How effective/efficient are orbital weapons?
Looks like somebody just finished playing a certain vidya game
they dont exist. earth is flat, its all ground based tech and "satellite" images are high altitude aircraft
>>30088134
>>30087934
Ion Cannon simulator?
>>30089097
The only thing that is flat is your mum m8.
In theory? Very expensive, but very effective.
In practice we have no ideas because orbital WMDs were agreed to not be pursued by the big players and non WMDs can't get the funding to get off the ground.
Literally.
It could only be cost effective if we use old space junk as projectiles. But not having a coherent projectile means your aim we be shit and it will burn up 50% to 70% of the time.
>>30089097
Ooooh boy...
>>30089481
This.
Me and (I believe OPPenheimer) did a cost chart and each shot from the "rod from God" program would run $10mil+ just to get it in play. That doesn't include the processing and manufacturing or the equipment it would need to launch or guide it.
>>30089097
Earth is flat, but its a 6 sided cube.
Cube is love, cube is life, cube math is god.
>>30089116
NASA did a pretty extensive study of tungsten rods. They aren't much more effective then conventional explosives (air resistance and other factors make them not very accurate. The only thing they have going for them is the unlikeliness of stopping one after it's launcher.
They went on to add that the amount of sheer resources and fuel required to put tungsten rods and their delivery system in orbit would be more destructive if used for regular weapons than the rods ever could be.
What >>30089555 said.
In the future when space war is a thing and there's a significant permanent presence already in space, they'll be pretty effective. Until then, they're neat things that exist in sci-fi books.