ICBM Question
Space Cadet
hit a target in orbit? Does the typical silo based ICBM,(I assume
that sub launched missiles would have shorter ranges) have enough fuel
to reach orbit? Or rather what is the max altitude that you could
send an ICBM and then have it detonate?
EMP Effects, are they caused by the nuke itself or the nuke’s
detonation in the atmosphere? At whatever max alt the nuke reaches is
there enough atmosphere to generate an EMP effect on the area below
it?
In your typical ‘Aliens invade Earth’ senario, you have a fleet of
alien warships in orbit
And have somehow become disabled to where they don’t have shields up,
unable to manuver out of the way or shoot the missiles down, would
that be a good idea to try or really despirate thing to do or just a
really bad idea?
Just my $0.02
Space Cadet
derwetzelsDASHspacecadetATyahooDOTcom
Moon Society - St. Louis Chapter
http://www.moonsociety.org/chapters/stlouis/
The Moon Society is a non-profit educational and
scientific foundation formed to further scientific
study and development of the moon.
Michael Ash
> Suppose for whatever reason, you needed to launch an ICBM and try to
> hit a target in orbit? Does the typical silo based ICBM,(I assume
> that sub launched missiles would have shorter ranges) have enough fuel
> to reach orbit? Or rather what is the max altitude that you could
> send an ICBM and then have it detonate?
Recall that reaching an orbital altitude and reaching *orbit* are two very
different things. Orbit requires not only the altitude but also the
velocity. This is why SpaceShipOne goes to space for a few minutes but the
Shuttle stays up for days or weeks.
Anyway, turns out that the ballistic trajectory that gets an ICBM to the
other side of the planet is pretty high. I think a typical ICBM will peak
at around 1000km, although this depends a fair bit on the individual model
of ICBM.
If you're hitting a target, you'll need pretty precise timing to get close
to it, since you won't be matching velocities, so the relative speed will
be quite high. I don't know if ICBM software can handle this problem but
the hardware ought to be capable enough, since it's alerady doing this and
more.
--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
Raghar
> Suppose for whatever reason, you needed to launch an ICBM and try to
> hit a target in orbit?
You'd need to change last stage of the missile, or current ICBMs don't
have any changce in hell.
> Does the typical silo based ICBM,(I assume
> that sub launched missiles would have shorter ranges) have enough fuel
> to reach orbit?
2000 km possibly yes.
On the other hand a minimal altitude (above ground) for an orbital
bombardment is 3000 km, 30000 km is preferable.
> Or rather what is the max altitude that you could
> send an ICBM and then have it detonate?
Ask chinese. They used similar missile with different warhead.
> EMP Effects, are they caused by the nuke itself or the nuke’s
> detonation in the atmosphere? At whatever max alt the nuke reaches is
> there enough atmosphere to generate an EMP effect on the area below
> it?
EMP is caused by an interaction of nuke and an atmopshere. It creates
an artifical belt that in about 10 years fries satelites between its
original altitude and a natural electromagnetic belt.
> In your typical ‘Aliens invade Earth’ senario, you have a fleet of
> alien warships in orbit
> And have somehow become disabled to where they don’t have shields up,
> unable to manuver out of the way or shoot the missiles down, would
> that be a good idea to try or really despirate thing to do or just a
> really bad idea?
Think a little. What would they want? Why would they even tried to
line for turkey shot? A spacefaring civilization can't be stupid and
they quite likely to have a plan B.
Have you seen project A-ko? In first episode aliens lost one ship. In
fourth episode aliens deployed plan B. (With words: marriage we can't
allow it.)
Raghar
> If you're hitting a target, you'll need pretty precise timing to get close
> to it, since you won't be matching velocities, so the relative speed will
> be quite high. I don't know if ICBM software can handle this problem but
> the hardware ought to be capable enough, since it's alerady doing this and
> more.
Bwahahahaha, not even Topol - M
It's somehow different problem, and it requires targeting equipment
and real time processing of information.
Erik Max Francis
> Space Cadet <kaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Suppose for whatever reason, you needed to launch an ICBM and try to
>> hit a target in orbit? Does the typical silo based ICBM,(I assume
>> that sub launched missiles would have shorter ranges) have enough fuel
>> to reach orbit? Or rather what is the max altitude that you could
>> send an ICBM and then have it detonate?
>
> Recall that reaching an orbital altitude and reaching *orbit* are two very
> different things. Orbit requires not only the altitude but also the
> velocity. This is why SpaceShipOne goes to space for a few minutes but the
> Shuttle stays up for days or weeks.
>
> Anyway, turns out that the ballistic trajectory that gets an ICBM to the
> other side of the planet is pretty high. I think a typical ICBM will peak
> at around 1000km, although this depends a fair bit on the individual model
> of ICBM.
Yeah, googling around it looks like most ICBMs can get to 1200-1300 km
altitude with their standard payloads. Many, like the Titan II, can get
to escape with much smaller payloads, but of course that doesn't really
help us here.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human
history is shaped. -- John F. Kennedy
Erik Max Francis
>> Does the typical silo based ICBM,(I assume
>> that sub launched missiles would have shorter ranges) have enough fuel
>> to reach orbit?
>
> 2000 km possibly yes.
The peak looks to be 1200-1300 km apogee.
> On the other hand a minimal altitude (above ground) for an orbital
> bombardment is 3000 km, 30000 km is preferable.
This looks just made up.
Michael Ash
> On Aug 24, 9:18?pm, Michael Ash <m...@mikeash.com> wrote:
>
>> If you're hitting a target, you'll need pretty precise timing to get close
>> to it, since you won't be matching velocities, so the relative speed will
>> be quite high. I don't know if ICBM software can handle this problem but
>> the hardware ought to be capable enough, since it's alerady doing this and
>> more.
>
> Bwahahahaha, not even Topol - M
Could you explain exactly what it is you're laughing at here?
> It's somehow different problem, and it requires targeting equipment
> and real time processing of information.
Only if you want to get extremely close. If your nuke is powerful enough
that you can live with being a couple of seconds off, then simply
launching on the proper trajectory at the exact right time with the nuke
on a timer should be enough. Of course if the target is at orbital speed
then you're going to need a very powerful weapon to be able to handle a
couple of seconds' of error.
It occurs to me that if your apogee is exactly on the target's orbit, then
to a first approximation the warhead will just sit there as the target
whooshes past, since the acceleration due to gravity is so much smaller
than the target's speed. So a better jury-riggable solution might be to
wire the nuke to detonate by remote control, then blow it up at the proper
moment based on radar data.
Michael Ash
> Michael Ash wrote:
>
>> Space Cadet <kaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Suppose for whatever reason, you needed to launch an ICBM and try to
>>> hit a target in orbit? Does the typical silo based ICBM,(I assume
>>> that sub launched missiles would have shorter ranges) have enough fuel
>>> to reach orbit? Or rather what is the max altitude that you could
>>> send an ICBM and then have it detonate?
>>
>> Recall that reaching an orbital altitude and reaching *orbit* are two very
>> different things. Orbit requires not only the altitude but also the
>> velocity. This is why SpaceShipOne goes to space for a few minutes but the
>> Shuttle stays up for days or weeks.
>>
>> Anyway, turns out that the ballistic trajectory that gets an ICBM to the
>> other side of the planet is pretty high. I think a typical ICBM will peak
>> at around 1000km, although this depends a fair bit on the individual model
>> of ICBM.
>
> Yeah, googling around it looks like most ICBMs can get to 1200-1300 km
> altitude with their standard payloads. Many, like the Titan II, can get
> to escape with much smaller payloads, but of course that doesn't really
> help us here.
It might, depending on just how off-the-shelf the weapon needs to be. If
you have a weapon that is normally used with MIRVs, then removing some of
the extra warheads would give you more altitude. But I don't know how easy
that modification would be or if it's the kind of thing you could do while
under attack by aliens.
Allen Thomson
> Yeah, googling around it looks like most ICBMs can get to 1200-1300 km
> altitude with their standard payloads.
That's what they *do* get to on a normal ICBM trajectory. For the
altitude they *could* get to, there's a reasonably good rule of thumb
that says that a missile that can deliver a payload mass M to a
maximum range R can lift the same M straight up to an altitude of R/
2. So if an ICBM range is like +- 10,000 km, the maximum attainable
altitude with the same payload mass is ~ 5,000 km (the exact number is
about 90% that).
See Section 8 in http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/space_weapons/the-physics-of-space-security.html
John Schilling
wrote:
>On Aug 24, 7:54 pm, Space Cadet <kaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Suppose for whatever reason, you needed to launch an ICBM and try to
>> hit a target in orbit?
>You'd need to change last stage of the missile, or current ICBMs don't
>have any changce in hell.
Unless you're talking about current ICBMs like the R-36M2 aka SS-18, the
DF-5 aka CSS-4, or for that matter even the R-29RM/SS-N-23 SLBM, all
of which can reach orbit in their stock configuration, and which are
in fact marketed for that purpose.
They are, in this role, limited to payloads somewhat smaller than the
usual compliment of thermonuclear warheads, but even the R-29RM could
probably manage a singe, modest warhead to LEO.
>> Does the typical silo based ICBM,(I assume
>> that sub launched missiles would have shorter ranges) have enough fuel
>> to reach orbit?
>2000 km possibly yes.
>On the other hand a minimal altitude (above ground) for an orbital
>bombardment is 3000 km, 30000 km is preferable.
Out of curiosity, why do you think this? The actual Soviet FOBS
operated at a much lower altitude; there doesn't seem to be any
reason why going to full orbits (or conventional payloads) would
require higher altitudes.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*John.Sc...@alumni.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
Raghar
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 19:42:27 -0700 (PDT), Raghar <Ragha...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Aug 24, 7:54 pm, Space Cadet <kaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Suppose for whatever reason, you needed to launch an ICBM and try to
> >> hit a target in orbit?
> >You'd need to change last stage of the missile, or current ICBMs don't
> >have any changce in hell.
>
> Unless you're talking about current ICBMs like the R-36M2 aka SS-18, the
> DF-5 aka CSS-4, or for that matter even the R-29RM/SS-N-23 SLBM, all
> of which can reach orbit in their stock configuration, and which are
> in fact marketed for that purpose.
>
> They are, in this role, limited to payloads somewhat smaller than the
> usual compliment of thermonuclear warheads, but even the R-29RM could
> probably manage a singe, modest warhead to LEO.
>
> >> Does the typical silo based ICBM,(I assume
> >> that sub launched missiles would have shorter ranges) have enough fuel
> >> to reach orbit?
> >2000 km possibly yes.
> >On the other hand a minimal altitude (above ground) for an orbital
> >bombardment is 3000 km, 30000 km is preferable.
>
> Out of curiosity, why do you think this? The actual Soviet FOBS
> operated at a much lower altitude; there doesn't seem to be any
> reason why going to full orbits (or conventional payloads) would
> require higher altitudes.
It's simple attacker would like to increase distance from the ground
to increase reaction time of the defender (and a situational
awareness). In addition the attacker would like to dwell for more than
five minutes above the target area. Strafing for few minutes and then
be forced to assault different area just because angle has became too
steep, could cause problems. In addition being at higher energy orbit
has it's advantages.
The upper limit is caused by a weapon ability. For a laser, green
wavelength is optimal for assaulting Earth surface, which actually
puts fairly rigid limit on minimal distance for normal ship. (of
course nothing prevents few alien ships from making a butterfly
maneuver few light seconds away)
Derek Lyons
>On Aug 26, 4:21 am, John Schilling <schil...@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
>
>> Out of curiosity, why do you think this? The actual Soviet FOBS
>> operated at a much lower altitude; there doesn't seem to be any
>> reason why going to full orbits (or conventional payloads) would
>> require higher altitudes.
>
>It's simple attacker would like to increase distance from the ground
>to increase reaction time of the defender
In the real world, the goal is to decrease the reaction time of the
defender.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Raghar
> In the real world, the goal is to decrease the reaction time of the
> defender.
>
Not all wars are resolved by surprise attacks. For example in naval
combat, it's somewhat irrelevant for defender to see a Moskit, when he
has 3/10 chance to be hit anyway.
Lasers. 1/100 s reaction time for defender.
Missiles: While enemy would see them coming, the important part is
ability of simultaneous impacts.
Both of these weapon types could cause large damage to defender, no
matter how large is defender's reaction time.
John Schilling
wrote:
>On Aug 28, 5:23 am, fairwa...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:
But they don't cause *more* damage just because the defender can see
them coming.
You were previously arguing that orbital bombardment weapons would be
based at very high altitudes *because* this would increase the response
time. You can't justify this just by saying "sometimes response time
doesn't matter". Sometimes response time does matter, and when it does
matter you pretty much always want it to be as short as possible. If
for some wierd reason you want the response time to be longer in any
particular case, you can always simply wait that much longer before
shooting - and maybe give the enemy a live feed of your countdown timer,
if that matters.
So you really haven't done much in the way of supporting your earlier
claim that orbital bombardment weapons would be deliberately positioned
to take longer than necessary to reach their targets.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*John.S...@alumni.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
Michael Ash
> If
> for some wierd reason you want the response time to be longer in any
> particular case, you can always simply wait that much longer before
> shooting - and maybe give the enemy a live feed of your countdown timer,
> if that matters.
At last, all those James Bond movies begin to make sense.
Raghar
> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 18:22:49 -0700 (PDT), Raghar <Ragha...@gmail.com>
A increase in response time could save sorry hide of the attacker.
Imagine a situation when 30 people would get assault riffles, and fire
against another 30 people with assault riffles at short distance. It
will be over quickly with 6/10 casualty rates.
Imagine an another situation when 1 person would be camouflaged and
try to hit another person camouflaged 2 km away. It could take days.
Now which situation would be preferred by soldiers? Obviously the
second, because they'd have higher chance for survival even with equal
chances for fulfilling the mission.
ScottW...@gmail.com
Snipers do not exist to "Increase the response time of the defender,"
If anything the point is to decrease it. When 30 people with assault
rifles engage 30 other people with assault rifles, they defenders
begin to respond when the attackers open fire. When a sniper shoots
the defender in the head, they have no response time, as they have no
chance to respond.
Derek Lyons
>On Aug 28, 5:23 am, fairwa...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:
>
>> In the real world, the goal is to decrease the reaction time of the
>> defender.
>>
>
>Not all wars are resolved by surprise attacks.
So what? In the real world, the goal is decrease the reaction time of
the defender. Period.