling radar and optoelectronic target sensors for the duration of the OUT of Russian ICBMs / SLBMs and building combat order from combat units / false targets.

      What a trifle, Gigaton! Are there any races = accounts on this issue? I strongly doubt that you saw them. The damaging factors of a nuclear explosion in space are much weaker than on the surface. KA electronics are better protected from the effects of hard radiation, since its in space and so full.

      When the enemy first hit the batons with silos and in bulk on mobile complexes, what's the use of a high-altitude explosion?

      And not every war will be nuclear.

      Of course, SDI yes, but the United States has at least some kind of missile defense, while Russia does not.
      1. Operator 7 March 2019 22: 07 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        Everything that moves in the atmosphere at a speed of more than 1,5 km / s generates a plasma of air atoms around itself - and a flexible tail antenna, too.
        So far, the only solution for communication through the plasma is the outflow of liquid argon at the end of the apparatus moving in the plasma to form a window for the passage of radio waves (this provides external target designation for the A-135 anti-missile).
        In the future, communication in the X-ray range is possible with the help of a raster whose radiation passes through the plasma, but its efficiency is still less than one percent, and its dimensions and weight are off scale. You can also reduce the drift of the inertial guidance system by moving from vibrational gyroscopes on the chip to spins based on controlling the position of the axes of rotation of atoms. But these technical solutions are still fantastic.
        In any case, a tungsten telegraph pole is capable of inflicting only point damage to a bunker, without destroying it from the word at all. Compared to a ground explosion of a nuclear charge of the 1 megaton class (a seismic wave destroying all bunkers within a radius of one km), the telegraph pole looks like a mosquito bite against a herd of elephants in a china shop.

        An 1 megaton nuclear explosion at an altitude of 150 km affects space in a radius of up to 500 km:
        - to all antennas of radars and radio transmitters using an electromagnetic pulse, disabling them for a period of from 5 to 15 minutes (this also applies to terrestrial antennas);
        - on all matrices of optoelectronic sensors in the optical, infrared and ultraviolet ranges using a gamma and X-ray pulse, completely or partially burning pixels (ground-based sensors remain intact due to damping of gamma and X-ray radiation in air);
        - to all electronic components of spacecraft using a neutron flux, destroying transistors and memory cells (ground-based devices again remain intact due to the small range of neutrons in the air).
        But in the nomenclature of military equipment of the Voevoda ICBM and, probably, the Sarmat ICBM, there are also 10-megaton monoblock charges (with 1000-km radius of influence on the target sensors of the space echelon of the anti-ballistic system).

        So the best missile defense is the Strategic Missile Forces bully
        1. voyaka uh 8 March 2019 00: 18 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          "In any case, a telegraph pole made of tungsten is capable of inflicting only point damage to a bunker without destroying it from the word at all." ////
          -----
          If it gets, it will flash through like paper. Estimate speed, momentum.
          The main thing (and the most difficult) is to get there.
          1. abrakadabre 8 March 2019 22: 10 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            If it gets, it will flash through like paper. Estimate speed, momentum.
            The main thing (and the most difficult) is to get there.
            So no one doubts that it will flash. Well, there will be a hole in the ceiling and floor in the bunker in one separate room, so what? Such scrap will sew another tens of meters of soil under the bunker (except for super-deep buildings). That's just all of his enormous kinetic energy, he will very sparingly transmit in the radial direction. What was said above.
            1. voyaka uh 8 March 2019 23: 03 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Well, this can be compared to getting an OBPS in a tank. There have been cases when
              a “crowbar” pierced the tank right through, and the tank continued to function.
              And there were cases and total loss ...
              Bunkers and shafts usually just don't do that. There is something important.
              The question is still the accuracy of the hit.
              But the test is easy to do: you launch a satellite with such "celestial
              crowbars ", you draw on some atoll in the Pacific Ocean a square 5X5 m,
              and pound it from space in turn. Until the hits begin.
              Only now the international diplomatic noise will begin ... oh th. am
              1. abrakadabre 9 March 2019 08: 06 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Well, this can be compared to getting an OBPS in a tank. There have been cases when
                a “crowbar” pierced the tank right through, and the tank continued to function.
                And there were cases and total loss ...
                In the tank, as has rightly been noted, the whole thing is in a very dense layout. Be sure to hurt something. It’s not very promising to shoot the same BOPs at a cruiser or an aircraft carrier. Despite the fact that its penetration is enough for a lot, because everything important on the ship has a much less dense layout
              2. Shopping Mall 9 March 2019 11: 29 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: voyaka uh
                But the test is easy to do: you launch a satellite with such "celestial
                crowbars ", you draw on some atoll in the Pacific Ocean a square 5X5 m,
                and pound it from space in turn. Until the hits begin.
                Only now the international diplomatic noise will begin ... oh th. am


                This is the whole point, there will be a low cost of putting into orbit, they will be tested. Now these are all theories, it is possible that pure tungsten rods will be rejected, and perhaps they will show themselves very well.
            2. Narak-zempo 10 March 2019 09: 12 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: abrakadabre
              Well, there will be a hole in the ceiling and floor in the bunker in one separate room, so what?

              If this is a mine with a rocket, then there will be a big broads. Tanks will tear in FIG, like a plastic bottle of water when a bullet hits, and heptyl self-ignites upon contact with an oxidizing agent.
            3. Narak-zempo 10 March 2019 15: 52 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: abrakadabre
              That's just all of his huge kinetic energy, he will be very sparingly transmit in the radial direction

              Mattress tankers in Iraq, not having normal OFS, trained in firing BOPS on manpower. And it turned out pretty well in the city - the shock wave from the blanks flying along a narrow street on hypersound is no worse than from a close gap. There will be a wave in a confined space plus a shower of concrete debris. Not much will seem. And at a speed of more than 3 km / s, the energy output when interacting with an obstacle will be larger than the detonation of an explosive charge of equal mass. It will result in a natural explosion with the evaporation of a significant part of the crowbar - as during a meteorite impact.
      2. srelock 8 March 2019 00: 08 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: AVM

        -creation of effective and reliable launch vehicles on methane fuel, providing low cost of putting the payload into orbit ...
        -In almost vertically falling rods it can be ...

        Reliable methane pH are possible. Efficient with low cost - no.
        Let me explain briefly: kerosene-oxygen in the first steps can be surpassed only by heptyl amyl + some exotic. On the second and higher steps, methane is inferior to hydrogen.

        To wrap the crowbar vertically from orbit, it will need a characteristic velocity comparable to the first cosmic one. Otherwise, all you can achieve is the trajectory and speed close to the combat unit of the ICBM and the same QUO, since by the time of arrival of the crowbar, the "platform" is already hidden behind the horizon.
        There are also minuses: a narrow zone of fire along the orbit, a platform that is perfectly visible and "fixed" for a missile defense target, etc.

        To date, intercontinental missiles and aviation, in terms of properties, are the best cure for all diseases yes
        However, of course you can and even need to dream.
        1. Shopping Mall 8 March 2019 00: 16 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: srelock
          Quote: AVM

          -creation of effective and reliable launch vehicles on methane fuel, providing low cost of putting the payload into orbit ...
          -In almost vertically falling rods it can be ...

          Reliable methane pH are possible. Efficient with low cost - no.
          Let me explain briefly: kerosene-oxygen in the first steps can be surpassed only by heptyl amyl + some exotic. On the second and higher steps, methane is inferior to hydrogen.


          This is if we consider it purely for fuel, in a one-time variant. If I correctly understand the existing trend, then methane is beneficial because firstly there is no soot - it is easier to realize reusability, secondly - kerosene requires not anyhow any kind, but a certain kind, natural wells of this sort are depleted, but artificially get expensive easier to bring in a "common denominator."

          Quote: srelock
          To wrap the crowbar vertically from orbit, it will need a characteristic velocity comparable to the first cosmic one. Otherwise, all you can achieve is the trajectory and speed close to the combat unit of the ICBM and the same QUO, since by the time of arrival of the crowbar, the "platform" is already hidden behind the horizon.


          The initial acceleration can be given, it is not necessary to count only on the gravitational acceleration. And a reduction in QUO correction is compensated (scrap managed).

          Quote: srelock
          There are also minuses: a narrow zone of fire along the orbit, a platform that is perfectly visible and "fixed" for a missile defense target, etc.


          This is if the platform is a satellite. And if she is able to maneuver in a wide range of orbits and accelerations?
          1. abrakadabre 8 March 2019 22: 16 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            kerosene is not required anyhow, but of a certain sort, natural wells of this kind are depleted, but artificially expensive, and methane is easier to bring into the "common denominator".
            Well, ka, enlighten, this is where we on earth have not oil, but kerosene wells ?! belay
            All kerosene is produced at the refinery in general.
            This is if the platform is a satellite. And if she is able to maneuver in a wide range of orbits and accelerations?
            Well, what kind of fuel should be on a multi-ton platform for repeated and energetic anti-pro-maneuvers? And the fact that the platform should be very multi-toned is beyond doubt: the supply of tungsten scrap on 13 with a tail of tons each, plus the design itself and all the pritandals ...
            1. Shopping Mall 9 March 2019 11: 27 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: abrakadabre
              kerosene is not required anyhow, but of a certain sort, natural wells of this kind are depleted, but artificially expensive, and methane is easier to bring into the "common denominator".
              Well, ka, enlighten, this is where we on earth have not oil, but kerosene wells ?! belay
              All kerosene is produced at the refinery in general.


              Need a certain kind of oil:
              The Soyuz rockets, which are being made in Samara, are now flying artificially created fuel, because initially for the creation of kerosene for these rockets only certain grades of oil from specific wells were used. This is mainly oil from the Anastasievsko-Troitskoye field in the Krasnodar Territory. But oil wells are being depleted, and now used kerosene is a mixture of compositions that are mined from several wells. According to experts, the problem of shortage here will only get worse.


              Quote: abrakadabre

              This is if the platform is a satellite. And if she is able to maneuver in a wide range of orbits and accelerations?
              Well, what kind of fuel should be on a multi-ton platform for repeated and energetic anti-pro-maneuvers? And the fact that the platform should be very multi-toned is beyond doubt: the supply of tungsten scrap on 13 with a tail of tons each, plus the design itself and all the pritandals ...


              The BFR rocket with the Starship can launch 100 tons into orbit in 1 times. 1 output - a pack of 10 rods, 2 output - the platform itself intelligence and guidance, 3 output - 100 tons of fuel for them. Then carry only rods and fuel as needed.
              Well it is, a rough estimate.

              In general, she is unlikely to need to flit like a fairy. In peacetime and during strikes on Papuans like Iraq or Libya, maneuvers will not be required. And if a more serious conflict, then this is the weapon of the first strike, then the mash will start anyway.
              1. abrakadabre 9 March 2019 14: 18 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                The BFR rocket with the Starship can launch 100 tons into orbit in 1 times. 1 output - a pack of 10 rods, 2 output - the platform itself intelligence and guidance, 3 output - 100 tons of fuel for them. Then carry only rods and fuel as needed.
                Well it is, a rough estimate.
                A rough estimate says: in order for such a topic to be effective, not one and not five dozen such platforms should be put into orbit. Preferably hundreds. Only then: a) a quick response to a threat is possible without waiting for the platform to pass over the desired territory, b) a slightly massive salvo is possible that paralyzes an enemy, like us, Russia or China.
                Against the Papuans, this tool is very redundant. There are orders of magnitude cheaper funds against the Papuans. Who also want to spend, to buy from the MIC new.
                1. Shopping Mall 9 March 2019 23: 38 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: abrakadabre
                  The BFR rocket with the Starship can launch 100 tons into orbit in 1 times. 1 output - a pack of 10 rods, 2 output - the platform itself intelligence and guidance, 3 output - 100 tons of fuel for them. Then carry only rods and fuel as needed.
                  Well it is, a rough estimate.
                  A rough estimate says: in order for such a topic to be effective, not one and not five dozen such platforms should be put into orbit. Preferably hundreds. Only then: a) a quick response to a threat is possible without waiting for the platform to pass over the desired territory, b) a slightly massive salvo is possible that paralyzes an enemy, like us, Russia or China.
                  Against the Papuans, this tool is very redundant. There are orders of magnitude cheaper funds against the Papuans. Who also want to spend, to buy from the MIC new.


                  May and withdraw. For their economy is quite a feasible task.
              2. srelock 9 March 2019 22: 20 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: AVM
                This is if we consider it purely for fuel, in a one-time variant. If I correctly understand the existing trend, then methane is beneficial because firstly there is no soot - it is easier to realize reusability, secondly - kerosene requires not anyhow any kind, but a certain kind, natural wells of this sort are depleted, but artificially get expensive easier to bring in a "common denominator."
                Soot is formed on any hydrocarbon fuel due to the enriched mixture. This mixture is needed to increase the specific impulse. Rocket motors die not from soot, but from an extreme ratio of their power to mass, as a result of which the resource is measured in seconds.
                For reference, the cost of fuel in the launch does not exceed 1%.
                Quote: AVM
                Need a certain kind of oil ...

                The BFR rocket with the Starship can launch 100 tons into orbit in 1 times. 1 output - a pack of 10 rods, 2 output - the platform itself intelligence and guidance, 3 output - 100 tons of fuel for them. Then carry only rods and fuel as needed.
                Oil of a certain sort is not needed. For naphthyl, WG need additives and cleaning.
                As required, aviation is cheaper to wear, and if it is impatient, then our armored train is hidden in a spare PU.
                1. Shopping Mall 9 March 2019 23: 39 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: srelock
                  Quote: AVM
                  This is if we consider it purely for fuel, in a one-time variant. If I correctly understand the existing trend, then methane is beneficial because firstly there is no soot - it is easier to realize reusability, secondly - kerosene requires not anyhow any kind, but a certain kind, natural wells of this sort are depleted, but artificially get expensive easier to bring in a "common denominator."
                  Soot is formed on any hydrocarbon fuel due to the enriched mixture. This mixture is needed to increase the specific impulse. Rocket motors die not from soot, but from an extreme ratio of their power to mass, as a result of which the resource is measured in seconds.
                  For reference, the cost of fuel in the launch does not exceed 1%.
                  Quote: AVM
                  Need a certain kind of oil ...

                  The BFR rocket with the Starship can launch 100 tons into orbit in 1 times. 1 output - a pack of 10 rods, 2 output - the platform itself intelligence and guidance, 3 output - 100 tons of fuel for them. Then carry only rods and fuel as needed.
                  Oil of a certain sort is not needed. For naphthyl, WG need additives and cleaning.
                  As required, aviation is cheaper to wear, and if it is impatient, then our armored train is hidden in a spare PU.



                  For what I bought, I sold it. Let's see what will be in fact.
              3. Sasha_rulevoy 11 March 2019 22: 04 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: AVM
                The BFR rocket with the Starship can launch 100 tons into orbit in 1 times. 1 output - a pack of 10 rods, 2 output - the platform itself intelligence and guidance, 3 output - 100 tons of fuel for them. Then carry only rods and fuel as needed.


                100 tons, as I understand it, is in the lowest orbit of 200 km. The life of the device on it is three weeks. So that we do not need to update these platforms every three weeks, we need to bring all this cyclical cargo to a height of at least 500 km. Those. the number of starts must be multiplied by two. Then it will take three starts at least for cranes, manipulators and various complex and expensive robots that will collect this monster. They still have to send a squad of astronauts for the most complex operations. And then another squad of astronauts, which will turn it on correctly, check and debug it all. Total: one and a half launch of a giant rocket, i.e. about half a billion dollars per bunker with a very low probability of its defeat. When the simplest long-invented one-ton volumetric explosion bomb destroys the same bunker with much greater reliability, without requiring high-precision guidance.
        2. Cherry Nine 8 March 2019 12: 30 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: srelock
          Reliable methane pH are possible. Efficient with low cost - no.

          You confuse commercial performance with weight. In terms of PN / starting weight, methane rockets will not be a record. From an economic point of view, it’s entirely possible. Now there is no problem to take the maximum useful weight with a limited starting. Delta (not Heavy) with a similar load is 2.5 times lighter than the Falcon reusable set, but 3.5 times more expensive.
          1. srelock 9 March 2019 22: 21 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            You confuse commercial performance with weight.
            They are directly related to the launch cost / mass ratio in the target orbit.
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            In terms of PN / starting weight, methane rockets will not be a record. From an economic point of view, it’s entirely possible. Now there is no problem to take the maximum useful weight with a limited starting. Delta (not Heavy) with a similar load is 2.5 times lighter than the Falcon reusable set, but 3.5 times more expensive.
            Methane Delta would definitely be cheaper than hydrogen, but kerosene would be even cheaper, though the Rockettains have not yet mastered closed kerosene.
            Starting mass of the carrier in calculating the cost of launch is far from the first place.
            1. Cherry Nine 9 March 2019 22: 58 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: srelock
              They are directly related to the launch cost / mass ratio in the target orbit.

              No. A weighted rocket is an expensive rocket. This, as it were, is a fact.
              Quote: srelock
              Methane Delta would definitely be cheaper than hydrogen, but kerosene would be even cheaper

              As if the kerosene Delta had recently flown its own. Delta II.

              And it's not about fuel vapors. And that a heavy missile can be cheaper than a lighter one with the same performance. In particular, for a direct conclusion, the con man Mask does not use a 23-ton centaur of hydrogen weighing as a YULA, but two additional first steps of 400 tons each, and all the same, the Squire is in the black for money.
  • Operator 8 March 2019 00: 52 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: voyaka uh
    sews through like paper

    And what will be the defeat of the bunker: in the two holes "floor - ceiling"? laughing
    1. Shopping Mall 8 March 2019 09: 45 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Operator
      Quote: voyaka uh
      sews through like paper

      And what will be the defeat of the bunker: in the two holes "floor - ceiling"? laughing


      Actually the question is rather to DARPA, in my opinion their project.
      But if we assume that the tank is being torn away from a sub-caliber projectile in a tank. Do you think if you hit 30, see the pillar there will be only two "holes"? From such a blow, the bunker floor will collapse. No ultra-safe rocket mine will withstand such a strike.
      In addition, additional systems can be implemented: for hitting heavily buried bunkers, the nose is as sharp as possible, for less buried ones, shooting the tip before hitting will cause the rod to interact more with the soils and walls of the structure, transferring to them most of the kinetic energy. Or the rod may be partially / fully depleted uranium, the latter has a strong pyrophoric effect. Or the built-in charge for the destruction of the rod from the inside at a certain depth (it is programmed before launch, as in antislice bombs). In general, you can think of something.
      1. Operator 8 March 2019 15: 10 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        The tungsten telegraph pole at a speed of 2 km / s and more is similar to a BOPS penetrator rod — it punches neat holes in any obstacle. The degree of pointedness of the nose of the rod is not important - in the process of breaking through, it is self-sharpening under the action of thermoplastic deformation.

        Uranium cannot be used as a telegraph pole material - it will melt and burn in the process of braking in the atmosphere. The internal charge of chemical explosives sublimates from the heat transferred in the same process.

        Core penetrators effectively work only on tanks with a dense layout of equipment, ammunition and crew. For hoppers with a free layout of the contents, anti-bunker bombs with a solid hull (for example, from a gun barrel) and an internal explosive charge work effectively.
        1. Sasha_rulevoy 8 March 2019 21: 05 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Operator
          A tungsten telegraph pole at a speed of 2 km / s and more is similar to a BOPS penetrator rod — punches neat holes in any obstacle


          It reminds the story of the Dora cannon near Sevastopol, whose shells went 12 meters under the ground and exploded there, forming an 3 cavity m in diameter “without harming the enemy”. Only here the depth will be even greater, and there will be no explosives at all. That will be a surprise for those who will find strange flat wells afterwards.
          1. Shopping Mall 9 March 2019 11: 14 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Sasha_rulevoy
            Quote: Operator
            A tungsten telegraph pole at a speed of 2 km / s and more is similar to a BOPS penetrator rod — punches neat holes in any obstacle


            It reminds the story of the Dora cannon near Sevastopol, whose shells went 12 meters under the ground and exploded there, forming an 3 cavity m in diameter “without harming the enemy”. Only here the depth will be even greater, and there will be no explosives at all. That will be a surprise for those who will find strange flat wells afterwards.


            This is how to compare the FAU-1 and the FAU-2 with modern CD and OTRK. If the Dora cannon had adjustable remote-fuse ammunition, the effect of it would be completely different.
        2. Shopping Mall 9 March 2019 11: 19 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Operator
          The tungsten telegraph pole at a speed of 2 km / s and more is similar to a BOPS penetrator rod — it punches neat holes in any obstacle. The degree of pointedness of the nose of the rod is not important - in the process of breaking through, it is self-sharpening under the action of thermoplastic deformation.

          Uranium cannot be used as a telegraph pole material - it will melt and burn in the process of braking in the atmosphere. The internal charge of chemical explosives sublimates from the heat transferred in the same process.

          Core penetrators effectively work only on tanks with a dense layout of equipment, ammunition and crew. For hoppers with a free layout of the contents, anti-bunker bombs with a solid hull (for example, from a gun barrel) and an internal explosive charge work effectively.


          As I said, information about pure tungsten rods is what is published publicly.
          If the development of such weapons will begin to do, then accordingly will be tested. A pure tungsten rod will not work, they will make an analog of an anti-bunker bomb, or something else.

          In the same "Zirkone" CU should be, the speed is also not small, nothing, does not sublimate. Yves Avangard. In general, it is a question of finding the optimal technical solution.

          Yes, and for pure tungsten rods there are goals - rocket mines, for example.
          1. Operator 9 March 2019 15: 30 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            There is a sense to place tungsten rods in low orbit (ballistic descent with a small loss of speed), but there are no antiskun bombs (the parameters of the orbit of the space platform are known, it will be easy for the enemy to knock it over its territory). The same effect is achieved with the help of warheads of ballistic missiles, the launch site of which is unknown to the enemy (in the case of RSD) or removed on 30-40 minutes of summer (ICBM).

            Internal volumes of the Zircon and Avant-garde cases allow to place a sufficient layer of thermal insulation of the explosive. A small diameter tungsten rod will conduct, rather than isolate, heat.

            The QUO of a tungsten rod performing a ballistic descent from orbit under the control of an inertial navigation system can be estimated at several tens of meters, which is comparable to the QUO of the RSD / ICBM combat unit correcting the trajectory according to astronavigation data.
            1. Shopping Mall 9 March 2019 23: 32 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Operator
              There is a sense to place tungsten rods in low orbit (ballistic descent with a small loss of speed), but there are no antiskun bombs (the parameters of the orbit of the space platform are known, it will be easy for the enemy to knock it over its territory). The same effect is achieved with the help of warheads of ballistic missiles, the launch site of which is unknown to the enemy (in the case of RSD) or removed on 30-40 minutes of summer (ICBM).


              Satellites will detect the launch of an ICBM, the surprise factor is lost.
              And why should we not let our ICBMs out at NATO bases? Platforms in space - the weapon of the first attack.

              Quote: Operator
              Internal volumes of the Zircon and Avant-garde cases allow to place a sufficient layer of thermal insulation of the explosive. A small diameter tungsten rod will conduct, rather than isolate, heat.


              This is if it is tungsten, and not another system is implemented according to the test results.

              Quote: Operator
              The QUO of a tungsten rod performing a ballistic descent from orbit under the control of an inertial navigation system can be estimated at several tens of meters, which is comparable to the QUO of the RSD / ICBM combat unit correcting the trajectory according to astronavigation data.


              Why inertial? It seems there is already evidence that hypersound guidance is possible? And if the QUO is the 2-3 meter?
              1. Operator 10 March 2019 10: 40 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                All points of launch of telegraph poles from orbit are in the visibility range of over-the-horizon radar SPRN type "Voronezh".

                The length of the trajectory of descent from orbit for the telegraph pole will be at least 1000 km, which is longer than the length of the flight path of the BRDS from the Baltic states or Ukraine, i.e. the suddenness factor in the latter is greater. And most importantly, for a disarming attack on the ICBM mines, at the same time, it will be necessary to launch about a thousand pillars, but they cannot be placed at one point in low orbit, but nothing prevents the simultaneous launch of the 1000 BRDS.

                In addition, the cost of manufacturing and putting the telegraph pole into orbit is an order of magnitude higher than the cost of manufacturing and placing the ballistic missile system on a land, sea or aircraft platform. Then why pay more?
                1. Shopping Mall 10 March 2019 11: 36 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Again, we argue because of someone else's project. Perhaps it will remain a picture, and perhaps such systems will change the face of hostilities.

                  The main thing is that low startup costs will allow experimenting, working out technologies - output, reset, control, guidance, materials and configuration of the projectile, etc.

                  And about the fact that this is a road and missiles are cheaper, the military always strives to diversify types of weapons, so that if one option becomes ineffective, use an alternative.
                  1. Operator 10 March 2019 11: 43 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: AVM
                    we argue because of someone else's project. Perhaps it will remain a picture, and perhaps such systems will change the face of hostilities.

                    We argue because you are the author of an article presenting someone else’s project.

                    The PIO in its entirety was recognized as a fake - there is no reception against scrap (NW), which I tried to convey to your notice.
                    1. Shopping Mall 10 March 2019 12: 40 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Well wink
                      Then I will say more in defense of the "presentation of the project."

                      The orbital percussion platforms, if they are implemented, will not replace, but complement the ICBM, BRSD, KR, including hypersonic.

                      Many countries have weapons that can hit the launch shaft, but units have weapons against space objects. And in high orbits it is generally unknown whether anyone can work.

                      In the review areas of stationary radar there are probably bottlenecks in the direction and height of the review. By the way interesting, Chelyabinsk meteorite they found? Apparently not:
                      Work on the construction of a new radar early warning system "Voronezh-DM" in the suburbs of Barnaul began in 2010 year. Construction is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2016. A command center building is under construction, installation of the antenna device has begun, and the road is being completed from the facility to the federal highway. In addition, design and survey works are being carried out to provide the facility with electricity. Experts say that the operational characteristics of the station guarantee complete safety. This is confirmed during the operation of the first such facilities in other regions.

                      - If our radar had already worked last year, then we would be able to detect the famous Chelyabinsk meteorite two or three minutes before its fall. And at the disposal of scientists there would be incomparably more information than the one that remained behind the DVRs of motorists. Altai Krai is waiting for a great cosmic future. Our region is very well located - it is very convenient to monitor the space from here, ”said Andrei Kanygin, head of the facility under construction, to RG.

                      For 2-3 minutes before falling ...

                      "Papuans" are different, perhaps the United States will decide to work on Pakistan or North Korea, in this situation such weapons would not be superfluous.

                      The design of the rods may be different, for different tasks. Monolithic for rocket mines. And if the target, for example, is a ship, then the rod can be cut into 0,5-1 meter segments, with charges in between, just before they hit, they are undermined and “bred” elements at a distance of several meters. This is so, a rough estimate, in fact everything can be understood only after tests, which will allow low cost of withdrawal.
                      And then - 2-3 rod on the destroyer, 4-5 on the aircraft carrier ...

                      Perhaps the SDI became a fake because the USSR collapsed, and the US hoped for further decay, for which such expensive and high-risk systems were not required. And not always the weapon corresponds to the period of its appearance, there are not enough technologies. Above, we gave an example of the Dora cannon, which is useless, to which I replied that there was not much use from the FAA-1 / 2 either, until they learned how to make precision weapons. Perhaps the elements of the PIO one way or another will be implemented at a new technical level.
                      One way or another, but they are developing missile defense. And only a few people on the planet can know for sure that it was originally a fake or not a fake. Perhaps it was the subsequent "excuse", an attempt to "save face" when the project began to slip
                      1. Operator 10 March 2019 13: 37 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        The Chelyabinsk meteorite flew up to the Earth tangentially (parallel to the surface with a radio horizon of ten km), telegraph poles would fall along a ballistic trajectory with a radio horizon over a thousand km.

                        From a high orbit, the QUO of a telegraph pole will exceed by order of magnitude the size of the ICBM head.

                        Those countries that do not have anti-satellite weapons do not have rocket mines - they have all RSD deployed on mobile carriers.

                        A telegraph pole without homing cannot get into a moving ship by definition. Mono-block warheads with a power from 1 Mtn (Avangard, Burevestnik, Zircon, Dagger) to 10 Mtn (Voyevoda, Sarmat) are used to strike an aircraft carrier - it will not hit, it will disable the shock wave and light radiation.

                        And in general - the cheapest weapon by the criterion of cost / effectiveness is nuclear (as compared with any space, conventional, chemical or biological). This means that the effect of financing the production of nuclear weapons can be obtained more than from the financing of the same SOI - that is why it has turned down.
                      2. Shopping Mall 10 March 2019 13: 45 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Operator
                        The Chelyabinsk meteorite flew up to the Earth tangentially (parallel to the surface with a radio horizon of ten km), telegraph poles on the final part of the trajectory will fall along a ballistic trajectory with a radio horizon over a thousand km.


                        Who prevents the rods from running in a similar pattern?

                        Quote: Operator
                        From a high orbit, the QUO of a telegraph pole will exceed by order of magnitude the size of the ICBM head.


                        If their flight is not corrected, as already mentioned.

                        Quote: Operator
                        Those countries that do not have anti-satellite weapons do not have rocket mines - they have all RSD deployed on mobile carriers.


                        Fine, then a tunable warhead with a tungsten "shrapnel".

                        Quote: Operator
                        A telegraph pole without homing cannot get into a moving ship by definition. To strike an aircraft carrier, a monoblock warhead with a power from 1 Mtn (Avangard, Burevestnik, Zircon, Dagger) to 10 Mtn (Sarmat) is used — it will not fall, so it will destroy with a shock wave and light radiation.


                        Correction according to the reconnaissance satellite.

                        Quote: Operator
                        And in general - the cheapest weapon by the criterion of cost / effectiveness is nuclear (as compared with any space, conventional, chemical or biological). This means that the effect of financing the production of nuclear weapons can be obtained more than from the financing of the same SOI - that is why it has turned down.


                        So it is, only for some reason they build ships, stealth planes, develop projects of laser weapons, etc. The problem of a nuclear weapon is that it seems to be as it is, and it seems that it doesn’t exist, it is fraught with use, that’s all.
                      3. Operator 10 March 2019 13: 56 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: AVM
                        only for some reason build ships, stealth planes, develop projects of laser weapons

                        If you have noticed, the Russian Federation does not mass-produce anything from a new non-nuclear / non-missile weapon, but only maintains its competences in the field of tank construction (T-14 pilot batch), aircraft manufacturing (Su-57 pilot batch), shipbuilding (single frigates, minesweepers , shock submarines), laser weapons (single installation "Peresvet") and BOV (laboratory testing of the production of nerve agents) bully

                        But we (suddenly) have the largest stock of weapons-grade plutonium in the world, the largest capacities for its production, the heaviest ICBMs and MRBDs, unique hypersonic KRs planning BB, KR and torpedoes from YSU.
                      4. abrakadabre 10 March 2019 23: 55 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Who prevents the rods from running in a similar pattern?
                        The following interferes:
                        1. Such carrier platforms will be closely monitored. The start of the discs will be tracked right there. Unlike a meteorite flying from nowhere and having a low reflectivity.
                        2. A steady launch will mean an increase in flight time to the target. There is no problem calculating the trajectory of falling scrap. Having found out where it all lands, a return-on-launch volley immediately starts from the mines. Only not blanks, but ICBMs with thermonuclear gifts. The crowbars will arrive already in empty mines. And all ... hello to the new Middle Ages, if not the Stone Age. And for all of humanity.
  • Sasha_rulevoy 11 March 2019 21: 39 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    For those who doubt the capabilities of laser weapons, we can recall the YAL-1 project, designed to destroy ballistic missiles in the initial phase of flight with a laser, with a power of about one megawatt, placed on a Boeing 747-400F. The tests confirmed the fundamental possibility of such an interception. The defeat of the target was envisaged at a distance of up to 400 km.


    It was envisaged for 400 km, but manufactured with a firing range of 160 km. And it was possible to hit only 80 km (50 miles) or even less (it is possible that the plane spent a couple of minutes on aiming and approached all this time, then the firing range could be 60-70 km). Extensible concept, what is understood by the defeat of the goal? Sources say evasive: the firing time was 5 seconds, during which the rocket was damaged, incompatible with further flight, the details are classified. Judging by the fact that the destruction tests were carried out only for a liquid fuel rocket, one can roughly assume the following: the laser beam hit the fuel tank, heated it sharply, maybe even boiled, the fuel vapor released created an excess pressure in the tank, as a result of which some some stuffing box, the pipeline broke, the fuel began to flow out, so the rocket could not reach the target. About how to cut in half, as in the book about the engineer Garin or in the little cinderellas, the talk was not even close. A solid fuel bump was not even in the test program. These tests were considered unsuccessful. The program was immediately closed. The reason is perfect hopelessness and insane value. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in his own words destroyed this nonsense of gigantomania:

    "I don't know anybody at the Department of Defense, Mr. Tiahrt, who thinks that this program should, or would, ever be operationally deployed. The reality is that you would need a laser something like 20 to 30 times more powerful than the chemical laser in the plane right now to be able to get any distance from the launch site to fire .... So, right now the ABL would have to orbit inside the borders of Iran in order to be able to try and use its laser to shoot down that missile in the boost phase. And if you were to operationalize this you would be looking at 10 to 20 747s, at a billion and a half dollars apiece, and $ 100 million a year to operate. And there's nobody in uniform that I know who believes that this is a workable concept. "
    1. Shopping Mall 12 March 2019 09: 03 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Sasha_rulevoy
      Provided for 400 km, but produced with a range of 160 km. And they managed to hit only 80 km (50 miles) or even less (it is possible that the plane spent a couple of minutes on aiming and getting closer all this time, then the firing range could be 60-70 km). A loose concept, what is meant by the defeat of the target? Sources say evasively: the firing time was 5 seconds, during which the missile was damaged, incompatible with the further flight, the details are classified.


      Is there a link to these tests? Online stumbled upon that the defeat of the educational goal was from 100 km?
      1. Sasha_rulevoy 12 March 2019 18: 31 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Lehner said the range of the latest test was "the same as the successful February experiment" - that is about 50 miles, although the exact range remains classified.

        https://www.foxnews.com/tech/boeings-airborne-laser-defense-fails-the-test
  • ycuce234-san 13 March 2019 21: 07 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: abrakadabre
    In the tank, as has rightly been noted, the whole thing is in a very dense layout. Be sure to hurt something. It’s not very promising to shoot the same BOPs at a cruiser or an aircraft carrier. Despite the fact that its penetration is enough for a lot, because everything important on the ship has a much less dense layout


    A new trend is now emerging in shipbuilding - compactification and the use of stealth technologies. That is, ships in the name of stealth are becoming smaller and denser and technically more complicated - over time, entire compartments will be compacted so that you can’t even get there, just as a person cannot get inside a ship’s engine or pump, for example, this means that the effectiveness of damage by blanks will increase with the course of the current story. And an aircraft carrier is an exception, he should not be too small, although if all of his aircraft wing will be unmanned, it will help him become smaller.
  • Rplay 8 August 2019 12: 37 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Why do we need methane engines?
    Justify.
    Kerosene oxygen.
    For a booster unit, NMDM or oxygen is hydrogen.
  • Shopping Mall 24 August 2019 11: 51 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The United States is working on several large-scale projects involving the creation of orbital strike complexes, in particular Rods from God (Wands from God). About this writes RIA Novosti. August 24, 2019

    http://in24.org/technology/37054?utm_source=warfiles.ru