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

Comments

[Hole puncher]

The author's fears are undoubtedly justified. There are just a few points. The launch cost for each type of launch vehicle will be different. RN Vulcan, which is paid by the US Air Force, is a one-time launch and the launch cost will be the same "horse" as Atlas 5, even higher taking into account the new taxiway. Therefore, Vulcan is not promising for the mass withdrawal of military payload, the military budget will not pull such expenses. SLS is even worse, there each launch will cost half a billion. Remains Bezos and Musk and their personal moral imperatives, if they allow you to support the idea of ​​militarizing space, then a bad thing. It is important here what China will do in this regard, which is not bound by any treaties and which definitely has a plan for the military exploration of outer space. For the United States, any move by China in this direction will require proactive action, i.e. launching an arms race in space.

[SHOPPING MALL]

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.

[Hole puncher]

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.

[Cherry Nine]

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.

[Narak-zempo]

Quote: Puncher

Bezos and Musk and their personal moral imperatives remain

BABLO - this is their imperative.

[Hole puncher]

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 ...

[SHOPPING MALL]

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.

[Hole 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 ...

[SHOPPING MALL]

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.

[Hole puncher]

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.

[ZAV69]

The space Internet of the current government is absolutely not terrible. Do not need this nonsense.

[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.

[SHOPPING MALL]

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.

[Setrac]

Quote: Cherry Nine

The deployment of huge low-orbit factions will give a new quality to this process.

Generally, the orbits are quota, at the expense of whose quotas will the "huge" group be deployed?

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Setrac

In fact, the orbits are quota

You confuse GSO and NOU.

[Setrac]

Quote: Cherry Nine

You confuse GSO and NOU.

Maybe I'm confusing

[SHOPPING MALL]

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/

[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?

[SHOPPING MALL]

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, the scrap is not quite scrap, in the tail section there is a control unit with drives and an antenna, or telecontrol in a laser beam, like the Kornet ATGM. But rather, it's still a radio channel.

[KCA]

ATGM "Kornet" flight speed 12 km / s? And how can you control a crowbar flying in a plasma cloud? "Vanguard", it seems, has a homing system, but so that the Americans can control an object in a cloud of plasma I have never heard, I read about China, there are developments, but how much they have been implemented, I do not know at all

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: KCA

ATGM "Kornet" flight speed 12 km / s? And how can you control a crowbar flying in a plasma cloud? "Vanguard", it seems, has a homing system, but so that the Americans can control an object in a cloud of plasma I have never heard, I read about China, there are developments, but how much they have been implemented, I do not know at all

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

[Vadim237]

Plasma in front - rear control.

[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 fact of the threat of the militarization of outer space is ascertained, followed by a halt, but then, where "funny projects, happy ideas" begin - they all look funny and absurd.

[SHOPPING MALL]

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 fact of the threat of the militarization of outer space is ascertained, followed by a halt, but then, where "funny projects, happy ideas" begin - they all look funny and absurd.

"fun projects, happy ideas" do not belong to the author, but to US developers.

[Sasha_rulevoy]

Quote: AVM

"fun projects, happy ideas" do not belong to the author, but to US developers.

Common to all idiocy "wunderwaffe". You can still remember how the Americans in all seriousness suffered from the magic "invisible ship" during the Second World War.

[Evil echo]

We would have saved Roskosmos from "effective management" and then there is no need to worry about the future.

[Sidor Amenpodestovich]

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.

[SHOPPING MALL]

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?

[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

[Hole puncher]

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.

[KCA]

You don't know a little about the IS-1, it destroyed satellites with a recoilless cannon, not with a ram

[Hole puncher]

Quote: KCA

You don't know a little about the IS-1, it destroyed satellites with a recoilless cannon, not with 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.

[KCA]

Search the Internet for a satellite fighter, now it is already open information, even a whole dock. the film based on "Zvezda" was shown, open, most likely, for a reason, hit that kill is an American strategy

[SHOPPING MALL]

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.

[Sidor Amenpodestovich]

That's why I wrote: "over time".

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Sidor Amenpodestovich

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.

[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?

[Narak-zempo]

Quote: Zaurbek

a station with launchers and missiles is not eternal, how can it be brought out of orbit with all the goodies?

About the same as the decomposed, but not used "Fly" - a shot towards the enemy.

[Zaurbek]

so there are no fly 10 pieces of wands with YABCH .... and the power of this device is likely to be nuclear.

[SHOPPING MALL]

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.

[max702]

Quote: AVM

it's just a tungsten alloy rod

I calculated that with dimensions of 10x0,3m the weight is about 13.6t. Won't they get tired of launching such weights into orbit?

[SHOPPING MALL]

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.

[abrakadabre]

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

[Zaurbek]

In general, the theme with a kinetic strike is strange. Even into a ship. Well, you'll make a hole... But into a building?

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Zaurbek

In general, the theme with a kinetic strike is strange. Even into a ship. Well, you'll make a hole... But into a building?

It's hard to say, I have no data on this matter. It depends on what force the kinetic blow will be, whether it will be possible to transfer most of the energy to the target, or the "crowbar" will fly right through. In the first case, the goal is most likely the end, in the second, only if vital nodes are touched.

[abrakadabre]

will it be possible to transfer most of the energy to the target, or will the "crowbar" fly through. In the first case, the goal is most likely the end, in the second, only if vital nodes are touched.

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.

[Zaurbek]

There was another theme with a warhead with uranium rods ....

[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.

[SHOPPING MALL]

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.

[SHOPPING MALL]

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.

[Cherry Nine]

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.

[Vadim237]

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]

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.

[Hole puncher]

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.

[g1washntwn]

... 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.

[Hole puncher]

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]

What is the difference whose cosmos will be if heaven is already ours?

[The seventh]

In general, there are no problems here, except for the mental values ​​and will of the Russian top leadership..). In the 60s of the past, the USSR would have brought potential friends and partners to similar, but "oncoming" orbits to combat gringo lasers and other space gadgets ... a couple of tons of fine river sand and carefully scattered it over the required area in the cross-section of the "orbital tubes" .... A new space echelon .. incredible foreign friends ..))

[Blackmokona]

Only all this sand is no different from cosmic dust and micrometeorites, from which even civilian satellites have long been reliably protected

[Corn]

That's a problem, so be it, instead of grains of sand there will be gram needles (more than 10 million striking elements can be launched by one "union"), do satellites also have tank armor?

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Corn

That's a problem, so be it, instead of grains of sand there will be gram needles (more than 10 million striking elements can be launched by one "union"), do satellites also have tank armor?

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.

[Corn]

Quote: AVM

The problem is that not only enemy targets will suffer, but also their own, allies

Firstly, you yourself have described the role of space weapons in the "Rapid Global Impact", when the very existence of Russia as a state is put on kratu, the last thing that should worry us is the integrity of some glands (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]

Well ... soon it will be necessary to restore production again for the orbital "Almazy"

[Vadim237]

Better new Bora.

[Corn]

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 5 years ago I wrote the same thing under articles about a "promising" hangar, then all the minxes threw themselves with tomatoes, did the epiphany come ?!

[prosto_rgb]

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.

[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, according to a rough estimate, is no more than 20 million.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: voyaka uh

Musk launches satellites weighing up to 9 tons into Falcon-24 in low orbits

I have to note that Falcon 9 never launched satellites of such mass into this orbit due to lack of need. Moreover, there is an opinion that for the same reason the estimate of 24t to LEO is an estimate energy rocket capabilities. The bottle displays satellites of a smaller mass, but into much higher-energy orbits.

[prosto_rgb]

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, according to a rough estimate, is no 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.

[Setrac]

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?

[voyaka uh]

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 costs.)

[Operator]

Shaw this bulo: horror story SOI-2?

The most useless type of space weapon is the "rod of God" in the form of a 12-meter-long tungsten telegraph pole, dropped from orbit, decelerated in the atmosphere along a ballistic curve, falling on a target blindly (in a plasma cloud) under the control of an inertial GNS and designed to destroy small bunkers - with an accuracy of plus or minus a bast shoe.

All other types of space weapons are disabled by an elementary high-altitude explosion of the leading megaton nuclear charge, which disables the radar and optoelectronic target sensors for the duration of the AUTH of Russian ICBMs/SLBMs and the formation of a combat formation of warheads/false targets.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Operator

Shaw this bulo: horror story SOI-2?

The most useless type of space weapon is the "rod of God" in the form of a 12-meter-long tungsten telegraph pole, dropped from orbit, decelerated in the atmosphere along a ballistic curve, falling on a target blindly (in a plasma cloud) under the control of an inertial GNS and designed to destroy small bunkers - with an accuracy of plus or minus a bast shoe.

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 the Zircons against aircraft carriers, it is necessary to have on board a highly sensitive gravitometer (for example, a quantum one) for homing and / or to ensure the reception of external target designation from a satellite in the X-ray range (the radiation of which freely passes through the plasma)

Quote: Operator

All other types of space weapons are disabled by an elementary high-altitude explosion of the leading megaton nuclear charge, which disables the radar and optoelectronic target sensors for the duration of the AUTH of Russian ICBMs/SLBMs and the formation of a combat formation of warheads/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.

At the first strike of the enemy with "wands" at silos and in bulk at mobile complexes, what is 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.

[Operator]

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);
- on all electronic components of spacecraft using a neutron flux, destroying transistors and memory cells (ground devices again remain undamaged due to the short range of neutrons in the air).
But in the nomenclature of combat equipment of the Voevoda ICBM and, probably, the Sarmat ICBM, there are also 10-megaton monoblock charges (with a 1000-km radius of influence on the sensors of targets of the space echelon of the anti-missile system).

So the best missile defense is the Strategic Missile Forces

[voyaka uh]

"In any case, a tungsten telegraph pole can only inflict point damage on the bunker, without destroying it at all from the word" ////
-----
If it gets, it will flash through like paper. Estimate speed, momentum.
The main thing (and the most difficult) is to get there.

[abrakadabre]

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.

[voyaka uh]

Well, this can be compared to getting an OBPS in a tank. There have been cases when
"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 "heavenly
crowbars ", you draw a square 5X5 m on some atoll in the Pacific Ocean,
and you hit it from space one by one. Until the hits start.
Only now the international diplomatic noise will begin ... oh th.

[abrakadabre]

Well, this can be compared to getting an OBPS in a tank. There have been cases when
"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

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: voyaka uh

But the test is easy to do: you launch a satellite with such "heavenly
crowbars ", you draw a square 5X5 m on some atoll in the Pacific Ocean,
and you hit it from space one by one. Until the hits start.
Only now the international diplomatic noise will begin ... oh th.

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.

[Narak-zempo]

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.

[Narak-zempo]

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.

[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.

To wrap the crowbar vertically from orbit, it will need a characteristic velocity comparable to the first one. Otherwise, all you can achieve is trajectory and speed close to the ICBM warhead and the same KVO, tk. by the time the crowbar arrives, the "platform" will disappear beyond the horizon.
There are also disadvantages: a narrow firing zone along the orbit, the platform is perfectly visible and the target is "stationary" for missile defense systems, etc.

Today, intercontinental missiles and aviation, in terms of their combined properties, are the best cure for all diseases.
However, of course you can and even need to dream.

[SHOPPING MALL]

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 count purely for fuel, in a one-time version. If I understand the existing trend correctly, then methane is beneficial because, firstly, there is no soot - it is easier to implement reusability, and secondly, kerosene is not required anyhow, but a certain type, natural wells of this type are depleted, but it is artificially expensive to obtain, and methane easier to bring to a "common denominator".

Quote: srelock

To wrap the crowbar vertically from orbit, it will need a characteristic velocity comparable to the first one. Otherwise, all you can achieve is trajectory and speed close to the ICBM warhead and the same KVO, tk. by the time the crowbar arrives, the "platform" will disappear beyond 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 disadvantages: a narrow firing zone along the orbit, the platform is perfectly visible and the target is "stationary" for missile defense systems, etc.

This is if the platform is a satellite. And if she is able to maneuver in a wide range of orbits and accelerations?

[abrakadabre]

kerosene is required not anyhow, but of a certain type, natural wells of this type are depleted, but it is expensive to obtain artificially, and it is easier to bring methane into a "common denominator".

Well, ka, enlighten, this is where we on earth have not oil, but kerosene wells ?!
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 ...

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: abrakadabre

kerosene is required not anyhow, but of a certain type, natural wells of this type are depleted, but it is expensive to obtain artificially, and it is easier to bring methane into a "common denominator".

Well, ka, enlighten, this is where we on earth have not oil, but kerosene wells ?!
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 at a time. 1 launch - a package of 1 rods, 10 launch - the reconnaissance platform itself and guidance, 2 launch - 3 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.

[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.

[SHOPPING MALL]

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.

[srelock]

Quote: AVM

This is if we count purely for fuel, in a one-time version. If I understand the existing trend correctly, then methane is beneficial because, firstly, there is no soot - it is easier to implement reusability, and secondly, kerosene is not required anyhow, but a certain type, natural wells of this type are depleted, but it is artificially expensive to obtain, and methane easier to bring to 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 at a time. 1 launch - a package of 1 rods, 10 launch - the reconnaissance platform itself and guidance, 2 launch - 3 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.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: srelock

Quote: AVM

This is if we count purely for fuel, in a one-time version. If I understand the existing trend correctly, then methane is beneficial because, firstly, there is no soot - it is easier to implement reusability, and secondly, kerosene is not required anyhow, but a certain type, natural wells of this type are depleted, but it is artificially expensive to obtain, and methane easier to bring to 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 at a time. 1 launch - a package of 1 rods, 10 launch - the reconnaissance platform itself and guidance, 2 launch - 3 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.

[Sasha_rulevoy]

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.

[Cherry Nine]

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.

[srelock]

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.

[Cherry Nine]

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]

Quote: voyaka uh

sews through like paper

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

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Operator

Quote: voyaka uh

sews through like paper

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

Actually the question is rather to DARPA, in my opinion their project.
But if we assume that a tank's turret is torn off by a sub-caliber shell. Do you think that if a 30 cm pole hits it, there will only be two "holes"? The floor of the bunker will collapse from such a blow. No super-protected missile silo can withstand such a blow.
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.

[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.

[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 recalls the history of the Dora cannon near Sevastopol, whose shells went 12 meters underground and exploded there, forming a cavity 3 m in diameter "without causing harm to the enemy." Only here the depth will be even greater, and there will be no explosives at all. Those who find then strange even wells will be surprised.

[SHOPPING MALL]

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 recalls the history of the Dora cannon near Sevastopol, whose shells went 12 meters underground and exploded there, forming a cavity 3 m in diameter "without causing harm to the enemy." Only here the depth will be even greater, and there will be no explosives at all. Those who find then strange even wells will be surprised.

It's like comparing the FAU-1 and FAU-2 with modern CR and OTRK. If the Dora cannon had corrected ammunition with a remote fuse, the effect would be completely different.

[SHOPPING MALL]

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 "Zircon" warheads 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.

[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).

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.

[SHOPPING MALL]

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?

[Operator]

All points of start of telegraph poles from orbit are in the visibility zone of the over-the-horizon early warning radars of the Voronezh type.

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?

[SHOPPING MALL]

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.

[Operator]

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.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Well
Then I will say more in defense of the "presented 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 early warning radar system "Voronezh-DM" in the suburb of Barnaul began in 2010. Construction is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2016. Now the building of the command post is under construction, the installation of the antenna device has begun, and the road is being laid from the facility to the federal highway. In addition, design and survey work is being carried out to provide the facility with electricity. Experts say that the plant's operational characteristics guarantee complete safety. This is confirmed during the operation of the first similar facilities in other regions.

- If our radar station had already worked last year, then we would have been able to detect the famous Chelyabinsk meteorite two or three minutes before its fall. And scientists would have at their disposal incomparably more information than what remained for car DVRs. Altai Territory generally has a great space future. Our region is very favorably located - it is very convenient to conduct space observations from here, - Andrey Kanygin, head of the facility under construction, told 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 will not be superfluous.

The design of the rods can be different for different tasks. Monolithic for missile silos. And if the target is, for example, a ship, then the rod can be cut into 0,5-1 meter segments, with charges between them, just before hitting, they are undermined and "spread" the 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 the low cost of withdrawal.
And then - 2-3 rod on the destroyer, 4-5 on the aircraft carrier ...

Perhaps SDI became a fake because the USSR collapsed, and the United States hoped for further disintegration, for which such expensive and high-risk systems were not required. And weapons do not always correspond to the period of their appearance, there is not enough technology. Above they gave an example of the Dora cannon, that it is useless, to which I replied that there was little use from the FAU-1/2, until they learned how to make high-precision weapons. Perhaps the elements of SDI will somehow 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 a subsequent "excuse", an attempt to "save face" when the project began to slip

[Operator]

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 hit a moving ship by definition. To strike an aircraft carrier, a monoblock warhead with a capacity of 1 Mtn (Avangard, Petrel, Zircon, Dagger) up to 10 Mtn (Voevoda, Sarmat) is used - it will not hit, so it will be disabled by a 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.

[SHOPPING MALL]

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.

Great, then a correctable tungsten shrapnel warhead.

Quote: Operator

A telegraph pole without homing cannot hit a moving ship by definition. To strike an aircraft carrier, a monoblock warhead with a capacity of 1 Mtn (Avangard, Burevestnik, Zircon, Dagger) to 10 Mtn (Sarmat) is used - it will not hit, so it will be disabled by 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.

[Operator]

Quote: AVM

only for some reason build ships, stealth planes, develop projects of laser weapons

If you noticed, then the Russian Federation does not serially produce anything from new non-nuclear / non-rocket weapons, but only maintains its competencies in the field of tank building (experimental batch of T-14), aircraft construction (experimental batch of Su-57), shipbuilding (single copies of frigates, minesweepers , attack submarines), laser weapons (single unit "Peresvet") and BOV (laboratory testing of the production of nerve agents)

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.

[abrakadabre]

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 smooth launch will mean an increase in flight time to the target. It is no problem to calculate the trajectory of the falling scrap. Having found out where it will all land, a response-oncoming volley immediately starts from the mines. Only not blanks, but ICBMs with thermonuclear gifts. "Scrap" will arrive already in empty mines. And that's all ... hello to the new Middle Ages, if not the Stone Age. And for all mankind.

[Sasha_rulevoy]

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. "

[SHOPPING MALL]

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?

[Sasha_rulevoy]

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]

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 emerging in shipbuilding now - compactification and the use of stealth technologies. That is, ships are being made smaller and denser and more technically complex in the name of invisibility - over time, entire compartments will be compacted so that it will not even be possible to get into them, just as a person cannot get inside a ship's engine or pump, for example - which means the effectiveness of destruction by blanks will grow with the course of current history. And an aircraft carrier is an exception, it cannot be too small, although if its entire air wing is unmanned, this will help it become smaller.

[rplay]

Why do we need methane engines?
Justify.
Kerosene oxygen.
For a booster unit, NMDM or oxygen is hydrogen.

[SHOPPING MALL]

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

[Sergei N 58912062]

It is high time for Russia to launch a station armed with space-to-ground munitions into orbit. With warheads in both nuclear and non-nuclear versions.