Re: go interceptors!

From: Mike Lorrey (
Date: Sat Jul 21 2001 - 11:59:29 MDT

John Clark wrote:
> Mike Lorrey <> Wrote:
> >>Me:
> >>Are you trying to tell me with a straight face that there is no way to know
> >>where a satellite in a stable orbit will be in one hour's time?
> >Not enough to hit it with a bag of nuts without an active tracking and
> >maneuvering system installed that doesn't deploy the nuts until its
> >within a few miles of the target.
> The orbiting moon is a long way away so we only know approximately where it is,
> the error is about a inch and a half. Your space battleship would be a lot
> closer so we could do a little better, making it about as useful in a modern
> war as a sea battleship, the USS Sitting Duck. If you know where something
> is you can destroy it, no exceptions.

Scale, John, Scale. An SBL is how long? 60 feet? 15 foot diameter with
two 15x45 solar panels. At a range of 10,000 miles, you need an accuracy
measured in tiny infinitesimal fractions of seconds of arc, while the
accuracy you need to hit the moon is in many whole minutes of arc
accuracy. Oh, and the moon can't maneuver, either... the SBL can. Oh,
and its easy to make in course corrections with primitive sigting
systems when steering for the moon, not so to hit a small SBL target,
you need accurate data piped up from ground stations....

Essentially, in order to have a system that eliminates the SBL system,
you basically need your own SDI capability as well. If you have your own
SDI system, then you are not suffering a strategic disadvantage against
the US, you are in the same position you would be if neither side had an
SDI system, so there is no incentive to engage in such systems unless
you already are a significant player in ICBM technology. Rogue states
need not apply.

> > A cone balloon in free fall will without guidance not remain oriented
> >toward reentry
> And a warhead in free fall will not need to be oriented toward reentry until
> seconds before it hits the atmosphere.

Then why are they all so oriented?

> >a balloon will have a different mass, and therefore will follow a different
> >trajectory than the much heavier IRV.
> A different trajectory? Research has shown that is not true, it was done a few
> years ago by a fellow named Galileo.

Apparently you are not aware of orbital mechanics. Trajectory is
dependent upon the mass ratio between the two bodies orbiting each

> > the round object is a poor reentry vehicle [...]
> BALLOON! I said balloon. Put the cone shaped warhead in a aluminum coated
> Mylar balloon like the sort kids have at birthday parties. Obviously a balloon
> would disintegrate the instant it hits the atmosphere and I'm surprised I even
> have to spell this out.

Because the explosive shock of the balloon material erupting like that
would likely cause damage to the IRV unless it is further reinforced.

> >You said it was orbiting opposite that of the SBLs, thus a retrograde
> >(east to west) orbit.
> What?

John, don't you remember what you posted last? You said to throw some
nuts in the reverse direction of the SBL. That implies a retrograde

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:50 MDT