Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 6, 2004 Posted January 6, 2004 They are developing a stealth cruise missile. Attach a nuke to it and voila!
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 6, 2004 Author Posted January 6, 2004 I mean, the US! Sorry if I scared you.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 6, 2004 Author Posted January 6, 2004 Oh, be quiet. Shall we get on topic now? Maybe they (NO! NOT AGAIN!) should make a space station with uranium rods to drop on somebody.
JaKiri Posted January 6, 2004 Posted January 6, 2004 There's not much point in dropping uranium on people, apart from the fact that it's very heavy.
Radical Edward Posted January 6, 2004 Posted January 6, 2004 MrL_JaKiri said in post #26 :There's not much point in dropping uranium on people, apart from the fact that it's very heavy. I prefer dense. 1g of uranium is not very heavy at all.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 6, 2004 Author Posted January 6, 2004 But when it re-enters the atmosphere it goes at about 17,000 mph plus gravity, so it would be a good bunker buster with some explosives in it!
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 6, 2004 Author Posted January 6, 2004 Yes it is. Especially when you use it to prove a penny dropped from the empire state building WOULDN'T kill you. It would give you a nasty bruise.
Radical Edward Posted January 6, 2004 Posted January 6, 2004 MrL_JaKiri said in post #30 :And why not just use... a bunker buster? because bunker busters don't win the technological "I have a big dick" award. As an intellectual aside, there would be a calculable shape/mass/velocity at which it became practical to use orbital bombardment weapons. The problem would be that it would probably be a pretty big thing, and only really useful in planet vs planet battles.
Radical Edward Posted January 6, 2004 Posted January 6, 2004 Cap'n Refsmmat said in post #31 :Yes it is. Especially when you use it to prove a penny dropped from the empire state building WOULDN'T kill you. It would give you a nasty bruise. now apply this to your uranium rod scenario.
Radical Edward Posted January 6, 2004 Posted January 6, 2004 MrL_JaKiri said in post #33 :You speak craziness earth boy. I am batman. well, until I get a cool new avatar.
JaKiri Posted January 6, 2004 Posted January 6, 2004 Radical Edward said in post #32 : because bunker busters don't win the technological "I have a big dick" award. As an intellectual aside, there would be a calculable shape/mass/velocity at which it became practical to use orbital bombardment weapons. The problem would be that it would probably be a pretty big thing, and only really useful in planet vs planet battles. A space elevator would come in handy.
Radical Edward Posted January 6, 2004 Posted January 6, 2004 I'd love to pull the end of one of those.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 6, 2004 Author Posted January 6, 2004 Radical ++++++ said in post #32 : because bunker busters don't win the technological "I have a big dick" award. As an intellectual aside, there would be a calculable shape/mass/velocity at which it became practical to use orbital bombardment weapons. The problem would be that it would probably be a pretty big thing, and only really useful in planet vs planet battles. No, because when you go so fast with the uranium you can go hundreds of feet deeper into the ground, thus making bunkers obsolete.
Radical Edward Posted January 6, 2004 Posted January 6, 2004 how exactly are you going to get the uranium to go that much faster?
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 6, 2004 Author Posted January 6, 2004 Radical ++++++ said in post #37 :I'd love to pull the end of one of those. With catasrophic effects. Boy, what a show you would get. Timberrr!
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 6, 2004 Author Posted January 6, 2004 Well, in orbit you are going 17,300 mph, and gravity would make it go a heck of a lot faster. Because typical bunker busters only go 5000. And uranium is more dense so it penetrates farther.
JaKiri Posted January 6, 2004 Posted January 6, 2004 Cap'n Refsmmat said in post #41 :Well, in orbit you are going 17,300 mph, and gravity would make it go a heck of a lot faster. Because typical bunker busters only go 5000. And uranium is more dense so it penetrates farther. Where are you getting this 17,300 figure from?
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 6, 2004 Author Posted January 6, 2004 At 200 mile altitude you must go 17300 mph to stay in orbit. Less, you go down and speed up. With more speed you go up and slow down. Read "Do your ears pop in space?" for more.
Radical Edward Posted January 6, 2004 Posted January 6, 2004 Cap'n Refsmmat said in post #41 :Well, in orbit you are going 17,300 mph, and gravity would make it go a heck of a lot faster. Because typical bunker busters only go 5000. And uranium is more dense so it penetrates farther. the point is, you need to get it going at 17,300 mph in the direction of your target, otherwise the number is meaningless. for example the moon is going very fast, but it is not a big threat because it is in orbit. so how are you going to accelerate it so it is going at 17,300 mph towards your target?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now