Space Ping! This is the space ping list! Let me know if you want on or off this list!
Posted on 08/21/2003 8:53:50 AM PDT by RightWhale
No: what is needed is true heavy lift - 1000 tons plus to LEO.
Skip the wimpy stuff and build the real big dumb booster - Orion.
In order to reach the necessary velocity an object would have to fall for approximatly 5 hours, not 10 minutes. It would have to be maneuvered into position first, which can take 5 to 10 hours. This requires fuel that costs several thousand dollars a gallon to get into space.
THOR is a concept proposed by people pushing the space program. It doesn't currently exist and would have very limited application if it ever was developed. You can't hit a moving target with it. The penetration depth is approximately three times the length of the projectile. The cost of building and orbiting the platform makes aircraft carriers look cheap. Each projectile can only be used once and costs millions just to get into orbit. The "steel rod" has to have a guidance and maneuvering system that will stand up to re-entry heat and velocities of 21,000 mph. That means it has to have some kind of ceramic coating.
Carriers aren't a mile long.
THOR would require ground operations centers with support facilities, too.
THOR wouldn't be used to attack tanks unless you could get one to sit still for 15 hours while you maneuvered the launch platform in place and waited for the steel rods to fall. The same thing for attacking Naval targets. If it depends on a "simple GPS" guidance system like you suggested it can be programmed to hit a point on the ground, not find and track a moving target.
Rocks dropped from castles didn't have to survive re-entry.
This is just the SOS. The space agency is trying to grab money from the defense department.
The concept isn't simple. It's not currently technologically feasible or cost effective. It's a pipe dream.
I have been asking the same question for many years. Once we have established air supremacy, a modified Boing 747 dropping conventional bombs upon the target, would be something almost beyond comprehension.
Why, in this day and age of small scale conflicts such as Iraq and Afghanistan, do we not have modified 747s acting as bombers?
$4,000 dollars per pound just to orbit the sucker is NOT cheap. The rods are useless useless useless unless they are in orbit.
Yup, all you need is technology that doesn't exist yet.
The idea is that one pound coming in from orbit has about the same energy as 10 pounds of HE.
Even at $40 a pound, which isn't going to happen any time soon, those rods aren't cheap--you're talking $8,000 just to orbit the equivalent of a GBU-27, and a GBU-28 would cost $20,000. These are the costs of the lethality component alone, and do not take into account any other costs (RD&A, O&M, et cetera).
Kindly note that these weapons are purely kinetic, without blast effects--which means that you'd need more than the indicated number of weapons to get the desired effect on anything larger than a single point.
And when you start calculating in the numbers needed for responsiveness...you're talking about a LOT of money, just for the space launch infrastructure needed to orbit these things. Then you're talking about a lot of money to orbit that many of the things. Then you're talking about a lot of money to maintain these things in ready-to-use condition. Remember, if something breaks on an F-15 on the flight line, you send a guy in a pickup truck to fix it. If something breaks on a THOR satellite, the cost of sending the guy out to fix it will be (literally) out of this world.
Finally, if you think C4ISR is expensive now, just wait until you get the bill for the THOR system C4ISR backplane.
Of COURSE at current solid gold NASA tinker toy rates it's not an option. Remember the original point is how the AF (and NASA) have basically ignored that route to space.
You keep blathering about how NASA has "ignored" this technology.
So you're telling me it's available and off the shelf, ready to be built.
So, tell me...how do you propose to lower space access costs by 3-4 orders of magnitude, with today's technology?
Of course, if it could be done today, someone would be doing it now...
The heavy lift capacity is also a major "spin off" finally making space a practical place to access. Mark my words, THOR or something very similar to it WILL BE BUILT before long.
Yup, as soon as we find a convenient way to get around the law of gravity.
Nothing says it has to have "made in the USA" on it.
True. That's because nothing says it will actually be built, either.
Then a lot of our expensive toys are going to look like the Polish Cavalry charging into Panzers.
Yup, anything fixed on the Earth's surface will be just as vulnerable as it is today, just at a much higher price tag.
Wrest control of the civilian space program from NASA. When space becomes an eduational program, it'll be funded by the universities of the world and the clarion call to sudents would be
"How would you like to live and study in space at MacAuliff A&M?"
Space exploitation will occur because the space entrepreneurs will want to begin our march Ad Astra! We can see the fruition of Burt Rutan's efforts when he is delivering tourists to the college town that'll spring up next to MacAuliff A&M. I don't know about football but 3D soccer might be a gas! Arts and Science? Cameron gets to make his spaceage titanic film and how about "Ballet Dancers in Space?" {check out the article at the above web site on ballet!}
Just off the top of my head . . .
Given a launch cost of 10,000 per pound to LEO and each THOR projectile being 5000 pounds, makes the price for *each* THOR projectile 50 Million dollars.
LEO (Low Earth Orbit) is interesting because it overflys very little of what we need to shoot at, so you would need a "constellation" (think GPS) of perhaps 20 sats each with 6 THOR projectiles, you're talking about 6 Billion dollars just to deploy the system.
The Air Forces preferred way in to space has always been to “fly” to and back (I.E.. and aircraft) ... The original x15 project was going to be part of a larger project to fly in to orbit... with the moon race.. that was all canned to get there as fast as possible, money was no object.... with the moon race won is was back to the original concept(I.E.. and aircraft aka the shuttle)
I truly think that the Air force has both sub orbital and orbital aircraft in the classified “black” world right now .... Maybe more
Back in the mid 90’s I worked with a guy in telecom network control he was ex Air Force Satellite tracking and other classified stuff in Co. Springs ... we got be good friends as we work the graveyard shift together... (Fri night to Sat. morning monitoring a global telecom backbone is about as dull as it get... people talk on the weirdest stuff)
Well got on the subject of the space program ... and after a while.. I comment about the Moon .. and how sad it was we hadn’t gone back after Apollo
Well he starts acting funny and gets quite ... then said” what make you say that.. it might not necessarily be true..
So I asked him what he meant.. and he said “Well the moon a natural spy satellite fo the earth best there is you not going to shoot it down
So I ask “ What you trying to tell me”
And he said” Not telling you anything but we spent alot of money on military projects in the 80’s with Reagan ... ... and it might not necessarily be true we haven’t gone back to the moon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.