John Clark wrote:
> Mike Lorrey <email@example.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
> 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
> > 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?
> > 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.
No, not really. I suggest you actually calculate it. It's highly
dependent on altitude.
> > 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.
Where are the launchers and where are the targets, John? With China or
NK as the launcher and the US as the target, the missiles will go west
to east. The SBLs follow 40 degree inclined orbits, i.e. mostly west to
east. Any interceptors will need to either come from in front or behind.
Crossing shots are much more difficult (being a sporting clays shooter,
I can attest to this), so a 'north/south' orbit would be even more
difficult to hit the SBL than from an equatorial orbit....
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:54 MDT