What do you think of orbital-launched guided tungsten rods and why are they the best weapon possible?

>Calling in an airstrike could take hours while a satellite weapon like this would strike within seconds and take out pretty much anything.

>Two foot rod
>Burns up on re-entry

Someone worked out a 15 minute order to impact time, because if you want to deorbit you gotta slow the fuck down first. Dont know the B1's scramble time but considering its supersonic and can loiter around a target area I think it evens out. When the rods actually hit, assuming theyre at mach 10, theres barely more energy than if you just dumped the same weight in bombs. If Chong and Ivan are anywhere close to us in terms of missile tech, they can punch the satellites out of orbit. You cant hit a moving target because the gigantic plume of plasma blinding any sensors on the rod, while theyve shown glidebombs killing moving trucks from something like 6 miles away.

How do bullets even work?

Terminal velocity is a function of gravity and air friction.

This is why orbital kinetic weapon dweebs are justly mocked. You're idiots, worse than mech or general space warfare poseurs.

More expensive than B2 bombers but when it comes to busting bunkers accept no equals.

Why not a giant concave mirror to roast people with sunlight?

That way, you don't have to launch several tons of metal into orbit every time you want to bomb someone. Just one launch and you can just keep on toasting Jihadis like ants under a magnifying glass forever.

A 2T projectile at mach 10 has the kinetic energy equivalent to 35 tons of TNT. It's not exactly a city killer but nothing to scoff at.

Oh yeah and the plasma plume problem has been solved. It's possible to maintain 2 way comms through the plasma. Assume the launch platform would be sending updated target trajectory info all the way down.

Bullets don't encounter 60km worth of air resistance. Any initial velocity you impart will round off to 0 unless you lobbed the thing at a meaningful fraction of the speed of light.

Fuck off back to junior physics class.

What about these new multi megawatt lasers the navy is supposedly deploying? In space you have no shortage of power with solar panels to power them. Short of railguns in space, kinetics are shit tier.

Mind showing me the math on that? Im only getting about 3 tonnes of TNT equivalent.

Hilariously viable.

You can't shoot high power lasers over long distances, they turn air into plasma which is almost opaque. Look up thermal blooming.

Attached: 250px-ASAT_missile_launch[1].jpg (250x331, 14K)

Depends on the power and frequency of the laser desu.

it's travelling 20 miles/sec tangent to earth's surface. How do you go about accelerating a heavy rod to the same speed but towards the surface in a reasonable manner?
It would have to make a 90° turn at speed to do what you're proposing.
Since you're going to need a massive rocket and time to do this maneuver, what's the point of having it in orbit rather than ground-launched?

RPM doesn't work like that buddy.The RPM at the middle and outside of said device would the same. Surface feet per minute would be highest at the outside of the device.

You sure? The proposed system mentioned in the Wikipedia article mentions a 9+ ton projectile with only 11 tons equivalent TNT yield, which is in line with cold war SRBMs.

You let gravity do the work, that's literally the entire mechanism of the concept. You don't need to zero off the horizontal velocity you just need to travel on a trajectory that aligns you with the target.

>bounces off the upper atmosphere because the entry angle is way too shallow

Wait can you actually explain that?

How do you skip stones?

Gotta dive in above a certain angle or the resistance from the atmosphere will fling you off back into spes for a while. Theres probably a ton of articles on astronauts doing re-entry that can explain it better.

your agreeing with the post idiot

The air-water interface is a 750x change in density over the span of a few molecules. There is no such shock in the upper atmosphere.

Kinetics are shit, railguns however are not. If a reliable railgun can be made to fit on an orbital weapon platform that will be the ultimate force projection weapon.

The problem is if you want gravity to do the work you have to drop it on the far side of the planet, you need more deltav the closer you get to your target. Dropping something streight down means accelerating it in the opposite direction until it hits 0 in relation to the target. Say your launcher is floating next to the ISS which is orbiting @27,700kph, that means you need to accelerate 27,700 k/h of deltav backwards if you want it to drop streight down. Now compared to the 2000 or so you'd need if you dropped the rod on the far side of the planet..

>fire one round
>railgun drifting into the sun at mach 7

It is comparable when your impacting those air molecules at orbital valocity. It literally exactly like skipping stones, go read a physics textbook

Yeah no, unless you've got a supeassive ship that railgun is going to act like a really powerful burn in whatever direction your pointing. Recoil impulse is a bitch in microgravity

>Send railgun weapon satellite into orbit
>Neglect to put an ion drive on it to reposition after each firing

>The problem is if you want gravity to do the work you have to drop it on the far side of the planet,
uh what. you just go against the orbit nigga what the fuck you talking about.

I’m pretty sure this is already a thing. If you look into the theory America already used one of these in China

Just launch regular icbms

>within seconds
it about 20 minutes absolute minimum, if you look at the orbital mechanics.

Thor rods are more expensive, less reliable, more vulnerable and more easily detected IRBMs.

If you absolutely want a konetic strike, drop arrows off a blimp...or a plane, which we already do. They're called concrete bombs. Or lazy dogs, if you go back to Vietnam.

Jesus fucking christ, this is all totally wrong.

>Can't into reading comprehension
Do I really have to explain why expending 27000kph deltav is the exact opposite of letting gravity do all the work.

Screw the ion engines(still good tho) just slap on a counterweight that accelerates the other direction, countering the recoil(kinda like the super Macs in Halo)

What, that fireworks factory?
Pfhhfhfht that pidly little explosion?
Lol

>What do you think of orbital-launched guided tungsten rods and why are they the best weapon possible?
They are a weapon used by already space-competent polity, none such exist on earth today, these poorfags can't afford the entry costs because they're limited to terrestrial industry

Attached: 1---.jpg (480x608, 126K)

> (clothes-pin because they use tension ropes and maglev barrels to propel them down like a massive fucking crossbow. Also, you can use those two little prongs to guide it even though it's going like mach fucking 30)
No. Its not going anywhere close to that speed for one and using a crossbow is idiotic. Not too mention how that design will fucking ruin its rentry. You couldn't even power the maglev well enough in space.
>Calling in an airstrike could take hours while a satellite weapon like this would strike within seconds and take out pretty much anything.
Also no. You don't drop RfG, you launch them into an eccentric orbit that intersects the planet on your target. This necessitates a time on target of at least 10mins if you have enough satellites to provide coverage. Way more if you don't.
Going faster means you have to negate 7km/s of orbital velocity before you start accelerating towards your target again, and there is no way to do that fast enough to be faster.
Meanwhile they can't be guided for shit, don't carry a payload and take 10 from targetting to impact. They're only good for bunker busting and only then because they can't be intercepted. They're just not that useful.
>There are also larger depleted uranium sling/RPM weapons that would make a crater. Like 5000rpm from a good length. (I mean, the center would be atleast 245 million rpm but whatever. You do the math to figure out how long it is)
This is nonsense and i have no idea what you're trying to say.

Yeah that's wrong. It's only about 2.8t of TNT equivalent and that's assuming 2 metric tonnes of rod and tons for the energy equivalent i.e. the most favourable interpretation.
For reference 2 tonnes of RDX would be equivalent to 3.5 tons of TNT. Same conversion but obviously ignoring thing's like the weight of the casings, detonators etc.

One day, you'll get to suck off a giraffe so hard its skull will cave into its neck. The colosseum will go batshit and give you a roaring ovation. Roses tossed, arms upraised, women swooning. Then you'll know what victory tastes like.

Attached: New Sandals.png (2781x2180, 1.64M)

fpbp

>You couldn't even power the maglev well enough in space.

Not that guy but you are stupid. There is 24/7 solar power is space and solar panels are getting thinner by the day, already there are ridiculously thin film type prototypes that weigh fuck all. The only limit to the power they can provide is your weight limit for launch.

And the cooling. Remember theres no convection in space, so youre gonna need to build fat fucking heatsinks on those rails if you want them to fire more than once every few hours.

>It's only about 2.8t of TNT equivalent and that's assuming 2 metric tonnes of rod and tons for the energy equivalent i.e. the most favourable interpretation.
>For reference 2 tonnes of RDX would be equivalent to 3.5 tons of TNT.

the rod is still more effective against hard targets than the bomb then, with regular bombs, most of the energy is wasted in 360

Enough ejectable heatsinks to last a brief intense global nuclear conflict

This, recruits, is a 20-kilo ferrous slug. Feel the weight. Every five seconds, the main gun of an Everest-class dreadnought accelerates one to 1.3 percent of light speed. It impacts with the force of a 38-kilotomb bomb. That is three times the yield of the city buster dropped on Hiroshima back on Earth. That means Sir Isaac Newton is the deadliest son-of-a-bitch in space.

Why is it that litterally autistic people always seem to want to talk about one of three things: hypothetical tiers of energy capture, carbon rod orbit canons, and skyrim?

Then it's not going 20 miles / sec and you need to put it an intersecting orbit which takes time to hit the Earth.
>>You couldn't even power the maglev well enough in space.
>Not that guy but you are stupid. There is 24/7 solar power
Not unless you're in a useless position for launching and you radically increase the time to target which his retarded idea is trying to minimise.
>solar panels are getting thinner by the day, already there are ridiculously thin film type prototypes that weigh fuck all. The only limit to the power they can provide is your weight limit for launch.
The ISS's entire array is 120kW. The railguns on Earth that would be completely inadequate for the job he wants require 32MJ of energy. And we need at least 8x the velocity they provide.
So you're launching literal tons upon tons of power generation, capacitors, launchers etc. Even with thin film panels. Each launcher would be the largest single space construction we've ever built and you have to launch dozens of them if you don't want to have to wait for orbits to align every time you want to fire.
All because retard there doesn't understand orbital mechanics and tries to brute force the result of kinetic bombardment without understanding how they work.
Instead we could build them as they're meant to be built and loft the entire network for the cost of one of his.

If k is to be believed than much like tanks, jets, icbm, and submarines they can be taken out by any given Patriot with an AR and a pocket Constitution

Mr. Millimeter-sized-shrapnel has something to say about your heatsinking.

This is a common misconception, there is convection in space, and it's quite important for the radiators to function well enough to be as small as they are.

Yes, 5 molecules in 5 cubic centimeters is going to pull a lot of heat out of your radiators.

Ejectable heatsinks are a meme. A bigger heatsink of the same mass as the smaller heatsinks, ejector and reloader will always be superior.
It was mostly to put it in context. I'd also point out that punching cleanish holes in things has limited utility as well though. After a point, more penetration is just wasted energy.
No. Not enough to affect radiator design unless they're close enough to the atmosphere to have serious problems with drag. Cite sources to back up your claim.

Buckshot in orbit will blow this fucking rod station to hell in one hit.
Completely indefensible
Also not politically viable since the only enemies it could be used on would be incapable of space launch, ie incredibly poor ones
Imagine the news reeeeeeeel
>Today the UN has sanctioned the United States for its indiscriminate t use of the so-called God Rods which destroyed a baby milk factory in poverty stricken Venezuela today....
>Reeeeeee it's impossible to identify targets from spaaaaaaceeee!

>24/7 solar power in space

Is this why the moon is always full without phases and Earth never experiencs night?

If it was viable they would already have it.

there is 24/7 solar powar in space