21–30 of 62 posts
A quick bit of match says the space shuttle energy is about 1 kiloton of TNT equivalent. That's a pretty small bomb.
Maybe the new launch systems are more powerful.
Although it seems simpler to just fly a rocket full of fuel at the target.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That price per ton doesn't include making it in the desired shape, though, right? Tungsten is very tough to work with, so I imagine that'd add significantly to the price, though I've no idea how much.
It just needs to be more or less a rod. The exact shape doesn't matter much, so there's not going to be much working it, just melt it into a rod and done. (There are some ceramics that can handle the necessary temperature.) You can also sinter it, it doesn't need to be especially strong, just hold itself together while falling, and sintering can make it strong enough. The strength plays no part at all when it impacts…
So why tungsten, rather than a tungsten skin on a lead bar?
That's just my intuition. I don't think these would actually be as effective as the raw energy values might suggest.
If this has "nuclear weapon force", then the rocket used to launch it also contains that much energy. A quick bit of match says the space shuttle energy is about 1 kiloton of TNT equivalent. That's a pretty small bomb. Maybe the new launch systems are more powerful. Although it seems simpler to just fly a rocket full of fuel at the target.
How accurate can it be - or does it only work when there is almost no wind? Also, isn't there a maximum velocity based on air drag - if so, can something similar not be dropped from a plane?
I'd imagine at that speed (mach 8) it spends only a few short seconds in the part of the atmosphere that is dense enough to cause it to deviate from wind. Maybe a few metres? The thing I was more curious about is how they drop it from non-geostationary orbit and still have it entering the atmosphere and landing at the right place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That price per ton doesn't include making it in the desired shape, though, right? Tungsten is very tough to work with, so I imagine that'd add significantly to the price, though I've no idea how much.
It just needs to be more or less a rod. The exact shape doesn't matter much, so there's not going to be much working it, just melt it into a rod and done. (There are some ceramics that can handle the necessary temperature.) You can also sinter it, it doesn't need to be especially strong, just hold itself together while falling, and sintering can make it strong enough. The strength plays no part at all when it impacts…
Pretty soon we’ll just dropping small meteors. Farming them might not be cheap, but we’re not going to run out of them.
Lets say we learn to mine asteroids, wouldnt the extra weight added to earth affect its orbital mechanics in anyway?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It just needs to be more or less a rod. The exact shape doesn't matter much, so there's not going to be much working it, just melt it into a rod and done. (There are some ceramics that can handle the necessary temperature.) You can also sinter it, it doesn't need to be especially strong, just hold itself together while falling, and sintering can make it strong enough. The strength plays no part at all when it impacts…
The shape matters because you want to maximize the impact speed which means minimizing resistance of reentry. A simple rod will not keep its orientation while falling down, it needs either fins or a different shape.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"During the Vietnam War, the US used what it called "Lazy Dog" bombs. " Sure, they got the idea from the GI Joe movies /s
Not the op, but just wanted to note various technologies in the past have been inspired by fiction: https://screenrant.com/star-trek-real-life-gadgets/ It’s a symbiotic relationship at times. Eg Computers became a thing, fiction ran with it and made up hand held tablet computers, Tricorders, universal translators etc, which materially (not always exclusively) influence future technology designs and directions. Today…