Talk:Kinetic bombardment

message: I believe the article Rods from God should be merged into the larger and more general article Kinetic bombardment. Francisco Valverde 21:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is insufficient. An orbital kinetic bombardment weapon of the type described in the article is not going to behave like a ballistic missile test. While it may be possible to model orbital bombing using a dummy ICBM, there is no evidence to this effect, and I am certainly not going to assume it on your say-so. Redundant or otherwise, citation is required for Wikipedia, and you cannot use Wikipedia to cite itself.--Woerkilt (talk) 09:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article

message: People tend to forget that the firing stations would be in orbit meaning that they're moving with considerable tangential orbital velocity. This means that rockets will have to be fired to even de-orbit these things. So if you're going to have to fire rockets anyways, why not just put a rocket launcher in space. That's what it's going to take to de-orbit something.... 142.103.207.10 (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So like I said, you'll need to burn some rockets, so wouldn't it be much easier to just put a rocket launcher in space? It would accomplish the same thing, likely be more energy efficient, and give you more versatility in that you can deliver something other than metal rods (eg. you could pack the warhead with explosives). I just don't see the point in calling this some kind of new "kinetic bombardment" technology when it's just a glorified space-based rocket launcher. 142.103.207.10 (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In an aspect you are correct, the idea is a subtle difference in using gravity to provide the ultimate momentum for the impact.  A rocket projectile can only achieve a set maximum velocity as a function of the onboard propellant.  To achieve simmilar results you would need a massive quantity of propellant.  With a Kinetic bombardment system, the rocket used to establish trajectory is a very short burn, probably just a few seconds, then gravity provides the rest.  The result is a very energy efficient system that can trade fuel storage space for expanded payload (denser mass). The rocket just gives it a nudge to start moving instead of providing thrust to the final target.  Heck you could use a spring to do it as well (with the side effect of propelling your satellite in the opposite direction) attitude adjustment rockets are just alot easier. Halcyonforever (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Halcyonforever, what you said is true for conventional, earth-based rocket. Once you start firing rockets from space at planetary targets, anyone controlling such a weapons system will no doubt have to take gravity into consideration. My point is simply this: imagine we put a rocket launcher in space. Instead of a conventional warhead, we replace its payload with a huge mass of solid metal. Have we now not made a kinetic bombardment system? Is what I've just described not essentially the same as a kinetic bombardment system? If so, instead of inventing a fancy new name for it, isn't it more appropriate to call it an orbiting, space-based rocket launcher that happens to aim down at the planetary surface below it? My main concern about the article is that some readers may interpret this kinetic bombardment idea as being the same as dropping huge blocks like on Earth, but only from hundreds of kilometres up. Of course, we know that due to the "weightlessness" of orbit, just "dropping" an object isn't going to make it go anywhere. A rocket burn would be required and this is not clear from the article. 142.103.207.10 (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This wouldn't even work 

message: Some quick calculations:
33,201.1295 kg (weight of 20 ft x 1 ft tungsten rod)
Rod Cost: $1,660,056
Launch Cost: $142,134,035  ($4281 per kg, double for usa launch)
Impact energy: 1344640500000 Joule
0.321 kilotons of TNT (vs 13 kt Hiroshima)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.156.53 (talk) 05:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Costs

message: Halo2 and Red Lightning references should probably be removed, or moved to the relativistic bombardment/RKV article, because these are projectiles moving at 40% SoL(Halo2) or even "near" speed of light, whatever that means. That's relativistic bombardment.
While they are certainly an extreme case of kinetic bombardment, they differ from the more conventional kinetic bombardment in two ways: (1) even small projectiles (needle to arrow-sized) carry kinetic energy comparable to today's nuclear weapons, and (2) they don't gain most of their energy from the height difference while deorbiting an earth-sized body (or any planet for that matter).
Most importantly, the Halo2 concept of Super MACs uses slugs that heavy (100s of tonnes, exact figures are in the RKV article) and fast (40% SoL IIRC) that an impact near low earth orbit would result in collateral damage on earth's surface. Not to mention recoil. One shot would propel a Super MAC station backwards at 60 m/s even if we assume a 500t projectile and a station weighing one billion tonnes. User.Zero.Zero.Zero.One (talk) 10:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Fiction section

message: "One drawback of the system is that the weapon's sensors would almost certainly be blind during atmospheric reentry due to the plasma sheath that would develop ahead of it, so a mobile target could be difficult to hit if it performed any unexpected maneuvering.[citation needed] "
Isn't this self-evident?
Basesurge (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, definitely needs a citation.  Only in very clear cases of common knowledge are citations not needed.  This isn't one of them.  --Leivick (talk) 
hitting a moving target whilst blind is hard needs a citation? 
01:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was self-evident, then the world wouldn't see so many popular misconceptions. Even Jerry Pournelle, the man who helped to invent THOR, failed to publicize the problem. Read *Footfall* and you'll get a description of an anti-tank crowbar with an electro-optical sensor mounted right at the nose, right where the worse of the air friction and compression would be.--Woerkilt (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose amending the entry in the article to read, "One drawback of the system is that any forward-looking sensors on the weapon would be blinded, if not actually destroyed, by air friction and compression. A manuevering target would be unlikely to be hit." To support this statement, use the same sources cited in the articles on atmospheric re-entry, where the effects of re-entry on the forward parts of the vehicle, and the optimal re-entry designs are discussed. Also, I've found a Union of Concerned scientists booklet that I am studying, since it seems to discuss orbital warfare. I'll get back you guys on that. Finally, I would look into any sources about the feasibility of using gyroscopes for ballistic aiming, or a tail-mounted transciever to allow an indirect active guidance via a spotting satallite.--Woerkilt (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

text: The encyclopedia is intended for people who don't know much about the subject they're reading about; that's why they're reading the article.  Moreover imprecise statements like "a few minutes" are just the kind of thing a decent reference, from a reliable source, will avoid - it's not clear whether "a few" means "two" or "twenty". -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

text: And remember that the intended audience for an article can be very wide.  For this one it might be a 10 year old who just played Fallout 3 and wants to know if Highwater-Trousers has any credibility, or a history graduate working in public policy who is researching the defence policy implications of space weaponisation, or a journalist reacting to an announcement that some government has deployed some device that might resemble Thor.  None of these people can be expected to have a clue about orbital mechanics, and we don't exclude them just because it's supposedly obvious to someone who does. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was blatantly obvious to anyone who knows anything about orbital mechanics, then the article would not hold to the vague statement of a "few minutes" or a "world-wide range". A bunker-buster THOR projectile, approximately 20 meters long by one meter in diameter, will take a minimum of 30 minutes using the fastest feasible delta-v. This is according to calculations some engineering students made for me. We determined that using a more gradual perigree intersection will take a minimum of 45 minutes. None of this includes the time it takes to actually get the launch platform on station for the appropriate launch window. Because those windows of opportunity are limited, a network of THOR systems will be required for world-wide coverage. I propose the statement in the article to be ammended--once appropriate sources are found--to something like, "The time between deorbiting and impact is comparable to an ICBM at 30 to 45 minutes [or whatever the sources actually specify]. A network of THOR systems could provide global bombardment coverage."--Woerkilt (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation needed?

message: The lead phrase "A kinetic bombardment is the act of attacking a planetary surface with an inert projectile" kind of suggests it is something that has been used in the past, or is currently deployed.
Obviously this idea is refuted by the rest of the article, but nonetheless would it be worth including some more clarification that this is a theoretical and sci-fi concept rather than something used currently?
Even using the phrase "A kinetic bombardment is the hypothetical act of attacking a planetary surface with an inert de-orbited projectile" or something similar, would clarify it without much changing the substance of the lead. Any thoughts about this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by OneCatch (talk • contribs) 15:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead paragraph may suggest it is a currently used tactic 

message: Maybe worth looking into, I'm fairly certain that the first ever reference to Orbital Kinetic Strikes in any videogame was in Tom Clancy's Endwar  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.60.225 (talk) 22:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: references in sci-fi

message: I would like to make some simple observations that might contribute to discussions regarding this topic.
1. One major criticism with this kinetic concept as one comment here at WIKI TALK explains with math is that free fall from space will not allow a usable object (perhaps a one ton pole) from obtaining sufficient energy to destroy an imagined underground target. It is therefore necessary to add to descent speed with additional energy via rocket propellent (which would add to the overall weight)
2. Such an external (and aft placed) booster could also supply some steering via the mode being tested on the X 51 project for a hypersonic missile. I think this would at least allow the mathematics of the energy released to be sufficient for the weapon's intended purpose --which is to destroy deeply buried targets. I note the Nike anti-nuke defense systems (via Hercules boosters) from the 1970s could lift (against gravity) payloads in seconds to significant mach speeds. Such filmed launches can be seen on open sources. It would not be very difficult to accelerate the rod downward faster than free fall. 
3. The next BIG question is how such a fast moving object would react upon striking the earth's surface. Would not rail gun tests scaled down to size show us what happens? Forgive the pun, but this is not rocket science. Some scientists claim such speeds would result in the rod being vaporized and the energy converted into undamaging heat. What is the proof? Others claim extremely fast objects of moderate size have struck the moon leaving craters. Determining what actually happens should not be beyond the realm of experimentation. It might be found that the concussion downward would have a devastating effect. Our own super MOABs which the US has threatened to use on Iran's Fordow achieves its lethality in the explosion, not driving mass downward.
4. Another criticism is that traveling at such hypersonic speeds would melt the rod. Perhaps ceramics could be effective on the rod's surface. Theoretically perhaps, an artificially generated plasma (a different technology that has yet to be demonstrated so I won't go into here) could keep the thermal heat a safe distance from the rod's surface. This might allow a range of metals that could be used for such rods. Tungsten is expensive. In any case, I am not making an economic case for building a rod weapon beyond the consequences an enemy's deeply buried site presents in the long term. In any case, the thermal problem is being addressed in the US hypersonic project and appears not to be a deal breaker. Again, rail gun tests should be able to shed some light on the thermal and impact issues.
5. Would the heat generated at plus mach 20 speeds cause a fusion reaction with atmosphere? I have no clue but I rather doubt looking at the rods coming down might not be a good idea. 
6. In theory, a SpaceX plane could lift off with two rods to a high altitude. Boosters could take each into LEO. Small thrusters could change orbits and initiate return. There appears no greater cost to this transport than the planned entertainment of commercial travelers on Virgin. 
I think the above moves us past the usual gridlock in the debate of this topic......
Maxtrue (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read The Wikipedia Talk Page Guidelines. This page is not for the discussion of kinetic bombardment in general, but for discussions about ways to improve the article Kinetic bombardment. While it certainly is an interesting topic, it's just not appropriate to talk about it here. Unless you're proposing changes to the article, there's really no justification for this. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some common sense ideas regarding Rods from God 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kinetic bombardment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828221908/http://www.jerrypournelle.com/archives2/archives2mail/mail404.html to http://www.jerrypournelle.com/archives2/archives2mail/mail404.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)