|
The mission the Air Force talked about for the shuttle which is why it looks like it does doesn't really need armament. Up into a polar orbit and back down in one orbit requires a great many things, including an arm to steal satellites, but it doesn't require weapons.
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 04:46 |
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Yeah, that's what I was talking about Well except that there actually ARE treaties about that
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:The mission the Air Force talked about for the shuttle which is why it looks like it does doesn't really need armament. Up into a polar orbit and back down in one orbit requires a great many things, including an arm to steal satellites, but it doesn't require weapons. That's the old shuttle, though. This tiny rear end automated thing? God knows wha it does. I doubt it's armed though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
From what I know blowing up satellites makes poo poo harder for you in the future anyway, since now you have a bunch of scrap floating around threatening to knock your crap out of orbit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
Also your own space segment is pretty damned vulnerable too. Similar to escalating nuclear war, I expect that eliminating the orbital capabilities of a Russia or China would see the US segment knocked out in short order as well; if you want to preserve your own, you probably have to let the enemy have his. A better goal might be to characterize and listen in on enemy birds, which the X-37B might well be capable of doing, I really have no idea. It's worth keeping in mind how small the X-37B is too. While the shuttle always catches people off guard with how damned huge it is, the X-37B is the size of a small truck: 
PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 01:44 on Jan 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 01:40
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
It is safe to say we are all incredibly curious about what the christ it does but will probably be a while before anyone on the outside knows short of a Snowden like leak.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
Its all well in good until someone fucks up, says the wrong thing, and suddenly the Martians are invading.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
Back Hack posted:Funny you mention that, the GAU-19 just came out. OK, this is what my world-war 2-esque low tech drone swarms will fire
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
Hubis posted:Well except that there actually ARE treaties about that well yeah, but if the Russians can play loose with treaties.....  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZlqqO_AyYA Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 11:27 on Jan 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 11:25
|
|
|
Gunship 2000 and M1 Tank Platoon 2 loving owned and anyone who preferred Novalogic was bad and dumb.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 12:27
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:Well A-10's are going out of service soon. Seems like the perfect argument for a police handout. Hubis posted:Guys I think I know what to do with all those perfectly good A-10s we are just going to waste 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
Not gonna lie, I could totally see that happening in the Fallout universe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
I'm a little disappointed the Maverick still says USAF and not something like "To Protect and Serve," or assuming it's an early TV Maverick, "Always Watching"
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Gunship 2000 and M1 Tank Platoon 2 loving owned and anyone who preferred Novalogic was bad and dumb. "Sabot, up! On the wayyyyyy"
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:From what I know blowing up satellites makes poo poo harder for you in the future anyway, since now you have a bunch of scrap floating around threatening to knock your crap out of orbit. Yep. If it gets bad enough, you run into Kessler syndrome. I actually saw a proposal to weaponize this effect; a few thousand tons of gravel spread at roughly ballistic missile altitude should be sufficient to neuter any missile attack, although it would also destroy everything else in orbit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
The ISS is ~400 tons. It is in low earth orbit. It is presently the most expensive object ever made by mankind by a wide margin. Launching several thousand tons of gravel into LEO would be, mildly put, prohibitively expensive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
I guess it's better than your entire country getting blown up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:well yeah, but if the Russians can play loose with treaties..... Thankfully the Brits are there to keep the peace
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Alaan posted:I guess it's better than your entire country getting blown up. Except you just hosed up anything that relies on satellites and wrecked a lot expensive things that belong to other countries, so chances are you going to get blown up anyway, just with more conventional methods.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
It would just be cheaper to pay off the country threatening to attack you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Also wouldn't stop endoatmospheric weapons delivery. Always another fear, isn't there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:It would just be cheaper to pay off the country threatening to attack you. tell that to Chamberlain e: I'm being flippant, and also unfair to Chamberlain, but the point remains: appeasement depends entirely on whether or not monetary compensation is actually something the other side is willing to settle for, and more importantly is something they're willing to settle for long-term. The same is true of any form of negotiation, really, except that in this case there's the particular double-whammy of reducing your own available options (violent or nonviolent) while enhancing theirs. in short, relying on rational decisionmaking out of humans is dumb and foolish, because we're all idiots Psion fucked around with this message at 20:15 on Jan 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
Sperglord Actual posted:Not gonna lie, I could totally see that happening in
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
Mazz posted:I'm a little disappointed the Maverick still says USAF and not something like "To Protect and Serve," or assuming it's an early TV Maverick, "Always Watching" We're going to protect and serve the poo poo out of you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:The ISS is ~400 tons. It is in low earth orbit. It is presently the most expensive object ever made by mankind by a wide margin. Launching several thousand tons of gravel into LEO would be, mildly put, prohibitively expensive. Sure, if you're using rockets. Nuclear shotguns work great. Dig an appropriately-angled mineshaft, put in nuke. Fill. Detonate nuke. A calculable and nontrivial amount of the fillends up in orbit. On the order of dozens of tons per 100kt.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:Except you just hosed up anything that relies on satellites and wrecked a lot expensive things that belong to other countries, so chances are you going to get blown up anyway, just with more conventional methods. In the 1960s, Project West Ford involved launching 480,000,000 copper needles into orbit in order to test a communications system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_West_Ford
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Gunship 2000 and M1 Tank Platoon 2 loving owned and anyone who preferred Novalogic was bad and dumb. You better not be talking poo poo about F-22 Lightning II 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
Psion posted:tell that to Chamberlain Uh, Hitler might very well have been persuaded by a trillion US dollars. When I said "prohibitively expensive," I meant prohibitively expensive. The expense would prohibit us from doing it. Mortabis fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Jan 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:The ISS is ~400 tons. It is in low earth orbit. It is presently the most expensive object ever made by mankind by a wide margin. Launching several thousand tons of gravel into LEO would be, mildly put, prohibitively expensive. On the other hand, since this is a space minefield, we don't need to actually launch anything, we just need to announce that these orbital corridors are full of gravel, which might be too small and dark to be detected until it destroys a satellite. ETA: I also feel obliged to point out that the dude behind Space Gravel for Peace also proposed the use of lasers to induce rain on demand, a refrigerated brassiere to help expand a woman's breasts, isotopic dog biscuits to reduce your bitch's appeal when she's in heat, and the use of rotating EM fields to deal with dust. I'm not sure if he actually gave a poo poo about practicality. darthbob88 fucked around with this message at 23:57 on Jan 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Uh, Hitler might very well have been persuaded by a trillion US dollars. I think if it's an all bets are off kind of situation, you could put a bunch of gravel in orbit without the same costs as current, nominally sustainable ISS supply runs. Also the ISS itself is made up of very expensive components put into orbit (which is expensive) and then maintained in orbit (which is expensive). Only one of those expenses would apply to a bunch of rocks, not all three. Also just in general, we're firmly in the realm of counterfactual hypothetical here, but the entire "bribe them to stop" argument is predicated on a fundamental assumption that money is enough of a driving force to change someone's behavior. That's not an assumption you can make. Consider a diehard idealogue as a country's leader - I'm sure you can think of a few examples. Would you be bribing them to stop, or bankrolling their next attempt at forcing their ideology on the world?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
Why is a nuclear gravel shotgun or a Falcon 9 full of gravel even in consideration when we have been working on ASATs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon) for decades?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
because using thousands of small rocks at high velocity is awesome as hell, missiles are boring and so 20th century
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:Why is a nuclear gravel shotgun or a Falcon 9 full of gravel even in consideration when we have been working on ASATs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon) for decades? Nuclear. Shotgun. Say it a few times if it doesn't hit you the first time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
babyeatingpsychopath posted:Sure, if you're using rockets. Nuclear shotguns work great. Dig an appropriately-angled mineshaft, put in nuke. Fill. Detonate nuke. A calculable and nontrivial amount of the fillends up in orbit. On the order of dozens of tons per 100kt. I believe the gravel could get to orbital altitude this way, but I'm not convinced it would get to orbital velocity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
Why do that when you can just send up a couple warheads on suborbital trajectories and Starfish Prime the gently caress out of everything?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:Why is a nuclear gravel shotgun or a Falcon 9 full of gravel even in consideration when we have been working on ASATs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon) for decades? I believe the idea is to defeat ICBMs. ASATs aren't fast enough to do it, but if one were to say, surround the Earth in a dense hail of gravel, the ICBMs would be unable to safely traverse space to reach their targets. It is a very stupid idea, but that's the idea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:I believe the idea is to defeat ICBMs. ASATs aren't fast enough to do it, but if one were to say, surround the Earth in a dense hail of gravel, the ICBMs would be unable to safely traverse space to reach their targets. It is a very stupid idea, but that's the idea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
Why did someone photoshop out the Apache 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 04:46 |
|
|
bitcoin bastard posted:The outstanding piece of modern literature "Ghost" from John Ringo had a B-2 rigged to drop SEALs from the rotary launcher, any reason we couldn't do that on a smaller scale with the F-35? Unlike certain novelists, we are at least nominally against child soldiers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:21
|
|