rod of god
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
So /k/ what would happen to modern warfare if we never develop nuke but use resource to develop something like this in the space race with soviet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOKf5r_JMAo
>>28741015
With the weight and cost of one rod being launched into orbit, you could have some thousand ICBMs for an equivalent price.
>>28741049
>>2016
>>not building equipment on the moon with moon materials
>>28741049
>never develop nuke
>ICBM
>>28741075
>ICBM requires nukes
>>28741049
>cost of sending something to space- $10,000 per pound
>cost of an ICBM=7 million for a minuteman, 70 million for a peacekeeper
yeah, no.
>>28741075
Just saying how infeasible a rod based space weapon would be.
You can get more destruction with nukes.
And there would still be fallout but it would not be radioactive material intermingled. Sun could be blocked out for months.
No nuclear war has ever occurred, so it would make minimal difference in that respect (ie fallout/radiation/nuclear devastation)
Except nuclear power, nuclear submarines, nuclear medicine, WW2 may have ended differently and the Cold War may have never occurred.
>>28741097
And HOW much do these weapons weigh?
Because I bet you it's more than 7000 pounds per projectile. Plus infrastructure.
>>28741116
>Just saying how infeasible a rod based space weapon would be.
they literally cant work from leo or geo
we had thread fucking explaining science behind them some time ago and now i bite my hand i didn't screencap it
would save us from this bs ... every damn 2 days or so
>>28741015
A SRBM or GLCM, like Iskander or TacTom, does the same shit for vastly cheaper.
It's also much harder to detect, because it can hide by parking inside a warehouse; instead of being detectable permanently by everyone with a home telescope from Amazon.
>mfw tinnitus so loud even the guy next to me hears the EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>28741097
Lets think before we talk out of our asses, retard.
Wikipedia - Kinetic Bombardment
>In the case of the system mentioned in the 2003 Air Force report, a 6.1 m × 0.3 m tungsten cylinder impacting at Mach 10 has a kinetic energy equivalent to approximately 11.5 tons of TNT (or 7.2 tons of dynamite). The mass of such a cylinder is itself greater than 9 tons, so the practical applications of such a system are limited to those situations where its other characteristics provide a clear and decisive advantage—a conventional bomb/warhead of similar weight to the tungsten rod, delivered by conventional means, provides similar destructive capability and is far more practical and cost effective.
lets say it is a (minimum) 9 ton rod
9 tons is 180,000lbs
x $10,000 per lb
$1800000000 to send the theorized 9-ton space-rod into orbit.
$18,000,000,000 is 18 billion dollars
You could buy;
>1 space rod
OR
>257 peacekeepers
>2571 minutemen
>>28741212
>11.5 tons of TNT
you should mention that ^ is a complete joke
>>28741245
>>28741212
>>28741097
Ok so the concept "rod of god" is infeasible how about something like this >>28741059
>>28741270
Launching nuclear missiles from the moon?
Or launching space-rods from the moon?
>>28741316
>launching space-rods from the moon
or just a huge moon-rock meteor
>>28741212
>> Let's think before we talk out of our asses
>> 9 tons = 180,000 lbs
>>28741348
Okay well throw off a zero.
18,000 * 10,000 = 180000000
Yeah, doesnt work.
>>28741212
we've had this thread before. it's $180mil not $180bil per shot. still way too expensive to be feasible.
>>28741372
$180 million dollars
for 11.5 tons of TNT worth of destruction
You could get two Peacekeepers for that price and get up to 475 kilotons of TNT worth of destruction per missile with a W88 warhead.
950kt of TNT (two ICBMs)
11.5 tons of TNT (one Space-Rod)
per $180 million dollars
Btw, the original planned design called for the rods to be 20ft long x 1ft thick solid tungsten, just do the math on that. The "$10,000/lb" price is bullshit, tungsten is about $19-20 a pound right now. By that standard, each rod should be around $357,300 only. Do some research, instead of throwing around estimate and hypothetical amounts.
>>28741606
You also have to consider the cost of hauling such a massive piece of equipment into orbit.
>>28741606
Its $10,000 USD to send a single pound into orbit, dumbass.
Tungsten is cheap, sending a 9 tons of it into space isnt.
>>28741606
Just having the tungsten and forging it will be over just the per pound price (no one does shit at cost).
Then... Then anon, and only then, do you put it in space. And THAT is when the price REALLY goes up.
>>28741671
>>28741716
>>28741686
I'm not involving how much it costs to make them or how much it costs to send them up there. I'm just here to give you the price in raw materials, and let you know that the original estimation was ridiculous and way off.
>>28741816
The original estimation wasn't way off because it included the costs of launching it to space.
>>28741816
$180 million to send a 9-ton rod into space is an absolute minimum estimate and does not take into account necessary infrastructure, cost of labor, cost of raw materials, and the cost of building a space station capable of dropping the rod with precision.
>>28741716
>>28741829
>>28741834
And that's because we can't begin to accurately estimate how much it would cost to transport, build, forge, ot whatever other things would be involved in the development or deployment of this. There are too many factors that make an estimate very difficult, even if we did know about every processe involved.
And how would these rods be shot?
Because if there isnt a rocket speeding the rod up, a powder driven explosion needs to do the propulsion(like in a gun) and i bet after the first shot the whole aparatus will gain so much momentum that no existing maneuvering technology will keep it safe from loosing evry kind of orbit
>>28741865
But we do know the minimum costs, and they are really fucking high. So high that these minimum costs already put the concept above the price of existing weapons with the same capability.
Even if the minimum costs go down, there's still a shitload of problems with the concept, mostly relating to orbital mechanics that people don't take into account because they quite simply don't know about them. Most people probably assume these rods from god stations can sit above a target or effortlessly move above a new one in no time at all.
Anyways, isn't this thread supposed to be about what would happen to modern day warfare if these were the norm instead of nukes? Not arguing about the concept and it's cost or feasablity?
>>28741906
Them you still could with the ressources for 1 rod build many many more conventional arms wich will do the same job.
I dont seee ANY thing that these rods can do, what any destroyes cant with the given ammo it has on boars. And then we dont even talk about planes and stuff
>>28741906
The concept is so incredibly flawed that they wouldn't be used instead of nukes.
>>28741924
>any destroyes cant with the given ammo it has on boars.
>>28741928
Yes, I agree it is a terrible concept with too many oversights to be useful or practical, but, again, this isn't the thread OP asked for
>>28741865
You're a fucking retard. You're trying to dramatically understate how much your little pipe dream costs.
>>28741906
>Anyways, isn't this thread supposed to be about what would happen to modern day warfare if these were the norm instead of nukes?
>Not arguing about the concept and it's cost or feasablity?
It's so ridiculously impractical that there's no point in discussing it
Invent a scenario where humans live on 2 separate planets real close to each other, and the 2 planets are at war. Only then do persistent orbital strike platforms make any sense.
For any combat happening on a single planet, there will ALWAYS be a better and cheaper way of achieving your strike goals.
>>28741936english isnt my native so sorry, but you know what i mean
>>28741953
The idea posited in the OP is bad, people are stating that, along with reasons why.
>>28741015
too heavy
Is this this new battleship/glider/mech/submarinecarrier type meme?
>>28741991
It is a "nuclear powered cars are the future" type of meme.
>>28741954
>> You're a fucking retard.
Butthurt detected.
Also, "my little pipe dream"? I just said I understand it's a terrible concept
>>28741991
It's more like a particularly well-developed form of physics troll, when you get to the heart of it.
>>28742073
>tumblr_m7dmhffHtB1qehfnho1_500.png
>tumblr
>>28741978
Of course it's a bad idea, but no one even tried to come up with a scenerio where that happened. OP was asking "what if", not "was it possible", which was the point in the fun, which is now kill
>>28742087
>coming to /k/
>not expecting fun concept or idea to be immediately shot-the-fuck-down
>>28742073
>Tumblr?
>Get the fuck out of here and tumblr down the side of a cliff
I would still like to see this happen... Giant pokies falling from the sky smashing shit. Or having surgical precision
Without MAD we would have gone toe to toe with Russia I'm sure.
>>28742073
I don't think so, orbital mechanics are exactly the kind of thing people don't give a shit about learning but they are very willing to talk about things that use them anyway.
>>28742087
I'll humor you. What if rods from god instead of nukes? Well, that goes WAY beyond that "simple" question because immediately the entire science of rocketry has just advanced 20/30 years. Having rockets capable of putting tons of stuff in orbit during the later years of WW2 (things like spy satellites, manned missions and rods-from-god satellites) kinda has wider implications. Plus, the whole question of why the fuck anyone would bother because the concept is immediately rendered pointless by simply delivering regular explosives with an ICBM. If you've got a rocket capable of putting a 9+ ton rod with its attendant systems, you've got a rocket very capable of lobbing 11+ tons of explosive suborbitally.
See how it still comes down to the concept being garbage?
>>28742087
>but no one even tried to come up with a scenerio where that happened
Hey illiterate retard:
>>28741955
>Invent a scenario where humans live on 2 separate planets real close to each other, and the 2 planets are at war. Only then do persistent orbital strike platforms make any sense.
>>28742143
At least someone has sense. Also, never said it would change the fact the concept sucks.
>>28742143
Oh, not to mention that in order to have a rod from god reach the capability of a nuke, that fucker is either going to be HUGELY massive (as in, has a lot of mass) and be that much harder to put into orbit, or will need to impact with significantly higher velocity. You don't get velocity magically from nowhere, the rod falling only accelerates to a point, beyond that you'd need to pack an engine and fuel onto it, which is even MORE mass.
Again, it hits the point where you put more effort into this stupid idea than you would by just using a shitload of TNT.
not enough energy from orbit.
You have to go much higher. talking about Asteroid Belt distances.
>>28742134
That's also interesting to think about
OP here
Ok I get that "rod of god" is infeasible
now new question "what would happen to modern warfare if we never develop nuke but use resource for the space race with soviet to make sure our sky clear from any threat come from space(aka ICBM, satellites)?"
>>28741900
It's a delayed solid fuel propulsion system if I remember correctly. Which is a problem by itself.
>>28742239
We would be where we are now, just minus nukes. Anti-ballistic missiles exist, as do anti-satellite missiles.
But if we didn't have nukes, that would lead to the invasion of mainland Japan in WW2, if that had gone down the world would be fairly different.
>>28742211
>the rod falling
Stuff doesn't just fall from orbit. If you 'dropped' one of these rods from your satellite, it would just continue orbiting next to it. To get it to Earth's surface, you would need to slow it down somehow. Then you have to make sure it doesn't go too slow so it will bounce of the atmosphere, or too fastbso it will desintegrate.
The whole idea is just rife with problems.
>>28741097
You do understand that in order for a rod frm god to work, the prjectile has to be stupid heavy, right? We are talking about tungsten rods that are the size of utility poles, +the space station to house them and all of the targeting and comms electronics.
>>28742323
I know that, the rod falling is after it doing a deorbit burn. The idea of them is that they get the majority of their kinetic energy from simple acceleration from gravity. Anything beyond that needs extra propellant which leads to extra mass at launch, and that extra acceleration propellant has to be deorbited by even MORE propellant, leading to more launch mass...
Why bother when you can just use a suborbital rocket?
>>28741212
9 tons is 18000 lbs, youre off by a factor of 10
>>28742392
For the launch cost of a single 9 ton rod with the impact of 11 tons of TNT, you can have 25 peacekeepers or 257 minutemen. Which can be armed with nukes.
>>28741816
>I'm not incuding the cost of launching it into orbit
Thats funny because that is literally the only cost anybody else ITT is even considering.
>>28742278
without focus on the nuke maybe we will have something like this now or even some camp in the moon to do >>28741059
>>28742431
Why would anyone bother building all those things if they didn't have to protect against anything as destructive as nukes?
>>28741900
>how would these be shot
It would really be more like dropped, just enough of a kick to get it to fall out of orbit. The launch station would need rockets to correct its orbit after launch.
The only reason for shit like that I can see is propaganda
>we can drop shit from space on you motherfuckers
and maybe because it'd be resistant to any anti-air or anti-missile defenses
Not like it can fall faster than terminal velocity, right?
>>28742445
>It would really be more like dropped, just enough of a kick to get it to fall out of orbit.
If you wanted them out of orbit, you'd presumably want it done quickly. No time to sit around waiting for them to deorbit due to atmospheric losses, you'd do a proper deorbit burn.
>>28742461
>we can drop shit from space on you motherfuckers
ICBMs do that, and they have a bunch of nukes on board.
>>28742415
>>28742422
I'm not arguing with the rest of it, I'm simply noting that his math is wrong... by a factor of 10.
>>28742508
And it doesn't matter. It's not like that order of magnitude makes rods worth it.
>>28742489
oh I know, but not talking about real utility here, just a psychological effect of having a sci-fi sounding weapon.
Only real advantage I can think of it'd be harder to detect it being launched (I think?) and harder to counter.
>>28741015
>So /k/ what would happen to modern warfare if we never develop nuke but use resource to develop something like this in the space race with soviet
The space parts of the cold war would have publicized space planes more. The soviets would have still stolen the designs for the buran, took it for a single joyride, and then let it rot away in a hangar for a few decades.
Nothing would be different, except we would be using LFTR's.
Why? Because the saturn V is basically a minuteman. With kinetic bombardment all delivery systems are basically equal (once you min-max delivery time with energy transfer), so the important factor would be quantity.
Which makes space planes and/or reusable delivery/supply systems the logical choice.
The only difference you might see would be in anti-satellite technology. And knowing the soviets they would probably just use manned space stations and a paul revere style network to signal where and when to use them in order to try to counter it.
>>28743507
>soviets build space telescope designed for visible light
>instead of a receiver they have the mother of all flash cubes, a circular polarizer, and a piece of ceramic shielding for russian morse code.
>ruskies have a few dozen orbital bombardment space stations
>only two stations needs to look at moscow at time
>the signal is sent with target information
>the two stations looking down receive the information
>they pass the information to each other to confirm and then from one station to the next with light, like they are boats and it's 1910.
>all the space stations check to see if the target is one with a prepared ballistic time model
>it is one such target, the ruskies inside begin preparing for the nearest predetermined launch time
>they match the angle indicated by the model and wait for the listed time
>15:25:00 rolls around
>they activate the thrusters attached to the tungsten rods
>the rods begin to accelerate along their path
>they are gaining speed and making their way to their target
>the air is getting thicker and the rods are beginning to glow
>one of the rods begins to consider what is happening, who it is, and what its purpose in life is
>the rod sees something very big coming towards it very fast
>it lands somewhere in the indian ocean west of austrailia because Ivan was drunk while creating the ballistic models
