Rods from God / "Project Thor"

[Forest Green]

The simplest solution would be to have some interceptors hanging on the rod sattelite bus itself, so they could intercept the enemy interceptor.

Yeah, I think these things would loosely resemble the Starship Enterprise by the end of it all.

 

[Dilandu]

P.S. Just a bit more calculation. Let's assume that rods are on 300-km high orbit. To change the inclination to 10 degrees either direction (thus allowing rod to maneuver to desired target while passing nearby), we need about 1,5 km/s delta-V. Let's add 0,2 km/s for de-orbiting burn (the goal is to deliver the rod). I.e. 1,7 km/s total.

Assuming the rod mass as 6 tons, and using storable fuel with about 300 seconds of specific impulse, and assuming that the engine & tanks would fit into 500 kg - we need about 5 tons of fuel per rod.

I.e. the whole mass - rod, engine, fuel on orbit - would be about 6000+500+5000=11500 kg. Almost 12 tons per rod.

 

[trose213]

putting them through the atmosphere, that a rod of tungsten wouldn't be the best option.

Actually it's probably would. It is narrow (i.e. meet minimal frontal air resistance due to small cross-section), it is massive (i.e. hard to slow down), and it did not need ablation thermal protection (tungsten would not melt on re-entry velocity).

Tungsten rods make sense if it's the 1960s and there's no access to computer modeling. Otherwise, a shaped kinetic penetrator that distributes the force depending on the occasion or need is probably better.

 

[Dilandu]

Yeah, I think these things would loosely resemble the Starship Enterprise by the end of it all.

Hardly. The realistic space warship is a narrow cylinder made of fuel tanks around central truss, with engine/reactor at rear end, and ablative armor shield at the other. If it's a "beamstar", there would probably be a big laser/particle accelerator running along the length of the ship, with a number of laser turrets at the edges of the shield, and big collapsible mirror for long-range fire. If it's a "battlestar", it would probably carry a large number of kinetic interceptors with strapped rocket boosters on them. And if it's a "cruiser" (i.e. mainly a patrol/raiding ship, designed for autonomous actions), it would probably also have a habitat module for a crew. The only common weapon for any warships would be the big number of defensive kinetic interceptors to protect against enemy missile strikes.

P.S. Oh, and, of course, radiators. Especially for beamstar.

 

[Dilandu]

Tungsten rods make sense if it's the 1960s and there's no access to computer modeling. Otherwise, a shaped kinetic penetrator that distributes the force depending on the occasion or need is probably better.

I'm not sure that more complex form would actually gave any meaningful advantage here...

 

[Byeman]

The idea is, that rod's orbit must intersect with Earth surface at the point of the target location. The most obvious way to do that is to slow the rod down enough, that the orbit height would decrease to the point when it would intersect with Earth surface.

No, that is wrong. It ignores the effects of re-entry and will fall short of the target.

 

[sferrin]

putting them through the atmosphere, that a rod of tungsten wouldn't be the best option.

Actually it's probably would. It is narrow (i.e. meet minimal frontal air resistance due to small cross-section), it is massive (i.e. hard to slow down), and it did not need ablation thermal protection (tungsten would not melt on re-entry velocity).

Tungsten rods make sense if it's the 1960s and there's no access to computer modeling. Otherwise, a shaped kinetic penetrator that distributes the force depending on the occasion or need is probably better.

KE tank penetrators use tungsten rods because they're the best. (Aside from DU rods anyway.)

 

[Byeman]

putting them through the atmosphere, that a rod of tungsten wouldn't be the best option.

Actually it's probably would. It is narrow (i.e. meet minimal frontal air resistance due to small cross-section), it is massive (i.e. hard to slow down), and it did not need ablation thermal protection (tungsten would not melt on re-entry velocity).

Tungsten rods make sense if it's the 1960s and there's no access to computer modeling. Otherwise, a shaped kinetic penetrator that distributes the force depending on the occasion or need is probably better.

There is no shaping required for impact. The idea is minimal velocity loss from re-entry and hence low cross section.

 

[Dilandu]

No, that is wrong. It ignores the effects of re-entry and will fall short of the target.

Sigh. Of course it's ignores it - it's SIMPLIFIED explanation.

 

[Forest Green]

Hardly. The realistic space warship is a narrow cylinder made of fuel tanks around central truss, with engine/reactor at rear end, and ablative armor shield at the other. If it's a "beamstar", there would probably be a big laser/particle accelerator running along the length of the ship, with a number of laser turrets at the edges of the shield, and big collapsible mirror for long-range fire. If it's a "battlestar", it would probably carry a large number of kinetic interceptors with strapped rocket boosters on them. And if it's a "cruiser" (i.e. mainly a patrol/raiding ship, designed for autonomous actions), it would probably also have a habitat module for a crew. The only common weapon for any warships would be the big number of defensive kinetic interceptors to protect against enemy missile strikes.

P.S. Oh, and, of course, radiators. Especially for beamstar.

Beamstar?

 

[Dilandu]

Beamstar?

Well, I agree with the idea that military spacecraft classification should not follow the nautical tradition. After all, bomber planes are not "battleships" and fighter planes are not "destroyers" (albeit in USSR in 1930s, there were a short-lived attempt to use nautical systematic). So, it make practical sense for the military spacecraft to be called a "-star".

 

[trose213]

And that's a SMALL penetrator.

Well, the 6-ton rod impacting at 7.8 km/s have an energy equivalent of 44 tons of TNT, i.e. about a 100 BGM-109 Tomahawk missile warheads. Which is actually quite good, if you need to take out hardened target in the depth of opponent's territory. The cost of one BGM-109 unit now is about 1,4 millions, so 100 missiles would cost about 1400 millions - 1.4 billions - not counting the cost of launching platforms.

So, we have some numbers to play with. One rod could be an equivalent in destructive power to about 100 strategic cruise missiles (conventional), which would cost circa 1.4 billions alone. It's hard, of course, to calculate how much would the rod itself (with its retro-rocket and orbital bus) cost, but quite probably no more than a hundred millions or so. Plus the 60-80 millions for the Falcon-9 rocket to put the whole assembly on orbit, and we have about 100-150 millions per rod. High, but not astoundingly high cost.

There's no targets that require 100 Tomahawks, a different munition would be used.

 

[Dilandu]

There's no targets that require 100 Tomahawks, a different munition would be used.

I just roughly calculated to put things into comparison.

 

[Conspirator]

Energy efficiency factors into a weapons usefulness, but it's a small consideration.

Irrelevant to the point at hand, which was to debunk the oft-claimed power of Thor being equivalent to a "tactical nuke." A 5.56mm bullet is also nothing like a nuke, but pointing that out doesn't imply that the bullet isn't militarily useful.

thats true but look at it this way if some "calculations" are correct those rods that would be about 10ft long and 1ft in diameter that thing would be coming down at about mach 10........ dude it doesnt even need to be that big it could bust a concrete reinforced bunker within a milisecond

 

[Conspirator]

Keep in mind: in order to drop that six ton rod of tungsten on the other guy, you had to expend a de-orbit stage of unknown mass, as well as a whole lot of tons of rocket propellant to boost the system into orbit in the first place. The Falcon 9 Full thrust can put 22.8 tons into orbit (equivalent to 3.75 rods, not counting de-orbit systems...call it three rods), burning through 410.9 tons of propellant in the first stage and 107.5 tons of propellant in the second => 518.4 tons of propellant expended to deliver the equivalent of 3X44.1 tons (132.3 tons) of TNT onto the enemy.

Hmmmmm. Let's assume, that the cost of the whole system would be about 100 millions dollars (50 millions for F9B5 launch and 50 millions for the system itself ). So we have the system, that could within 90 minutes deliver along its orbital path a 130 tons of destructive power.

How much it would cost to deliver the same amount of explosives by conventional means? The cost of modern "Tomahawk" missile, if I'm not mistaken, is about 2 millions dollars (1,82 actually). So the system cost as much as 50 "Tomahawks"... which could deliver to the target about 50 * 0,45 = 22,5 tons of explosives.

* Of course, 50 "Tomahawks" could be used against much more targets, but I must point out, that against well-defended target only a part of those 50 "Tomahawks" would come through. And I must also point out, that 50 "Tomahawks" would not deliver themselves all the way from USA to the target. They needed a carrier vessel - an "Arleigh Burke"-class destroyer, perhaps, or nuclear submarine, which also would cost money. If we use ALCM's instead, we would need enough bombers to carry them.

* Of course, the actual system on orbit would probably cost more than 50 millions, but up until it cost less than the number of "Tomahawks" required to deliver the same amount of explosive power + their carriers, it would be at least partially cost effective.

In short, my IMHO - the "Thor" system is not hopeless. Granted, it is not the system you would call in to destroy the tank column. But it would work great against high-valuable, protected targets, like command bunkers, strategical transport nodes, hardened airfields, ect. For example, something like good ol' "Thor" may be quite a good solution against those Chinese island fortresses in Southern Chinese Sea. To took them out by conventional means, would require quite a lot of efforts. To nuke them, would means a clear escalation to at least tactical nuclear level (and who would benefit more?). But to orbit-strike them with the power of tactical nukes would be both cost-effective, and fairly conventional way.

whoa!!! you guys are good but you know what? lemme tell ya' this if my "calculations" (this is no joke) are correct a tungsten ron 10ft by 1ft would be coming in at about mach 10!! that would bust a reinforced concrete bunker better than a good tomahawk missile! well thats just my thing.

 

[Conspirator]

I have heard it theorized, by someone I would regard as an expert, that a shotgun blast on the right scale is exactly what you need against a warship.

It might depend on *when* the blast goes off. If it goes off above the ship, so that there is sufficient time for the hundred or so chunks of hundred-pound slabs of tungsten moving at five kilometers per second to separate enough to get some good coverage of the ship...yeah, it'll make a mess. If it goes off *inside* the ship, it probably won't make a whole lot of difference *to* the ship, though the "exit wound" on the belly of the ship will be bigger. However, even if that action doesn't do much to the ship, by kerploding the rod before it actually hits the water, the kinetic energy of the rod will be deposited into the water a *lot* faster. So you will poke a meaningful hole through the ship and then promptly create an energetic bubble of steam right under the keel.

Not a good day to be in a boat.

smart. kind of hilarios when you think about it but all you really need is one good projectile at or below the waterline

 

[Conspirator]

Keep in mind: in order to drop that six ton rod of tungsten on the other guy, you had to expend a de-orbit stage of unknown mass, as well as a whole lot of tons of rocket propellant to boost the system into orbit in the first place. The Falcon 9 Full thrust can put 22.8 tons into orbit (equivalent to 3.75 rods, not counting de-orbit systems...call it three rods), burning through 410.9 tons of propellant in the first stage and 107.5 tons of propellant in the second => 518.4 tons of propellant expended to deliver the equivalent of 3X44.1 tons (132.3 tons) of TNT onto the enemy.

Hmmmmm. Let's assume, that the cost of the whole system would be about 100 millions dollars (50 millions for F9B5 launch and 50 millions for the system itself ). So we have the system, that could within 90 minutes deliver along its orbital path a 130 tons of destructive power.

How much it would cost to deliver the same amount of explosives by conventional means? The cost of modern "Tomahawk" missile, if I'm not mistaken, is about 2 millions dollars (1,82 actually). So the system cost as much as 50 "Tomahawks"... which could deliver to the target about 50 * 0,45 = 22,5 tons of explosives.

* Of course, 50 "Tomahawks" could be used against much more targets, but I must point out, that against well-defended target only a part of those 50 "Tomahawks" would come through. And I must also point out, that 50 "Tomahawks" would not deliver themselves all the way from USA to the target. They needed a carrier vessel - an "Arleigh Burke"-class destroyer, perhaps, or nuclear submarine, which also would cost money. If we use ALCM's instead, we would need enough bombers to carry them.

* Of course, the actual system on orbit would probably cost more than 50 millions, but up until it cost less than the number of "Tomahawks" required to deliver the same amount of explosive power + their carriers, it would be at least partially cost effective.

In short, my IMHO - the "Thor" system is not hopeless. Granted, it is not the system you would call in to destroy the tank column. But it would work great against high-valuable, protected targets, like command bunkers, strategical transport nodes, hardened airfields, ect. For example, something like good ol' "Thor" may be quite a good solution against those Chinese island fortresses in Southern Chinese Sea. To took them out by conventional means, would require quite a lot of efforts. To nuke them, would means a clear escalation to at least tactical nuclear level (and who would benefit more?). But to orbit-strike them with the power of tactical nukes would be both cost-effective, and fairly conventional way.

you dont even need to put like lets say......... uranium rods inside of the tungsten rods to create a "tac nuke" but just the rod on one precise trajectory could bust that command bunker upon impact

 

[Conspirator]

That article is for asteroids impacting at >11km/s and is a collection of scaling assumptions. The impact of a streamlined solid metal rod at hypervelocities should be very different than an asteroid.

I guess we'll never know. How would it work at a Scottish pole toss event?

thats pretty good lol but you have to admit its kind of smart i mean the international space treaty specified "chemical, nuclear, and biological" this system covers none of it
#exempt

 

[Conspirator]

Why don't they use Depleted Uranium? Not only is it denser than Tungsten but it's pyrophoric? Sounds like these rods would make a useful warhead for hypersonic weapons..

well.......... not bad even i didnt think of depleted uranium. but look they would be too heavy to put up there. the falcon heavy with the new grasshopper motors would be able to put maybe 2-3 rods at a time with a small amount of equitment with it so if depleted uranium is even denser we wouldnt be able to do it. but seriusly tungsten is like mach 10 at the surface of the earth from a low earth orbit so... why make it even crazier when you dont need to?

 

[Conspirator]

They're reiterating that bullcrap claim again.

A Rod from low orbit is unlikely to hit at anything exceeding orbital speed, 7.8 km/s, unless it has been fired from a giant railgun. More probable speeds are 1-4 km/s.

An object at 3 km/s packs KE equivalent to its mass in TNT. An object at 7.8 km/s has KE around 6.8 times it mass.

If you want a kiloton impact, you need a 150-tonne R

It would be easier to make an all solid Antares with an estimated 25k G2G payload and put a MOAB in the nosecone

stupid question but what is a MOAB? i mean all of the stuff i know and i dont know what that is

 

[Conspirator]

okay so my question is this : some president signed off on this. who? and where is the station?

 

[Dilandu]

you dont even need to put like lets say......... uranium rods inside of the tungsten rods to create a "tac nuke" but just the rod on one precise trajectory could bust that command bunker upon impact

The velocity of impact is not sufficient to actually start any kind of nuclear reaction, even if rod would be made from weapon-grade uranium. For the penetrating capability, on such velocities the material is not very relevant at such velocities.

 

[edwest4]

In this case, I believe the 'only for public consumption' version is circulating.

 

[antigravite]

you dont even need to put like lets say......... uranium rods inside of the tungsten rods to create a "tac nuke" but just the rod on one precise trajectory could bust that command bunker upon impact

The velocity of impact is not sufficient to actually start any kind of nuclear reaction, even if rod would be made from weapon-grade uranium. For the penetrating capability, on such velocities the material is not very relevant at such velocities.

Hi.
This reminds me of fractofusion mechanisms (a fusion concept debated at a time when cold fusion trigger mechanisms were under heavy scrutiny).

Dickinson, J.T., Donaldson, E.E. & Park, M.K. The emission of electrons and positive ions from fracture of materials. J Mater Sci 16, 2897–2908 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02402856

In the Soviet Union, one of the specialists was Andrei Lipson. Another key Soviet Union scientist, often quoted in this area, is a Deryaguin (several possible spellings). He was a leading scientist in chemical sciences, and a specialist of water. I haven't been thinking on that subject for decades, but fractofusion, for what I can remember, was explored as a possible interesting way to toy with… deuterated ice. Might bear some interest here. Not IceRodas though…

A

 

[Conspirator]

you dont even need to put like lets say......... uranium rods inside of the tungsten rods to create a "tac nuke" but just the rod on one precise trajectory could bust that command bunker upon impact

The velocity of impact is not sufficient to actually start any kind of nuclear reaction, even if rod would be made from weapon-grade uranium. For the penetrating capability, on such velocities the material is not very relevant at such velocities.

Hi.
This reminds me of fractofusion mechanisms (a fusion concept debated at a time when cold fusion trigger mechanisms were under heavy scrutiny).

Dickinson, J.T., Donaldson, E.E. & Park, M.K. The emission of electrons and positive ions from fracture of materials. J Mater Sci 16, 2897–2908 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02402856

In the Soviet Union, one of the specialists was Andrei Lipson. Another key Soviet Union scientist, often quoted in this area, is a Deryaguin (several possible spellings). He was a leading scientist in chemical sciences, and a specialist of water. I haven't been thinking on that subject for decades, but fractofusion, for what I can remember, was explored as a possible interesting way to toy with… deuterated ice. Might bear some interest here. Not IceRodas though…

A

true but the nuclear bomb system
like this could work just take the tube system and scale it up and put it inside of the rod! simple science

 

[Dilandu]

like this could work just take the tube system and scale it up and put it inside of the rod! simple science

It could, but what the point?

First of all, the gun-type bombs are costly and inefficient. They require a lot of costly oralloy fuel, of which only a small part is actually used in reaction.

Secondly, the implosion-type bomb could be made quite small in diameter as well.

Thirdly... the whole point of orbiting rods is providing nuclear-scaler (sub-kiloton) strike capabilities without actually using nukes. If you decide to put nukes on rod... why not just use nuclear warhead without a rod?

 

[Conspirator]

like this could work just take the tube system and scale it up and put it inside of the rod! simple science

It could, but what the point?

First of all, the gun-type bombs are costly and inefficient. They require a lot of costly oralloy fuel, of which only a small part is actually used in reaction.

Secondly, the implosion-type bomb could be made quite small in diameter as well.

Thirdly... the whole point of orbiting rods is providing nuclear-scaler (sub-kiloton) strike capabilities without actually using nukes. If you decide to put nukes on rod... why not just use nuclear warhead without a rod?

true.true. but think at mach 10 the warhead would still take time to detonate so first it would penetrate it dig into the ground THEN detonate so everything would be "uprooted" in a sense. it would be guranteed death of whatever it was you were pointing the KRDS so i mean it kind of makes sense (not insulting your intellect)

 

[bobbymike]

They're reiterating that bullcrap claim again.

A Rod from low orbit is unlikely to hit at anything exceeding orbital speed, 7.8 km/s, unless it has been fired from a giant railgun. More probable speeds are 1-4 km/s.

An object at 3 km/s packs KE equivalent to its mass in TNT. An object at 7.8 km/s has KE around 6.8 times it mass.

If you want a kiloton impact, you need a 150-tonne R

It would be easier to make an all solid Antares with an estimated 25k G2G payload and put a MOAB in the nosecone

stupid question but what is a MOAB? i mean all of the stuff i know and i dont know what that is

Mother of all bombs - a very large conventional weapon the US has

 

[Conspirator]

like this could work just take the tube system and scale it up and put it inside of the rod! simple science

It could, but what the point?

First of all, the gun-type bombs are costly and inefficient. They require a lot of costly oralloy fuel, of which only a small part is actually used in reaction.

Secondly, the implosion-type bomb could be made quite small in diameter as well.

Thirdly... the whole point of orbiting rods is providing nuclear-scaler (sub-kiloton) strike capabilities without actually using nukes. If you decide to put nukes on rod... why not just use nuclear warhead without a rod?

true.true. but think at mach 10 the warhead would still take time to detonate so first it would penetrate it dig into the ground THEN detonate so everything would be "uprooted" in a sense. it would be guranteed death of whatever it was you were pointing the KRDS so i mean it kind of makes sense (not insulting your intellect)

but you wouldnt use the exact gun tube system you would but a uranium rod at the top. and a uranium wedge at the bottom with a small seal holding the rod so upon impact the pressure "deletes" the seal and the uranium rod comes smashing down to detonation. simple physics!

 

[Conspirator]

They're reiterating that bullcrap claim again.

A Rod from low orbit is unlikely to hit at anything exceeding orbital speed, 7.8 km/s, unless it has been fired from a giant railgun. More probable speeds are 1-4 km/s.

An object at 3 km/s packs KE equivalent to its mass in TNT. An object at 7.8 km/s has KE around 6.8 times it mass.

If you want a kiloton impact, you need a 150-tonne R

It would be easier to make an all solid Antares with an estimated 25k G2G payload and put a MOAB in the nosecone

stupid question but what is a MOAB? i mean all of the stuff i know and i dont know what that is

Mother of all bombs - a very large conventional weapon the US has

oh god

 

[Conspirator]

like this could work just take the tube system and scale it up and put it inside of the rod! simple science

It could, but what the point?

First of all, the gun-type bombs are costly and inefficient. They require a lot of costly oralloy fuel, of which only a small part is actually used in reaction.

Secondly, the implosion-type bomb could be made quite small in diameter as well.

Thirdly... the whole point of orbiting rods is providing nuclear-scaler (sub-kiloton) strike capabilities without actually using nukes. If you decide to put nukes on rod... why not just use nuclear warhead without a rod?

true.true. but think at mach 10 the warhead would still take time to detonate so first it would penetrate it dig into the ground THEN detonate so everything would be "uprooted" in a sense. it would be guranteed death of whatever it was you were pointing the KRDS so i mean it kind of makes sense (not insulting your intellect)

but you wouldnt use the exact gun tube system you would but a uranium rod at the top. and a uranium wedge at the bottom with a small seal holding the rod so upon impact the pressure "deletes" the seal and the uranium rod comes smashing down to detonation. simple physics!

BUT! we cant do that according to the international space treaty "no chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons in space.

 

[Conspirator]

no words besides that this is exactly what im talking about

 

[Conspirator]

View attachment 648534

no words besides that this is exactly what im talking about

 

[Byeman]

View attachment 648534

no words besides that this is exactly what im talking about

Not workable. The artist knows nothing about orbital mechanics. Firing the rod straight down doesn't mean it is going straight down.

 

[DrRansom]

Nobody has presented a convincing description about the damage a "Rod from God" would actually do. There's a ton of energy in it, but it is in a different form than a Tomahawk warhead.

I suspect it is going to be like a very powerful anti-tank penetrator; which really makes the "Rod from God" best used against nuclear silos and - maybe - buildings. In which case, the design and deployment of it is strategically destabilizing.

 

[Conspirator]

View attachment 648534

no words besides that this is exactly what im talking about

Not workable. The artist knows nothing about orbital mechanics. Firing the rod straight down doesn't mean it is going straight down.

its not going to go strait down its an artists rendering. but the overall design is efficient and effective

 

[sferrin]

but the overall design is efficient and effective

How did you determine this?

 

[Dilandu]

How did you determine this?

Well, there isn't exactly many ways to draw a bundle of rods with strapped retro-rockets and their orbital stage, considering that the whole setup must fit into the rocket fairing... The idea of rods placed around the satellite "core" is practical way to decrease the length of the whole setup.

 

[Conspirator]

How did you determine this?

Well, there isn't exactly many ways to draw a bundle of rods with strapped retro-rockets and their orbital stage, considering that the whole setup must fit into the rocket fairing... The idea of rods placed around the satellite "core" is practical way to decrease the length of the whole setup.

i was just going to say that. yes you can save space and make a compact unit by doing this making it. A: harder to hit with a ballistic missile and B: esier to get up there

 

[Byeman]

How did you determine this?

Well, there isn't exactly many ways to draw a bundle of rods with strapped retro-rockets and their orbital stage, considering that the whole setup must fit into the rocket fairing... The idea of rods placed around the satellite "core" is practical way to decrease the length of the whole setup.

Length is not the most constraining dimension on a fairing, it is width. It is better to stack them than to place the rods around the core. Better like this and put the spacecraft bus behind.