Why do countries with both a space program and a submarine fleet don't just send nuclear submarines to space ? You have a bonafide armored spaceship already designed, all it takes for one to win the arms race by putting a nuclear weapons platform in orbit would be to strap rocket boosters to the submarine and launch it.
Here's an illustration I made 4 you so that you can visualize this idea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty
Probably this. And the fact that submarines act in a high pressure environment, while spacecraft operate in an extremely low pressure environment. There's probably a few design differences.
>>30322547
>cant into physics
>lets take a vessel designed for intense pressure pushing inward, and put it in an environment devoid of nearly all pressure! Nothing bad could happen!
Sure is summer in here
>>30322547
the Principality of Zeon's R&D team is way ahead of ya m8
>>30322591
I believe (or I'd like to believe) that this is just someone trying to prove that /k/ is the easiest board to bait
I mean /k/ is EASY to bait, but there's no reason to respond
>>30322547
>Cost.
>The sub would require a major redesign so its systems worked in micro gravity.
>Cost.
>Even more changes to the design would be needed to provide independent propulsion.
>Cost.
>Nuclear weapons in space are banned.
>Cost.
>No way to launch it.
>Cost.
>>30322626
but we are the easiest board to bait... it's mostly due to our hobby of weapons itself. We have so many people posing questions regardless of how fuck tarded they are and we are compelled to try to correct/give good info back for the sole reason that if fuck tard does do something stupid then it is a direct reflection back on our board as a whole.
We are one of the few boards that directly has fuckers legitimately trying to kill others on it (Cho, retard right after Cho, etc) and we are compelled to try to report and/or stop said instances to protect our hobby. Most recent was the Oregon retard who posted on /r9k/ but still brought /k/ to media attention via proxy.
>>30322766
Don't try to rationalize the stupidity here. It's due to all the lead poisoning, redneck education, and CoD 12 year olds.
>>30322591
>implying
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yxo3soclk_A
>>30322637
>Cost.
the US is literally throwing money out of the windows on military matters
>The sub would require a major redesign so its systems worked in micro gravity.
so we gotta change some electronics. done.
>Cost.
the US is literally throwing money out of the windows on military matters
>Even more changes to the design would be needed to provide independent propulsion.
we don't even need to move it once it's in space desu
>Cost.
the US is literally throwing money out of the windows on military matters
>Nuclear weapons in space are banned.
big deal once you are the first and only to have it therefore disposing of total military supremacy over all over countries
>Cost.
the US is literally throwing money out of the windows on military matters
>No way to launch it.
strap big rockets to it, works for space shuttles and other payloads
>Cost.
the US is literally throwing money out of the windows on military matters
>>30323038
The Saturn V rocket (one of the largest ever made) has a payload to LEO of just 140 tons - less than half of the lightest nuclear submarine (and one capable of carrying nuclear missiles is obviously much larger). So unless you could somehow build a MUCH MUCH larger launch system (and it's likely that any launch system powerful enough to lift a missile sub into orbit would turn the launch site into a massive crater), you'd have to launch it in parts and assemble it in orbit. The buoyancy control systems would obviously dead weight, as would the powerplant and engines (running the electrical system and so on could be done with a much smaller reactor than the one that's installed). And the whole interior would need to be designed, since there wouldn't be gravity holding everything down. You'd need to add restraints to the crew cabins, seat belts to the seats in the mess hall and command center (and all seats would have to be bolted down, portable furniture is out of the question).
>>30323190
>You'd need to add restraints to the crew cabins
Wow this sure is gonna put a big hole on the US military expanditures
>>30323208
Cost isn't the issue. It's more the fact that the whole internal layout of a submarine is designed with a 1G environment in mind.
>>30323228
Why have a crew at all ? You just a need a missile platform and a remote.
>>30322766
>retard who posted on /r9k/ but still brought /k/ to media attention via proxy
Ow, man, that sucks.
I mean I do consider /k/ the one of the easiest boards (that I'd frequent) to bait, and one that is incredibly easily provoked, but still a very friendly board, both to my "home" board (/tg/) and to outsiders in general (as you say, the genuine dumb questions are very prevalent), at least once you're used to it
So the biggets fucking rocket ever can haul 140 tons to low orbit.
So to get a sub up there we'll need something like fifty fucking Saturn V. We're gonna have to flay God for the leather to make the straps to hold that monstrosity together, most shit from Kerbal Space Program is sane by comparison.
That's a small nuclear sub btw, a Los Angeles. For a Typhoon you'll need 350 rockets.
Then once up there your bonafide "armored" spaceship will live until the moment Russia, China or the US decides that it has got to go. Then it takes an anti-sat missile up the ass.
>>30322958
Dont forget defense autists like me lol
>>30323329
>anti-sat missile
well meme'd
I don't think you realize just how thick a submarine armor is, especially compared to weak-ass missiles designed to take down fragile satellites desu senpai
>>30323329
Can I use you for insulation?
I mean, you're just so fucking thick...
Also, this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Dragon_(rocket)
>>30323233
Large parts of a nuclear submarine are devoted to the crew. You'd be better off designing something from scratch without a crew to avoid all the dead weight.
>>30323355
Anything that can get to escape velocity can easily penetrate even battleship armor.
>>30323356
Sea Dragon was to have a payload to LEO of 550 tons. That's enough for the smallest nuclear submarine, but one capable of carrying missiles is going to be over 10,000 tons.
>>30323426
>That's enough for the smallest nuclear submarine, but one capable of carrying missiles is going to be over 10,000 tons.
Just strap several rockets to it duh.
You're going to have major cooling problems, too. As in, no way to cool anything besides radiation. Space ships and satellites don't have such a hard time because they get energy from solar panels. But if you're boiling water in a nuclear reactor you're going to overheat in, like, two hours.
>>30322591
>pic related
But yeah OP you're retarded
>>30322547
Are you the same guy who made the underwater tank thread? Did you mix up your adderall and stratera doses today?
>>30322547
Are you the same anon who made the thread about wanting tanks that could drive across the ocean floor?
Why not send it in pieces and then assemble it in space to test it?
>>30323716
>>30323781
Shit, guys, I just had an idea. I'm making a thread about sending tanks to space. Check it out.
How will those submarine drones fare up there?
>>30323488
You can't just "strap rockets" to a ridiculously large payload, you'd need to redesign the whole guidance system for something like that.
>>30323829
More sane then sending a sub up as there are systems that could actually launch it.
Guess you could use it as a absurdly expensive manned ASAT weapon, I know the K2 has radar as part of its FCS so you might even be able to hit something.
>>30323355
Do you know what a 10km/s+ collision looks like? At those speeds objects have kinetic energy greater than nine times their weight in dynamite.
>>30322547
To everyone posting:
>it is fairly easy to build shit in space
>ship the rockets up separately
>or better yet use the missiles themselves to get it up then just drop the warheads; it would be able to have so much more firepower on board
>for basic propulsion we could send up a separate assembly with fuel tanks and rockets in all directions to maneuver it as needed
>Send up the nuclear assembly separate;that would save weight
>use a fucking huge rocket for the rest
>>30324141
K2, the korean tank?
>>30322591
>Sure is summer in here
You were doing good until you said this
I normally call summer out all the time, but you're just retarded here
>>30325081
Yep, Korea spent a lot of money on it and added a number of cool systems like radar and active suspension.
>Hurr durr submarine in sphess.
Bitch please. If you are gonna put nukes in space, do it right.
>>30324912
Good factoid to point out. V squared wins over any sized "bullet". Nuts n bolts can hole anything out there if the velocity impact is right.
I know this idea is dumb as shit, but the thought of an Ohio Class floating around in space is hilarious.
>>30323781
Holy fucking kek that's the best thing I've read all week
there is no benifit to having nukes in space and loads of downside.
Pros: none
Cons: super easy to disrupt, cost to do and upkeep, potential for them to be stolen.
Also in this day in age a nuke or two going off in space could bring down modern society.
>>30328113
Don't laugh, we actually built those but they ran into problems with sinking into mud and silt on the bottom.
It was a while ago though, I think we have the technology to do it better now.
>>30322591
>Let's take a nuclear reactor that requires a continuous flow of large quantities of seawater for cooling and put it in an environment where the only possible form of cooling is radiating it.
Also submarines aren't actually armored. Their outer hulls are only a few inches thick and not made of armor grade steel, they're made of steel that's meant to flex and compress and then return to it's original shape, it has very hardness compared to steel used in armored vehicles.
>>30328278
There actually are benefits, specifically that there's basically no range limitation and that you can put weapons on a path that would avoid their missile defenses and early warning systems.
The soviet union actually built weapons that would go into low earth orbit before attacking.
