Mike Lorrey <mlorrey@datamann.com> Wrote:
>At a range of 10,000 miles, you need an accuracy measured in tiny
>infinitesimal fractions of seconds of arc,
Tiny yes infinitesimal no.
> while the accuracy you need to hit the moon is in many whole minutes of arc
>accuracy.
If we know were the moon is to an inch and a half we'll know where your
Deathstar battle wagon is even better. And it's not like I'd only have one shot
at hitting you. A medium sized rocket could easily carry thousands of
projectiles each with enough energy to knock out a 65 ton M1 tank. And
even if you're incredibly lucky and none of them hit you just wait 45
minutes and you run into the same stuff again.
>and the moon can't maneuver, either... the SBL can.
If this huge satellite is constantly changing its orbit where is
it getting the fuel to do so? Do you have two shuttle flights a day
re-supplying it? Or can it detect a grain of sand moving toward
it at 11 miles a second from such a long distance that it has
time to jump out of the way?
> 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
What?
> you need accurate data piped up from ground stations
We've had that for more than 40 years.
> Essentially, in order to have a system that eliminates the SBL system,
> you basically need your own SDI capability as well.
What you'd need is a bucket of sand.
> Then why are they all so oriented?
What?
> Apparently you are not aware of orbital mechanics. Trajectory is
>dependent upon the mass ratio between the two bodies orbiting each
> other.
Apparently you are not aware of high school physics. The difference in
mass between the Earth and the warhead is so huge that you only need
to consider the gravitational effect of the earth on the warhead and
can ignore the gravitational effect of the warhead on the Earth.
True, an anvil and a feather moving at the same velocity In a vacuum would
have different orbits, but you'd need an scanning tunneling microscope to
detect the difference.
> the explosive shock of the balloon material erupting like that
> would likely cause damage to the IRV unless it is further reinforced.
Of all the silly things said in this thread this must be number one.
A warhead tough enough to withstand 500 g's and intense heat as it
reenters the atmosphere at high angle is going to be damaged by the
popping of a toy Mylar balloon that weighs about an once! I love it.
> 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 orbit.
POLAR ORBIT! East is opposite to west, North is opposite to South, is this
really that hard to understand.
John K Clark jonkc@att.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:51 MDT