Customer Discussions > Science Fiction forum

The Real Upcoming Space Wars?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 76-100 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 1, 2009 3:36:54 PM PST
Doug says:
I poked around a B-2 at a recent airshow, and, it looked pretty standard to mee... nothing out of the ordinary, no Kleistron relays, no flux capacitors, no mysterious pods or bulges in the fuselage. Kinda like a larger version of the SR-71 -- which makes sense.

Posted on Nov 1, 2009 4:10:27 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 1, 2009 4:15:26 PM PST
Anti-ICBM weapons seem to be of two main types: (1) directed energy weapons and (2) kinetic kill weapons. Directed energy weapons can be aimed relatively easily, but, because of the inverse square law, there's the problem of energy density on target. Kinetic kill weapons definitely deliver enough energy to the target - if they can hit the target. And therein lies my question. The anti-ICBM kinetic kill weapons that I've read about use merely a single projectile. That seems analogous to trying to hit a duck with a bullet, or, even worse, hit a bullet with a bullet. Why not use a shotgun approach? Instead of a single projectile, hundreds of steel or lead (cheaper than depleted uranium) balls are launched to intercept the missile's warhead bus while it's in its mid-course phase or even its boost phase. These balls would spread out into a cloud, thereby increasing the probability of a hit. Given the well-known mechanical frailty of an ICBM, the kinetic energy imparted by only a few small projectiles moving at orbital velocities could easily be enough to destroy the target, or at least scramble its control system. Would anybody care to comment?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 2, 2009 12:09:11 AM PST
M. Helsdon says:
Walter,

The problem is that the ICBM has to be hit prior to the descent portion of its trajectory, otherwise it is still going to come down, possibly not where intended. The warhead is relatively hardened and there is a high probability that it will survive, either in a functional state or seriously contaminate a wide area if it breaks up on impact.

If, as you say, you hit it in the boost or prior to mid-course correction, hitting it will be more effective. However, there's then relatively little warning to allow a successful intercept.

Unfortunately, if the enemy know you are capable of intercepting their ICBMs, they simply fire more of them to ensure that at least a few get through to the target by overloading your defenses, and employ more decoys to distract the defending systems. Alternatively, they use long-range cruise missiles which are far harder to detect and destroy, or use some lower tech method of delivering the warheads, such as container crates sent by ship...

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 2, 2009 7:52:00 AM PST
Hi Doug!

Below are some links to short You Tube videos discussing Roswell and related matters. Although I can't vouch for their absolute validity, the information is compelling and intelligently presented. And may answer some of the questions you (and undoubtedly others) have about Roswell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Il_LYDdHXY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCQNzH4x1rY&feature=r

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLIOSGVkaEU

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 2, 2009 2:55:52 PM PST
To M. Helsdon:
Re: "The warhead is relatively hardened..."
Actually, while the warhead is robust with respect to thermal energy (it must withstand reentry heating), it is less capable of withstanding mechanical shock, similar to the Space Shuttle tiles. However, assuming that each anti-ICBM projectile is a lead ball 2.5 cm in diameter and is traveling at a velocity relative to the target of about 24,000 km/hr, the impact of just one projectile will yield more than 2,000,000 joules of kinetic energy.

The question I posed was why don't current prototypes use multiple projectiles, instead of just one?

Posted on Nov 4, 2009 7:34:29 AM PST
To anyone still following this discussion, below are links to very current on-topic articles in Reuters:

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSTRE5A25XG20091103
(U.S. EYES INTENT OF CHINA'S SPACE PROGRAMS)

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSTRE5A31V620091104
(SPACE JUNK WILL UP MISSION COSTS)

Posted on Nov 9, 2009 6:52:58 AM PST
To anyone still following this discussion, here is an interesting article from 2007 in dailygalaxy.com, which is the companion website to the Discovery channels:

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/11/liquid-body-arm.html

LIQUID BODY ARMOR AND VIRTUAL-REALITY SCREENS: THE HIGH TECH FUTURE OF WARFARE

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2009 12:05:08 PM PST
M. Helsdon says:
Walter,

"The question I posed was why don't current prototypes use multiple projectiles, instead of just one?"

I believe that some designs do, but there's also the issue that multiple projectiles don't always affect the kill probability as might be expected.

If you are deploying multiple interceptors then you are dividing the mass of your kinetic kill weapon into many distinct needles, and so whilst there is a possibility that one or more of those needles may hit the target, if they do so they won't have the same effect as a single large impactor. There is then an argument to have a single accurately targeted projectile instead of a 'shot-gun' approach. It is possible to combine the two approaches, so that the impactor breaks into multiple projectiles very close to the target, but this in turn increases the complexity of the impactor so that it has to have a means of detecting the proximity of the target.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2009 2:15:17 PM PST
To M. Helsdon:
Hmmmm...interesting. Thanks for the food for thought.

I've just thought of a rationale for using a kinetic kill weapon rather than an exploding warhead. At orbital velocities, a target, depending on the relative velocity vectors, could possibly actually outrun an explosion!

Posted on Nov 9, 2009 9:01:27 PM PST
J. Waldvogel says:
I heard a long time ago that the VHS machine came from reversed Engineering of UFO tech!!! HAHA Really. UFO's are B.S. Now I'm not saying there isn't or wasn't LIFE someplace else other then Earth. What was it that Jodie Foster say in the Movie Contact. Something like if only life was found in 1 out of a billion planets, and only 1 out of those billion planets had Intelligent life, that's still a lot of planets with life. The problem is the Distances are so great. More Importantly the TIME FRAME. We have only been around on earth a very short time. Intelligent LIFE may have been around millions or billions of years earlier and are long DEAD!!! Who knows....

If a UFO came to earth all these times, it wouldn't be out in no where. You couldn't keep it a secret for so long. There would be real Proff. Anyone can tell a good story and make it sound believable. Look, they sell a lot of books. A lot of other junk, and get on TV, which only helps sell the other things to gullible suckers.

Posted on Nov 10, 2009 7:37:44 AM PST
To anyone still following this thread, todays (11/10/09) nextbigfuture.com has this article: ELECTROMAGNETIC RAILGUN AIR DEFENSE TEST FIRED SUCCESSFULLY (Couldn't get a more direct URL.)

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2009 9:10:30 AM PST
To Marilyn Martin:
Here is the direct URL for the article on the railgun test firing: http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/11/electromagnetic-railgun-air-defence.html. (To get the URL, when you have the article in your bowser's window, just copy & paste the information that's in the Web address window at the top of your browser.)

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2009 10:10:12 AM PST
M. Helsdon says:
Walter,

"At orbital velocities, a target, depending on the relative velocity vectors, could possibly actually outrun an explosion!"

Even at lower altitudes and velocities the intercept geometry can have an effect on the kill probability.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2009 10:28:58 AM PST
To M. Helsdon:
Well, yes, of course. But I was focusing specifically on the phenomenon of the target outrunning a warhead's explosion. For example, if the relative velocity of a target is 23,000 mph or 10,282 m/s and the interceptor warhead uses octanitrocubane (ONC) as an explosive, whose detonation velocity is 10,100 m/s [NOTE: This was the fastest explosive in the table that I consulted.], then it clearly becomes possible for the target to outrun the explosion.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2009 11:39:04 AM PST
M. Helsdon says:
Walter,

"But I was focusing specifically on the phenomenon of the target outrunning a warhead's explosion."

Which is precisely why the intercept geometry is so important: it is preferable for the target to have to fly through the zone of the detonation. In a tail-chase it is far less likely that the target will be damaged.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2009 12:25:43 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 10, 2009 12:31:59 PM PST
To M. Helsdon:
Re: "Which is precisely why the intercept geometry is so important..."

Very true; I'm not disagreeing with you at all. However, in a tail-chase, the relative velocities could be much lower, potentially zero or close to it.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2009 2:38:25 PM PST
Hi Walter!

Thanks for providing the direct URL. When I opened the article in my e-mail account, all I had in my browser window was my account URL.

Glad to see you participating! What other weapons in this discussion intrigue you, beside anti-ICBM weapons?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2009 5:49:21 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 24, 2009 6:19:53 PM PST
Oh Marilyn, Marilyn, you really should try to involve yourself in some rational, critical thinking and analysis. ET UFOs really do not exist (the whole ET sub-culture as imagined by some people just does NOT make any sense), so we can't reverse engineer anything from them. That does NOT mean that we don't have a lot of serious, 'BLACK' projects going on, that are doing some pretty amazing thing. We are indeed, but reverse engineered from ET UFOs. Please.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2009 7:15:54 PM PST
To Marilyn Martin:
Well, I've always found railguns to be fascinating, and they have some great potential in the real world, as well.

In science fiction, there's an excellent depiction of a railgun (actually a coilgun) of interplanetary range in the novel Europa Strike by Ian Douglas.

Posted on Nov 10, 2009 8:52:18 PM PST
Ronald Craig says:
To anyone still following this thread...

Frederic Civish III has just revealed himself to be an alien-human hybrid in the pay of secret organizations trying to KEEP MARILYN FROM THE TRUTH and from PURSUING IT ON AMAZON FORUMS!!! (That "III" is actually a model number! Horrors of genetic tampering run amok! Eek!)

As a result, FC3 will now find himself on M&M's "Ignore this customer" list and have his future posts derided as hysterical naysaying.

This is actually a good thing! Hurray for FC3! Long live Marilyn, Marilyn, Marilyn, Marilyn, life is but a dream! :D

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 11, 2009 9:31:32 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 11, 2009 9:41:46 AM PST
Hi Walter!

I've been researching rail guns (or hypervelocity guns). Interesting! Below are some of the more interesting links about rail guns:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/wstf/laboratories/hypervelocity/index.htm
(NASA actually has a rail gun laboratory at White Sands.)

http://powerlabs.org/railgun2.html
(This guy explains and defines the rail gun he built.)

http://statejournal.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=20077
(An article from 2007, about a West Virginia research firm, "Utron, Inc.", which is working on a Navy project about a "155mm combustion light gas gun".)

Posted on Nov 13, 2009 9:43:03 AM PST
To anyone still following this discussion, I ran across a 2007 article in dailygalaxy.com (companion site to the Discovery Channels), about the world's first Atomic Laser - which was predicted by Einstein in 1925:

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/07/italian-scienti.html

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2009 9:53:53 AM PST
M. Helsdon says:
"To anyone still following this discussion, I ran across a 2007 article in dailygalaxy.com (companion site to the Discovery Channels), about the world's first Atomic Laser - which was predicted by Einstein in 1925"

Inaccurate: The first pulsed atom laser was demonstrated at MIT by Professor Wolfgang Ketterle in November 1996.

Posted on Nov 14, 2009 3:04:45 PM PST
OK, "You Tube" is the playground for future movie directors, rock songs to deafen you, and the how-many-people-can-I-fool? hoaxsters. That said, below are links to some "You Tube" videos about futuristic weaponry, mainly Russian. (Just turn off the sound first ...)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fn5K90j48Y&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiTCPoIufjc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bp2a_GtAhRc

Posted on Nov 17, 2009 8:14:24 AM PST
Interesting article in today's (11/17/09) nextbigfuture.com: DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY HAS A POSITIVE REPORT ON LOW-ENERGY NUCLEAR REACTIONS AKA COLD FUSION

(Sorry I can't post the URL, for some reason it only directs to my e-mail account.)
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 



Active discussions in related forums
Discussion Replies Latest Post
SwagBucks Thread 2510 1 minute ago
One click 52 6 minutes ago
My kindle won't turn on 1611 8 minutes ago
Out of print Bantam Star Trek books available for Kindle? 10 10 minutes ago
FBFM II 780 12 minutes ago
Worst Betrayl Ever!!! 9440 12 minutes ago
Dark and Gritty Abusive Relationships? 829 13 minutes ago
growing up with horror 871 17 minutes ago
 
   
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science Fiction forum
Participants:  57
Total posts:  1114
Initial post:  Oct 8, 2009
Latest post:  Nov 5, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 8 customers

Search Customer Discussions