Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Space Based Weapons Study 26

Posted by michael from the tungsten-rods-dropped-from-500-miles-up dept.
anzha writes "Space.com is running an article on a RAND study about space based weapons and their potential effects on wars on more solid ground. Fascinating stuff."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Space Based Weapons Study More

Space Based Weapons Study

Comments Filter:

  • Some questions (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ObviousGuy ( 578567 )
    Space weapons have been debated intensely in the past. The latest instance of prominent debate is over their use for ballistic missile defense. But this is not the only possible role for space weapons, and that fact raises a further concern: What if an adversary were to develop such weapons? Could one? Why would it?

    - Rand
    • What I am afraid of is that there may be little strategic benifit to space weapons, or that alternatively, once the US has them, either everone will try to get some, or they will be used as a strategic threat for the USification of the world.
  • From the article:
    Then there are the thunder rods. Tossed down from orbit, these long and slender kinetic-energy devices use their own mass and very high velocity to create a destructive effect.

    Lastly, for those looking for a celestial "big whopper" of a weapon, how about using natural meteoroids? Good-sized fireballs of metal could be sent to Earth, aimed at targets of choice. These impactors leave a nice crater.

    so the only really reasonable weapons are basicly fancy hi tech names for dropping an anvil on the other guys head like they do in Looney Toons. Finally, my sig is appropriate ;)

    • Yeah, I didn't understand what they were talking about there. If you drop something while you're in orbit, it won't fall, it will just keep orbiting right beside you. If you throw it down, my guess is that it forms an eliptical orbit.

      So the question is how fast do you have to throw it down so that the ellipse is narrow enough that it hits the earth?

    • Looney Tunes? Star Wars? Granted, although we never saw much in the way of orbit-to-surface weaponry in the movies. However, mention of these 'thunder rods' puts me in mind of one of my favorite and oh-so-hard-to-find-nowadays games:
      Synidcate Wars.
      Specifically, the weapon referred to therein as 'Satellite Rain'. Ah, memories...
      Does this mean the electron maces, persuadertrons, graviton guns, and spider mechs are next? Cool!
  • ..would be soundwaves in my opinion. Bring a X terawatt soundsystem in orbit and play the latest Shakira song. Devastating effect..

  • In the basement at Rand headquarters (Score:3, Funny)

    by Hard_Code ( 49548 ) on Thursday May 16, 2002 @07:26AM (#3528967)
    Eric: *puff* so here we are again guys
    Fez: Hey hey, let's play that game...joo know...where we think about ways to annihilate ourselves from space! *puff*
    Kelso: Yeah! Annihilation! Cool! *puff*
    Hyde: *puff* Ok - check this out - what if we like put LASERS up on satellites, and like, shoot people from space. Like in Star Wars!
    Eric: Haha yeah! *puff* No no wait - what if we just toss junk down and let the kinetic energy gained through falling through earth's atmosphere yeild an inexpensive but highly destructive bomb!
    Kelso: Like bowling balls!
    Fez: Well, guys, what if we just divert asteroids that are already up there? You know not *all* of us have money for expensive space programs.
    Eric: *puff* But...wait...what if something happens to our satellites?
    Hyde: *puff* Like anti-satellites?
    Fez: Aye...we need like anti-anti-satellites!
    Kelso: I say we just drop conventional weapons - this sci fi stuff is too confusing.
    Donna: *snorkle* Hahahah...You said balls!
  • ...is the use of orbital lasers for antiaircraft work (unless I just missed it). Reason being that if you can force an enemy airforce below 30k ft (9k m) you have an immense advantage in an airwar. (Below 30k feet the laser's beam tends to have too much in the way of atmospheric problems).

    Another thing that startled me is that they are talking about using HF (hydrogen flouride) lasers. While definitely cheaper than DF (deuterium flouride), their atmospheric propogation sucks raw eggs.

    Additionally, no mention of solid state lasers like the one [llnl.gov] Lawrence Livermore National Labs [llnl.gov] is developing for HELSTF [army.mil] is made. FEL's are, but they're slower going work than the SSL's seem to be.

  • Links (Score:3, Informative)

    by kryzx ( 178628 ) on Thursday May 16, 2002 @10:08AM (#3529889) Homepage Journal
    Here are some links to related info:

    lots of good pix here
    http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/sbl.htm [fas.org]

    a paper on SBL for missile defense
    http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/docs/98-16 5.htm [fas.org]

    SBL fact sheet (PDF)
    http://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/bmdolink/pdf/sbl.pdf [osd.mil]

    Missile Defense Agency homepage
    http://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/bmdolink/html/bmdolink . tml [osd.mil]

    other links
    http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/md/sbl/ [boeing.com]
    http://www.sbl.losangeles.af.mil/Divisions/FrontOf fice/body.htm [af.mil]
    http://www.trw.com/presskits/detailinfo/0,1067,2_1 2^2^12^40,FF.html [trw.com]

Slashdot Top Deals

Bus error -- please leave by the rear door.

Close