Author Topic: Small Nukes for Bunker Busting (Read 882 times)

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #30 on:** April 10, 2004, 10:50:02 AM »

This new weapon is proof that the USA is evil!!!

From Babylon 5 TV series, the bad guy aliens had the same thing and used them destroy whole planets...

Chairboy · « **Reply #31 on:** April 10, 2004, 10:54:30 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by NUKE
I read that the shuttle got the cost per pound down to 4,400.00. I also read that a new shuttle had the estimated cost down to 100.00 per pound.

1. You read wrong.
Look at page 14 (PDF page 16) of this document:
http://cism.jpl.nasa.gov/events/workshop/Preston_Carter.pdf
According to it, the claimed shuttle payload cost is $19,100 per kilo, or $8,700 per lb. The GAO says that the number is actually higher because it doesn't account for the amortized development cost, so $10,000 per lb is pretty easy to get to. Certainly larger then $4,400 per lb.

2. There is no new shuttle. If you're talking about a 'new shuttle' you read about years ago, then it's probably the Venturestar project (which was cancelled).

Cheaper access to space is definately possible, but it won't be with a space shuttle. If you really want to put these flying crowbars into orbit, you'd use a cheap ELV like the Proton (similar payload to the shuttle, but payload costs $1,180 per lb. $16 million per rod to put in orbit. Quite a bit cheaper, and there's more savings by shaving down the size to the bare minimum needed, also the lowered cost of putting them in orbit you'd get from a large production run of cargo rockets.

capt. apathy · « **Reply #32 on:** April 10, 2004, 11:21:00 AM »

and that's just the shipping charges. I wonder what a tungsten rod that size would cost. for comparison a 1/8" x 7" long tungsten rod costs about $5-8. if this thing is 1'X20" thats a lot of tungsten. thats just for the material, not including labor, launching, guidance.

doesn't seem very practical.

but then again, neither does irradiating our planet.

Chairboy · « **Reply #33 on:** April 10, 2004, 11:44:36 AM »

Perhaps a better source for kinetic space-to-ground weapons is the moon. It's just a matter of time before there is an industrial presence there, it would be a logical place to build these devices from native materials and ship them back to LEO using magnetic launchers. This is hardly "5 years from now" stuff, but definately practical as a side effect of lunar industrialization, eventually asteroids too.

capt. apathy · « **Reply #34 on:** April 10, 2004, 08:00:01 PM »

seems like just dropping it form a high-alt plane would be cheaper. I'm fairly sure you wouldn't have to leave the atmosphere to get high enough to reach terminal velocity

Nilsen · « **Reply #35 on:** April 10, 2004, 08:04:45 PM »

weteher its 1000$ or 12k$ a pund its still expencive if these rods are made of heavy stuff...

why not just put them on high alt scramjet powered UAV's? they would reach their target in a VERY short time with less cost.

the scramjets are not sience-fiction for much longer are they?

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #36 on:** April 10, 2004, 08:07:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
weteher its 1000$ or 12k$ a pund its still expencive if these rods are made of heavy stuff...

why not just put them on high alt scramjet powered UAV's? they would reach their target in a VERY short time with less cost.

the scramjets are not sience-fiction for much longer are they?

No! I want this!!!

Nilsen · « **Reply #37 on:** April 10, 2004, 08:09:56 PM »

looks like a place in the florida swamps to me....so you can take it!

(seruiously..what is that?)

hawker238 · « **Reply #38 on:** April 10, 2004, 08:11:58 PM »

Looks like an orbital shot of a plant with 20 mushroom clouds racing skyward.

Leslie · « **Reply #39 on:** April 10, 2004, 08:16:09 PM »

A bunker that would take 10, 10 Megaton direct hits is an impossibility. Even if the bunker held up, how would you escape?

Les

Nilsen · « **Reply #40 on:** April 10, 2004, 08:17:00 PM »

hawker238 ...or swamp trees above the fog with little Yodas pointing flashlights skywards to mark the landing spot for Obi Wan.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #41 on:** April 10, 2004, 08:22:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Leslie
A bunker that would take 10, 10 Megaton direct hits is an impossibility. Even if the bunker held up, how would you escape?
Les

Pravda says so!!!!!

Nilsen · « **Reply #42 on:** April 10, 2004, 08:26:34 PM »

1. it could be a typo...he ment to say A 10 megaton egg

2. these eggs are usually detonated at a fairly hig alt so their pure explosive/penetrating power is not that huge and if it is 1 or 30 eggs should not matter........until you try to get out of your bunker when the food/water/air runs out

its like fiering 1 or 1000 5.65mm rounds at a the armour of a tank..result is the same...none

Chairboy · « **Reply #43 on:** April 10, 2004, 09:32:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by capt. apathy
seems like just dropping it form a high-alt plane would be cheaper. I'm fairly sure you wouldn't have to leave the atmosphere to get high enough to reach terminal velocity

These kinetic kill weapons hit at much higher then terminal velocity. Much, much higher.

Terminal velocity for lots of things are like 200-300mph (assuming they're aerodynamic). These guys would hit at something closer to 4 to 5 miles per second.

NUKE · « **Reply #44 on:** April 10, 2004, 09:38:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
These kinetic kill weapons hit at much higher then terminal velocity. Much, much higher.

Terminal velocity for lots of things are like 200-300mph (assuming they're aerodynamic). These guys would hit at something closer to 4 to 5 miles per second.

plus, the idea is to have them in position to strike on very short notice.