Reminiscence of the Future...

Si Vis Pacem, Para Vinum © Andrei Martyanov's Blog

Reminiscence of the Future...

Andrei Martyanov on kinetic bombardment in Ukrane

Sunday, November 24, 2024

Ah Yes, Sure.

TSIPSO and butt-hurt fanboys from the West are already in full arms on all forums declaring that they have seen satellite photos of Yuzhmash and that... ranging from "we saw 6 charred entrances" to "nothing was really damaged". Totally expected. For those, just in case, who still didn't get the message--MAIN activity of Yuzhmash was UNDERGROUND, as it would be in Soviet times if, God forbids, USSR and the US would go to war. Those underground facilities are gone, together with production and research facilities for NATO-404 joint missile programs. They are gone together with the shift and those NATO military and civilians present there. That is why SBU immediately classified the whole thing (showing some decrepit hut with broken roof as "real evidence") and some "debris" of allegedly Oreshnik. Here is one such "evidence" published by VSU. — Andrei Martyanov

Discussion on kinetic weapons — more deadly toys for the psychopathic boys.

There are some proposals to put heavy tungsten steel rods in space to be used as an orbital weapon. Can you comment on that? — Ephektikoi

ChatGPT

The concept of deploying heavy tungsten rods in space as orbital weapons—often referred to as "Rods from God" or kinetic bombardment—has been theorized for decades. The basic idea involves placing large, dense tungsten rods in orbit and releasing them to fall toward Earth at high velocities. Upon impact, these rods would generate immense kinetic energy, capable of destroying hardened targets without the use of explosives or nuclear material. Here’s a breakdown of key considerations regarding this concept:

Advantages and Appeal

1. Immense Kinetic Energy: Due to their high mass and velocity upon re-entry, tungsten rods could deliver destructive force equivalent to small nuclear weapons, making them highly effective against reinforced bunkers or strategic installations.

2. No Explosives or Fallout: The absence of traditional warheads reduces the risk of accidental detonations and eliminates nuclear fallout, potentially making these weapons more politically palatable.

3. Precision Strikes: Guided re-entry systems could allow for extremely accurate targeting, minimizing collateral damage.

4. Deterrence Value: As a non-nuclear yet highly destructive weapon, such systems could serve as a deterrent against adversaries without violating nuclear arms agreements.

Challenges and Drawbacks

1. Cost and Logistics: Launching and maintaining tungsten rods in orbit is prohibitively expensive, given the high mass of the material and the need for secure storage and precision deployment systems.

2. Space Law Violations: The Outer Space Treaty (1967) prohibits the placement of weapons of mass destruction in orbit and the use of the Moon or other celestial bodies for military purposes. While kinetic weapons may not technically qualify as WMDs, their deployment would likely provoke significant international legal and political disputes.

3. Retaliation and Escalation: Deploying such weapons could trigger an arms race in space, as other nations seek to develop similar capabilities or countermeasures.

4. Targeting and Delivery: Atmospheric re-entry challenges include heat, pressure, and guidance system reliability. A rod could disintegrate or miss its target if these factors aren't managed perfectly.

5. Vulnerability: Orbital weapons are exposed to detection and countermeasures, such as anti-satellite weapons (ASAT), which could disable or destroy them before use.

Ethical and Strategic Concerns

1. Dual-Use Dilemma: Space technologies often have both civilian and military applications. Militarizing space with kinetic weapons risks undermining cooperative exploration and research.

2. Precedent-Setting: Deploying orbital weapons could encourage other nations to militarize space, destabilizing global security.

3. Unintended Consequences: The destruction of satellites or orbital weapons could generate debris, exacerbating the issue of space junk and posing long-term risks to space operations.

Feasibility Today

While technically plausible given advances in materials science, guidance systems, and launch technologies, the deployment of such weapons remains speculative due to the immense costs, risks, and potential political fallout. Current military strategies favor less provocative and more cost-effective systems, such as hypersonic missiles or drone swarms.

The concept remains a subject of fascination, particularly in military and science fiction narratives, but it is unlikely to be implemented in the near future due to the overwhelming challenges and consequences associated with its development.

What sorts of speeds would these steel rods achieve by the time they hit the ground? — Ephektikoi

ChatGPT

The speeds that tungsten or steel rods would achieve by the time they hit the ground are dictated by their re-entry dynamics, atmospheric drag, and gravitational acceleration. Let’s break it down:

Key Factors in Speed Determination

1. Orbital Velocity: Objects in low Earth orbit (LEO) travel at roughly 7.8 km/s (28,000 km/h) to maintain orbit. A tungsten rod would start with this speed when de-orbited, but much of this velocity would be lost during atmospheric re-entry due to drag.

2. Gravitational Acceleration: As the rod falls, Earth’s gravity accelerates it at 9.8 m/s² (minus atmospheric drag effects). The rod's dense and streamlined shape would allow it to retain significant kinetic energy.

3. Atmospheric Drag: Drag forces slow the rod significantly. However, tungsten's high density and potentially aerodynamic shape (like a spear or dart) would reduce drag relative to lighter or bulkier objects. It would likely reach terminal velocity, which is still extremely high for such a dense object.

---

Estimated Impact Speeds

A reasonable estimate for a tungsten rod's impact speed would be in the range of 3-4 km/s (10,800-14,400 km/h) upon striking the ground. Here’s how this range is derived:

• Initial Speed Loss in Re-Entry: The rod would lose about half to two-thirds of its orbital velocity (~7.8 km/s) due to atmospheric drag and heating.

• Terminal Velocity Consideration: For dense, narrow objects like tungsten rods, terminal velocities in the lower atmosphere can exceed 3 km/s.

---

Energy Delivered

The kinetic energy (KE) of the rod is given by the equation:

KE=12mv2KE=21​mv2

For a 10-ton (10,000 kg) tungsten rod hitting at 3.5 km/s, the energy would be:

KE=0.5×10,000×(3,500)2=61.25×109 Joules=61.25 GJKE=0.5×10,000×(3,500)2=61.25×109Joules=61.25GJ

This is roughly equivalent to the explosive energy of 15 tons of TNT. For comparison, a small tactical nuclear weapon releases energy in the range of kilotons, so this is smaller but still devastating, especially against hardened or localized targets.

---

Real-World Factors

1. Heat and Ablation: Re-entry heating could cause some mass loss if the rod isn’t adequately shielded, slightly reducing impact energy.

2. Impact Angle: A rod hitting at a steep angle (closer to vertical) would retain more speed than one striking at a shallow angle, where more kinetic energy might be lost to atmospheric drag.

While these speeds and energies are impressive, the practical and ethical challenges make deployment highly speculative.

So if you had a hypersonic missile which went 10,000 kilometers per hour, you would be working in the same ballpark as rods from space. — Ephektikoi

ChatGPT

Yes, that's correct! A hypersonic missile traveling at 10,000 kilometers per hour (approximately 2.78 km/s) falls into a similar velocity range as a tungsten rod from space when it impacts a target. Both systems rely on their immense kinetic energy for destructive power, though there are some differences in delivery and physics:

Similarities

1. Kinetic Energy: The destructive potential of both systems comes largely from their high speed and mass. As shown in the kinetic energy equation (KE=12mv2KE=21​mv2), even a relatively small mass can cause significant destruction at these speeds.

2. Hard Target Penetration: Both hypersonic missiles and space-based rods could penetrate reinforced or underground targets due to their velocity and focused impact area.

3. Comparable Speeds: Rods from space generally reach impact speeds of 3–4 km/s, while hypersonic missiles typically travel between 2–5 km/s during the terminal phase.

---

Differences

1. Delivery Mechanism:

   • Rods from Space: These are released from orbit and rely on Earth's gravity and their streamlined shape to reach the target. They lack onboard propulsion after release.

   • Hypersonic Missiles: These are powered systems capable of maneuvering throughout their flight, which allows them to evade defenses and adapt to changing target conditions.

2. Guidance and Maneuverability:

   • Rods from Space: Limited to trajectory adjustments via initial deployment or minimal in-flight corrections, as they mostly free-fall.

   • Hypersonic Missiles: Highly maneuverable, making them difficult to track and intercept.

3. Deployment Time:

   • Rods from Space: Require orbital positioning, so their deployment could take longer depending on the system's readiness and the target's location relative to the rods in orbit.

   • Hypersonic Missiles: Can be launched from ground, sea, or air platforms and reach targets more rapidly, particularly over shorter ranges.

4. Political and Strategic Implications:

   • Space-Based Rods: Seen as a more provocative weapon due to their association with space militarization and potential violations of international treaties.

   • Hypersonic Missiles: Although still destabilizing, they are less controversial as they are ground-based systems.

---

Bottom Line

In terms of raw kinetic energy and velocity, hypersonic missiles and rods from space operate in the same "ballpark." However, hypersonic missiles offer more flexibility and immediate responsiveness, while rods from space bring unique challenges, such as orbital deployment logistics and treaty restrictions. Both technologies represent significant advancements in delivering devastating kinetic force, but hypersonic missiles are much closer to practical use.