No, it's populated by a bunch of people who have state-issued H&K G3's in their closets, in the middle of some of the most defensible terrain on the planet, who have a tremendous amount of wealth and a military tradition so formidable that the rest of Europe basically asked them to never, ever, ever please EVER export any more mercenaries. Except to the Vatican.
...which are supposed to be unarmed. Sometimes, clever quartermasters manage to find a way around these stupid restrictions, but as a rule Army fixed-wing aircraft are unarmend.
If you drop a bomb from orbit, the bomb will stay in orbit.
Why would you operate a platform that can launch missiles from orbit, when you can launch them from guided missile cruisers or loitering aircraft a hell of a lot cheaper?
But, if my name is Mohammed Atta, I'm going to go to jail because I'm on a list somewhere. Then I have to prove I'm not a terrorist. I mean, I've got a terrorist's name, don't I?
There are no supersonic bombs, amigo. Bombs are not dropped from aircraft travelling supersonic. Ever. Even if they were, they would not stay supersonic for long.
The notion you are looking for is a "missile" or a "rocket".
And the currently-deployed bunker busters are large, sub-sonic iron bombs with precision guidance systems strapped to them. In the future, there may be some other systems that rely on rocket propulsion to drive them through hardened structures.
The Army is indeed testing a hypersonic anti-tank missile that launches from a box mounted atop a HMMWV. A buddy of mine worked on the guidance system.
As a matter of fact, a lot of Lockheed Martin's next-gen missiles are kinetic kill vehicles: No explosives, just a lot a lot a lot of velocity.
The A-10 is not operated by the Army. The Army tried to buy all the A-10's from the Air Force, but the Air Force didn't want the army to operate them. So they gave them to the Air Force Reserves.
It all comes from the WW2 era pissing contest which made the Air Force a separate branch from the Army. It is a pretty silly distinction, to everybody except the Air Force, to whom it is Holy Writ.
And you're right re: the bombs. That was my original (oblique) point. : )
The Army is not allowed to operate armed, fixed-wing aircraft. And if you can figure out how to get a helicopter to go hypersonic, then the Airwolf designers want to hire you.
Uh huh. I still think that once you've got the vehicle subsonic, landing it is easy. Docking it with a "mothaship" is really, really hard.
Use a steerable ram-air chute, or an inflatable wing. How much control do you need?
I suppose you could design a scenario in which this sort of system might be desireable, sort of like the Air Force did with the Shuttle. However, I sure wouldn't want to fly a subsonic orbiter close to a big mothership without the same sort of control authority I'd need to land.
The docking system you're describing would be vastly more complicated than mid-air refuelling, which while it is routine, is still very challenging to do safely. There would have to be a very big upside to make this approach advantageous.
OK, so rather than trying to slow a spacecraft down from Mach A-Million to safe landing speeds, you want to dock it with another aircraft travelling Mach A-Million?
Houston, we're gonna have a big, big problem.
There would be no reason ever to try and dock on re-entry (unless you're the Air Force and you want to do some re-entry gymnastics to avoid the SFR's (sneaky f***in' Russians). This is a crazy solution in search of a problem.
You wouldn't need flaps or landing gear, but you'd need a crash-worthy structure that would probably weigh a lot more than said flaps or landing gear. Low speed control surfaces aren't much different from high-speed control surfaces.
Unless you've got a motor on the thing,.00003% atmosphere at Mach 3 means that, after a day or two, you are a) no longer orbiting and b) no longer going at Mach 3.
And, re: tethers, I'd say an experiment where the tether essentially exploded would be a really good description of a "disaster". But hey, what the heck do I know?
Oh yeah. And where are all the successful tests of rendezvous-ing with a Mach 3 tether in the upper atmosphere? Oh yeah. They don't exist. Mostly because it's a targeting problem a little harder than ballistic missile defense, because you can't fudge a targeting error with a big ba-da-boom.
The test article came from Shuttle Enterprise, I think. At least, Enterprise (on display at the new Smithsonian Museum annex at Dulles) had its leading edge heat shielding removed when I saw it earlier this year.
It's pretty dangerous to think that Bush is stupid. His administration has been ferociously effective at implementing their policies. You (and I, certainly) might disagree vehemently with those policies, but just calling Bush stupid doesn't get him out of office.
If he's stupid, I shudder to think what a smart president espousing the same policies might do. Me, I don't think he's stupid at all.
What do you think is so much better than staged rocketry? I don't think we're going to find a more cost effective solution in the next 20 years.
There are very strong mathematical arguments to be made for multi-stage vehicles. SSTO is a very, very, very hard problem to solve. It's impossible to solve if you need a high payload mass fraction. Now, if you can somehow magically make a SSTO vehicle that can be serviced like an airliner, that's great. But I don't think that is anywhere near ready for prime-time.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's populated by a bunch of people who have state-issued H&K G3's in their closets, in the middle of some of the most defensible terrain on the planet, who have a tremendous amount of wealth and a military tradition so formidable that the rest of Europe basically asked them to never, ever, ever please EVER export any more mercenaries. Except to the Vatican.
Please come up with a better example.
...which are supposed to be unarmed. Sometimes, clever quartermasters manage to find a way around these stupid restrictions, but as a rule Army fixed-wing aircraft are unarmend.
If you drop a bomb from orbit, the bomb will stay in orbit.
Why would you operate a platform that can launch missiles from orbit, when you can launch them from guided missile cruisers or loitering aircraft a hell of a lot cheaper?
What, the principle that we shouldn't fight wars?
That's a pretty principle. Too bad it never works.
But, if my name is Mohammed Atta, I'm going to go to jail because I'm on a list somewhere. Then I have to prove I'm not a terrorist. I mean, I've got a terrorist's name, don't I?
(note: My name is not really Mohammed Atta.)
Because it's profitable for the corporations that run the prisons?
I'm only halfway being a devil's advocate...
I believe that America is the most free country on Earth.
I also believe that our American freedoms are being eroded, and I believe that it is my duty as a citizen to decry those erosions.
I didn't see anyone heaping all the world's evils on the US. I saw somebody who might well be a US citizen exercising his free speech rights.
Now you're obstructing justice and lying to a cop. And you're probably a terrorist. Hope you enjoy Guantanamo.
The chicks dig me.
There are no supersonic bombs, amigo. Bombs are not dropped from aircraft travelling supersonic. Ever. Even if they were, they would not stay supersonic for long.
The notion you are looking for is a "missile" or a "rocket".
And the currently-deployed bunker busters are large, sub-sonic iron bombs with precision guidance systems strapped to them. In the future, there may be some other systems that rely on rocket propulsion to drive them through hardened structures.
The Army is indeed testing a hypersonic anti-tank missile that launches from a box mounted atop a HMMWV. A buddy of mine worked on the guidance system.
As a matter of fact, a lot of Lockheed Martin's next-gen missiles are kinetic kill vehicles: No explosives, just a lot a lot a lot of velocity.
The A-10 is not operated by the Army. The Army tried to buy all the A-10's from the Air Force, but the Air Force didn't want the army to operate them. So they gave them to the Air Force Reserves.
It all comes from the WW2 era pissing contest which made the Air Force a separate branch from the Army. It is a pretty silly distinction, to everybody except the Air Force, to whom it is Holy Writ.
And you're right re: the bombs. That was my original (oblique) point. : )
Not if they're carried by Army aircraft.
The Army is not allowed to operate armed, fixed-wing aircraft. And if you can figure out how to get a helicopter to go hypersonic, then the Airwolf designers want to hire you.
The only solution to a violent world is to be better at violence than your neighbors.
There are zero societies on Earth that do not hew to this axiom.
Not a lot of bombs that fly hypersonic.
Tank and artillery shells, on the other hand...
Uh huh. I still think that once you've got the vehicle subsonic, landing it is easy. Docking it with a "mothaship" is really, really hard.
Use a steerable ram-air chute, or an inflatable wing. How much control do you need?
I suppose you could design a scenario in which this sort of system might be desireable, sort of like the Air Force did with the Shuttle. However, I sure wouldn't want to fly a subsonic orbiter close to a big mothership without the same sort of control authority I'd need to land.
The docking system you're describing would be vastly more complicated than mid-air refuelling, which while it is routine, is still very challenging to do safely. There would have to be a very big upside to make this approach advantageous.
This was a stupid idea when Werner Von Braun had it, and it's a stupid idea now.
A "directional" nuclear explosion? Care to tell me how to make one of those?
OK, so rather than trying to slow a spacecraft down from Mach A-Million to safe landing speeds, you want to dock it with another aircraft travelling Mach A-Million?
Houston, we're gonna have a big, big problem.
There would be no reason ever to try and dock on re-entry (unless you're the Air Force and you want to do some re-entry gymnastics to avoid the SFR's (sneaky f***in' Russians). This is a crazy solution in search of a problem.
You wouldn't need flaps or landing gear, but you'd need a crash-worthy structure that would probably weigh a lot more than said flaps or landing gear. Low speed control surfaces aren't much different from high-speed control surfaces.
Use a damn parachute.
Unless you've got a motor on the thing, .00003% atmosphere at Mach 3 means that, after a day or two, you are a) no longer orbiting and b) no longer going at Mach 3.
And, re: tethers, I'd say an experiment where the tether essentially exploded would be a really good description of a "disaster". But hey, what the heck do I know?
Oh yeah. And where are all the successful tests of rendezvous-ing with a Mach 3 tether in the upper atmosphere? Oh yeah. They don't exist. Mostly because it's a targeting problem a little harder than ballistic missile defense, because you can't fudge a targeting error with a big ba-da-boom.
Cool...thanks for the linkage.
The test article came from Shuttle Enterprise, I think. At least, Enterprise (on display at the new Smithsonian Museum annex at Dulles) had its leading edge heat shielding removed when I saw it earlier this year.
It's pretty dangerous to think that Bush is stupid. His administration has been ferociously effective at implementing their policies. You (and I, certainly) might disagree vehemently with those policies, but just calling Bush stupid doesn't get him out of office.
If he's stupid, I shudder to think what a smart president espousing the same policies might do. Me, I don't think he's stupid at all.
I don't know where you drive, but the rest stops on major thoroughfares here in Texas are pretty well-maintained.
Human powered vehicles don't have fuel, Sparky. Unless you're talking about PowerBars.
You sure are a crack pot.
What do you think is so much better than staged rocketry? I don't think we're going to find a more cost effective solution in the next 20 years.
There are very strong mathematical arguments to be made for multi-stage vehicles. SSTO is a very, very, very hard problem to solve. It's impossible to solve if you need a high payload mass fraction. Now, if you can somehow magically make a SSTO vehicle that can be serviced like an airliner, that's great. But I don't think that is anywhere near ready for prime-time.
Now, reusable stages...that's a good idea.