Cap'n Refsmmat

I've heard of the idea of using enriched uranium rods launched from space as bunker busters. Here is how it works:

A satelite carrying the guided rods ejects one downwards out of orbit. Because orbital velocity is 17300 mph, the rod has great speed and penetrating power. When the rod hits the atmosphere it points downwards, transferring the horizontal velocity to vertical at 17300. It is now pointing at the target going straight down. When it hits the target at great speed it shoots through the ground to a predetermined depth. It then explodes and destroys the bunker.

Do you think this is possible?

You mean the energy to pull it to the planet? A small rocket or spring ejects it from the satelite. When it hits the atmosphere it then points down to the target, turning horizontal motion into vertical.

I'm starting a thread about this. This thread is supposed to be about anti-energy weapons.

I mean, hold your hand holding the bucket out so the bucket swings and hits your head.

I guess my book wasn't very specific.

The theory is, do enough studies and you prove your point.

Sayonara³ said in post #46 :

Oh I forgot to say...

 

I know these documentaries about things like the nazca lines go all mysterious and say "oooooh we can't explain it."

 

It's actually not true. We can explain things like that - there is no mystery we don't have any explanations for. Explanations are easy. The only hard bit is proving which explanation is the right one.

 

Don't be misled by "popular science"

They must do it for the ratings.

Impossible considering what they said... but now I'm not sure they were right... but the henges are in a pattern!

A forum full of what? I hope thats not an insult.

Radical ++++++ said in post #70 :

 

so how are you going to get the rod to hit the earth at 17,300 mph, give or take a bit.

 

imagine a little thought experiment. you have a bucket full of water, and you are spinning it round on a rope, and the bucket is travelling with a velocity of say, 5m/s. your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to hit yourself in the head with this bucket at a velocity of at least 5m/s.

Simple. Move your arm out a bit so the rope's length is from your hand to your head. Bonk!

Sayonara³ said in post #71 :

If he can't apply the rules of angular momentum, acceleration due to gravity, Newtonian motion etc to an object in orbit, what makes you think he can apply them to a bucket on a rope?

Hey!

Radical ++++++ said in post #72 :

 

actually geostationary is just a special case of geosynchronous. geostationary stays in exactly the same place all the time, geosynchronous has a period of 24h, and may wobble up and down, or do anything else that orbital mechanics allows. so long as it gets back to where it started every 24h, it is geosynchronous. note that I am not including harmonics here i.e. a 12h orbit.

No, no, no. Geostationary only stays in the same place relative to the earth. Not in space. Geosynchrous is the same. At least that is what the book I read said. It seems you disagree with my book.

<edit> To make it hit the earth at 17300 mph I would have little wings that convert horizontal velocity to vertical velocity.

Not cia, SS. Did you hear me say there was a bullet hole in the windsheild of the car? And it was an entry hole? And then they took it and destroyed it? Sounds conspiracy to me!

But it's not goot enough for other people.

Sayonara³ said in post #39 :

 

Nobody made a straight line:

 

1) Group A builds a henge in Location 1,

 

2) Group B builds a henge in Location 2,

 

3) 3500 years pass,

 

4) Someone points out that if they draw a direct line between locations 1 and 2 it is straight, and we're all meant to be surprised.

 

The henges in Britain are not "arranged in a complex geometric pattern" other than one that has been artificially superimposed by someone such as yourself.

Whoa! The straight is in the Nazca Lines, not the henges!

Why pop?

Yeah, feedback and The Last Word is good.

aman said in post #63 :

Thank you MrL, There is an easy source of mass on the moon and I think the escape velocity from the equator there is less than 2,000 mph.

Escape velecity is around 5000 mph.

MrL_JaKiri said in post #56 :

The 17,300mph is the centripetal velocity (I doubt that any weapons satellite would be in geostationary orbit; they'd be in low, small, quick orbits like the spy satellites).

 

Here's an example of why you don't add that on:

 

When you drop a ball from (say) 2m, does it move forward?

 

No.

 

That's because it's attracted to a central point, and all rest frames are valid (remember, from the perspective of the surface of the earth, a geostationary orbit is, well, stationary).

That 17,300 is relative to the earth. If it was moving around the equator, it would be going 17300 faster than the rotation of the earth. When you drop a ball like that, of course it doesn't move forward, it's moving just as fast as the earth. Any satelite except ones in geostationary orbit (the correct term being geosynchrous orbit) are moving faster than the earth, unless they are in a high inclination orbit.

I thought it was the sodium in it, because sodium burns on contact with water. But I must be mistaken. Pity that happens a lot.

I'd like to know too. I'll be reading and suddenly I start thinking about loads of stuff, but my eyes will still be moving. Then I will snap out of it and I have to reread so I know where I was.

Or you could use those pills with the tiny camera in it that takes pictures and transmits them by radio. It even has flash!

MrL_JaKiri said in post #20 :

New Scientist isn't a journal dude. At best it's a pop science political rag.

 

ps.

 

You speak craziness, earth boy.

Excuse me? Speak for yourself! It is a journal! I have about 200 issues of it! And it IS a good journal! I learned a lot from it.

Boy, you hit a nerve.

Oh, and "ether" has been proven not to exist. I think the theory was nuts. :bs: I'll explain later.

No, no, no. The nazca lines were created by a giant snowball being rolled across the ground. This was when the area was much colder. The native people wanted to make a giant snowman, so as they rolled it it made the lines.

Depends on relative to what. Relative from outside the universe (if that is possible) then maybe, unless the universe is part of a larger thing, so it is moving, and so on. We cannot find out unless we know that the universe is all there is.

But modern bunker busters can't even go a hundred feet down. They are limited to about 20.

Yes, it is guided. Yes, if the nose is thick enough it will melt slowly away like an ablative heat shield and keep it from being fried.

Why doesn't it get 17300 of velocity? The satelite is going that fast so if it is launched from the satelite it will be going that fast.

<edit> I just realized, the lower the orbit the faster. So it will get even faster before getting out of orbit. What do you say I make a new thread so this one can GET ON TOPIC! This thread is going down the toilet! :toilet: It's supposed to be anti-energy weapons!

I meant stationary is not possible. Sorry.

AIN'T? AAAAAAAAAAH! Make that two out of six.

How are they doable? How can you make a straight line like that without good surveying equipment? And how to make a geometric shape over hundreds of miles?

Let me just clarify the whole thing.

There are guided uranium rods mounted on a space station or satelite. The satelite ejects them downward and so it now gets out of orbit and is hurtling toward the target. When it is high above the target (I'm revising what I said previously) it turns so it is going straight down toward the target. It steadily accelerates until it plows into the under groundtarget, destroying it.

The advantages of mounting it in space is that it can be ready all the time, instead of launched at a certain time. It also gives it 17300 mph.

Oh, and if you wonder "but the satelite will be over the target every 90 minutes because it's orbiting" hows about mountint it in geosynchrous orbit 22.300 miles high. Then you need only four satelites to cover the whole earth.