Rods from God / "Project Thor"

[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.

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

Not true. Has no effect on "harder to hit" and certainly not easier to get up there.

 

[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

Not true. Has no effect on "harder to hit" and certainly not easier to get up there.

care to elaborate? the smaller the target the harder it is to hit unless you have a railgun with a sight that can see atoms. and the smaller the package the easier it is to put it on a third stage rocket. and its more stable in the third stage. less trips too.

 

[sferrin]

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

Not true. Has no effect on "harder to hit" and certainly not easier to get up there.

care to elaborate? the smaller the target the harder it is to hit unless you have a railgun with a sight that can see atoms. and the smaller the package the easier it is to put it on a third stage rocket. and its more stable in the third stage. less trips too.

SM-3 not only did a kinetic kill against a satellite it hit a specific PART of the satellite. And the satellite was tumbling. In one article in AvWeek a Lockheed engineer said THAAD could hit any specific part of a target the size of a sheet of notebook paper. That's how accurate they are. You aren't going to be able to make your satellite small enough for modern KKVs to care.

 

[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

Not true. Has no effect on "harder to hit" and certainly not easier to get up there.

care to elaborate? the smaller the target the harder it is to hit unless you have a railgun with a sight that can see atoms. and the smaller the package the easier it is to put it on a third stage rocket. and its more stable in the third stage. less trips too.

SM-3 not only did a kinetic kill against a satellite it hit a specific PART of the satellite. And the satellite was tumbling. In one article in AvWeek a Lockheed engineer said THAAD could hit any specific part of a target the size of a sheet of notebook paper. That's how accurate they are. You aren't going to be able to make your satellite small enough for modern KKVs to care.

oh wow (ugh..... russians and thier missiles) okay so have some sort of interception system

 

[Dilandu]

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.

Well, rods aren't exactly wide either, so this isn't so much a problem - more a question of architecture choice. Frankly, both the rods around the core and rods in front of the core concepts have advantages and disadvantages, but not exactly crucial.

 

[Dilandu]

SM-3 not only did a kinetic kill against a satellite it hit a specific PART of the satellite. And the satellite was tumbling. In one article in AvWeek a Lockheed engineer said THAAD could hit any specific part of a target the size of a sheet of notebook paper. That's how accurate they are. You aren't going to be able to make your satellite small enough for modern KKVs to care.

On the other hands, if the satellite could maneuver even a bit, the intercept would be MUCH more difficult. And rod's "bus" satellite by definition would have quite a lot of delta-v supply for targeting. So, the strap-around concept have some advantage here; it's shorter and easier to rotate.

oh wow (ugh..... russians and thier missiles) okay so have some sort of interception system

The simplest solution would be to strap om some KKV's on satellite - to intercept and kill incoming enemy KKV's.

 

[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.

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

Not true. Has no effect on "harder to hit" and certainly not easier to get up there.

care to elaborate? the smaller the target the harder it is to hit unless you have a railgun with a sight that can see atoms. and the smaller the package the easier it is to put it on a third stage rocket. and its more stable in the third stage. less trips too.

wider does not mean more compact and smaller. Again, wider means it doesn't fit in fairings. And there is no need for a third stages. Also, wider does not mean mean more stable.

 

[Byeman]

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.

Well, rods aren't exactly wide either, so this isn't so much a problem - more a question of architecture choice. Frankly, both the rods around the core and rods in front of the core concepts have advantages and disadvantages, but not exactly crucial.

Yes, it is crucial. More can be carried in front.

 

[Dilandu]

Yes, it is crucial. More can be carried in front.

Not is isn't. The number of rods is limited by mass much more than by size.

 

[chimeric oncogene]

Yes, it is crucial. More can be carried in front.

Not is isn't. The number of rods is limited by mass much more than by size.

I think a bigger limitation on rod packing is how big the deorbit motor is going to be, especially if it's liquid fuel. A mass economical motor is going to be short and stubby and not very dense (2 tonnes/m3 IIRC) while a rod is going to be long and thin and dense (tungsten is 20 tonnes/m3). With a mass ratio in the 1.1-1.2x range for a reasonable deorbit time (dv a few hundred m/s), that's a big, wide motor for a thin rod.

 

[Byeman]

Yes, it is crucial. More can be carried in front.

Not is isn't. The number of rods is limited by mass much more than by size.

Wrong, there is more to rod than just the rod

 

[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

Not true. Has no effect on "harder to hit" and certainly not easier to get up there.

care to elaborate? the smaller the target the harder it is to hit unless you have a railgun with a sight that can see atoms. and the smaller the package the easier it is to put it on a third stage rocket. and its more stable in the third stage. less trips too.

wider does not mean more compact and smaller. Again, wider means it doesn't fit in fairings. And there is no need for a third stages. Also, wider does not mean mean more stable.

its not wider though. the rods are wrapped around a central core so it would be a more compact unit. the only problem would be length.

 

[Byeman]

its not wider though. the rods are wrapped around a central core so it would be a more compact unit. the only problem would be length.

It is wider because it is wrapped around the core, which is not compact. Putting them in front means it is a narrow as the the plain core. Again, length is not a problem. Slender and longer is better than short and wide.

 

[Conspirator]

length isnt a problem you say?

 

[Conspirator]

length isnt a problem you say?

this is the kind of thing that would be perfect a small core with the KDRS wrapped around it. it creates new design horizons

 

[tequilashooter]

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

Not true. Has no effect on "harder to hit" and certainly not easier to get up there.

care to elaborate? the smaller the target the harder it is to hit unless you have a railgun with a sight that can see atoms. and the smaller the package the easier it is to put it on a third stage rocket. and its more stable in the third stage. less trips too.

SM-3 not only did a kinetic kill against a satellite it hit a specific PART of the satellite. And the satellite was tumbling. In one article in AvWeek a Lockheed engineer said THAAD could hit any specific part of a target the size of a sheet of notebook paper. That's how accurate they are. You aren't going to be able to make your satellite small enough for modern KKVs to care.

oh wow (ugh..... russians and thier missiles) okay so have some sort of interception system

dont really need to hit the satellite holding the rods. They are making lasers and EW systems like the Ekipazh in space for a reason. I feel like everyone is overthinking the counter measures or the systems practicality of use.

 

[Byeman]

View attachment 648952


length isnt a problem you say?

There is nothing related to length in your post

Length isn't a problem in launching into orbit. Width is a problem in launching into orbit.

 

[sferrin]

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

Not true. Has no effect on "harder to hit" and certainly not easier to get up there.

care to elaborate? the smaller the target the harder it is to hit unless you have a railgun with a sight that can see atoms. and the smaller the package the easier it is to put it on a third stage rocket. and its more stable in the third stage. less trips too.

SM-3 not only did a kinetic kill against a satellite it hit a specific PART of the satellite. And the satellite was tumbling. In one article in AvWeek a Lockheed engineer said THAAD could hit any specific part of a target the size of a sheet of notebook paper. That's how accurate they are. You aren't going to be able to make your satellite small enough for modern KKVs to care.

oh wow (ugh..... russians and thier missiles) okay so have some sort of interception system

dont really need to hit the satellite holding the rods. They are making lasers and EW systems like the Ekipazh in space for a reason. I feel like everyone is overthinking the counter measures or the systems practicality of use.

Who wouldn't shoot the archer instead of the arrow if they could?

 

[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

Not true. Has no effect on "harder to hit" and certainly not easier to get up there.

care to elaborate? the smaller the target the harder it is to hit unless you have a railgun with a sight that can see atoms. and the smaller the package the easier it is to put it on a third stage rocket. and its more stable in the third stage. less trips too.

SM-3 not only did a kinetic kill against a satellite it hit a specific PART of the satellite. And the satellite was tumbling. In one article in AvWeek a Lockheed engineer said THAAD could hit any specific part of a target the size of a sheet of notebook paper. That's how accurate they are. You aren't going to be able to make your satellite small enough for modern KKVs to care.

oh wow (ugh..... russians and thier missiles) okay so have some sort of interception system

dont really need to hit the satellite holding the rods. They are making lasers and EW systems like the Ekipazh in space for a reason. I feel like everyone is overthinking the counter measures or the systems practicality of use.

Who wouldn't shoot the archer instead of the arrow if they could?

true very true i lie your philisophical look of it

 

[Fluff]

Apologies if this has been discussed already, but has anyone costed a reasonable deployment of this - i.e. destroy tanks en masse, with a decision to kill time of say 1H?

How does this cost then compare to say a carrier battle group or a wing of F16's, including a base.

What I'm trying to get at, is that this would be a very high cost system. Probably why no-one has done it.....

 

[Conspirator]

Apologies if this has been discussed already, but has anyone costed a reasonable deployment of this - i.e. destroy tanks en masse, with a decision to kill time of say 1H?

How does this cost then compare to say a carrier battle group or a wing of F16's, including a base.

What I'm trying to get at, is that this would be a very high cost system. Probably why no-one has done it.....

that is one of the things that we are figuring out is how we can make this cost effective. the whole point of this system is a kind of "push button warfare". being able to hit something/someone anytime, anywhere.

 

[Dilandu]

Apologies if this has been discussed already, but has anyone costed a reasonable deployment of this - i.e. destroy tanks en masse, with a decision to kill time of say 1H?

Destruction of high-value, hardened targets and/or deep inside of enemy territory without resorting to nuclear weapons.

 

[Grey Havoc]

It was also intended as a counter to invading Soviet tank armies that would at least delay the need to resort to tactical nukes to defend Western Europe.

 

[trose213]

A Starcruiser for Space Force: Thinking Through the Imminent Transformation of Spacepower - War on the Rocks

The U.S. military has launched and operated Earth-orbiting satellites since the Discoverer 1 mission in March 1959. Despite this long-term presence in

warontherocks.com

Looks like they might've found their cruiser

 

[RanulfC]

A Starcruiser for Space Force: Thinking Through the Imminent Transformation of Spacepower - War on the Rocks

The U.S. military has launched and operated Earth-orbiting satellites since the Discoverer 1 mission in March 1959. Despite this long-term presence in

warontherocks.com

Looks like they might've found their cruiser

They (well the Navy at any rate ) had one in the mid-80s:

http://www.up-ship.com/apr/extras/scruiser1.htm

October 31, 2012 – False Steps

1 post published by Paul Drye on October 31, 2012

falsesteps.wordpress.com

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/spaceplane-technology-and-research-star.1103/

The Air Force on the other hand was quite willing to invest in an actual "Space Battleship" in the early 60s:

The Space Review: Starfleet was closer than you think

Project Orion Battleship by Fantastic Plastic

So I suppose if they want to 'settle' for something as tame as Starship
(Which despite what the article touts wouldn't make a very good orbital weapons platform at any rate )

Randy

 

[Conspirator]

A Starcruiser for Space Force: Thinking Through the Imminent Transformation of Spacepower - War on the Rocks

The U.S. military has launched and operated Earth-orbiting satellites since the Discoverer 1 mission in March 1959. Despite this long-term presence in

warontherocks.com

Looks like they might've found their cruiser

They (well the Navy at any rate ) had one in the mid-80s:

http://www.up-ship.com/apr/extras/scruiser1.htm

October 31, 2012 – False Steps

1 post published by Paul Drye on October 31, 2012

falsesteps.wordpress.com

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/spaceplane-technology-and-research-star.1103/

The Air Force on the other hand was quite willing to invest in an actual "Space Battleship" in the early 60s:

The Space Review: Starfleet was closer than you think

Project Orion Battleship by Fantastic Plastic

So I suppose if they want to 'settle' for something as tame as Starship
(Which despite what the article touts wouldn't make a very good orbital weapons platform at any rate )

Randy

im just waiting for a civilian with a good enough telescope to find it and report it because you cant hide something that big very easily

 

[Conspirator]

Assuming these rods are on some orbiting structure, the motors could be taken up separately.

But still needs to be launched. Significantly increasing the cost - rocket booster, capable of slowing the orbital velocity significantly would be... rather enormous.

just a sudden thought..... repourposed shuttle type SRB's? that have a certain amount of fuel in them to land them in a retrievable location?

 

[RanulfC]

im just waiting for a civilian with a good enough telescope to find it and report it because you cant hide something that big very easily

Sure you can... Ever heard of camouflage?


How hard can an entire Starship be?

Randy

 

[RanulfC]

Assuming these rods are on some orbiting structure, the motors could be taken up separately.

But still needs to be launched. Significantly increasing the cost - rocket booster, capable of slowing the orbital velocity significantly would be... rather enormous.

just a sudden thought..... repourposed shuttle type SRB's? that have a certain amount of fuel in them to land them in a retrievable location?

No SRB's pretty much burn the whole load. A chemical LRB maybe but that's 'technically' what SuperHeavy is anyway

Part of the 'studies' on RftG's was a bus that used essentially a 'gun' to kick them out of the bus so the motor would have less work to do but ...

Randy

 

[Conspirator]

im just waiting for a civilian with a good enough telescope to find it and report it because you cant hide something that big very easily

Sure you can... Ever heard of camouflage?
View attachment 664077

How hard can an entire Starship be?

Randy

ok thats pretty good lmao but it would be a kind of black digital camo

 

[Conspirator]

Assuming these rods are on some orbiting structure, the motors could be taken up separately.

But still needs to be launched. Significantly increasing the cost - rocket booster, capable of slowing the orbital velocity significantly would be... rather enormous.

just a sudden thought..... repourposed shuttle type SRB's? that have a certain amount of fuel in them to land them in a retrievable location?

No SRB's pretty much burn the whole load. A chemical LRB maybe but that's 'technically' what SuperHeavy is anyway

Part of the 'studies' on RftG's was a bus that used essentially a 'gun' to kick them out of the bus so the motor would have less work to do but ...

Randy

look at the falcon first stage. it uses the same technique but to land. then again thats not an SRB

 

[RanulfC]

look at the falcon first stage. it uses the same technique but to land. then again thats not an SRB

Nope it's not but that's why I threw in the LRB (Liquid Rocket Boosters fyi ) comment As we've seen with the Falcon Heavy LRB's can be designed to do this but SRB's can't shut down and re-start like that

Randy

 

[Conspirator]

look at the falcon first stage. it uses the same technique but to land. then again thats not an SRB

Nope it's not but that's why I threw in the LRB (Liquid Rocket Boosters fyi ) comment As we've seen with the Falcon Heavy LRB's can be designed to do this but SRB's can't shut down and re-start like that

Randy

thats what i realized but the overall design is compact enough to put detachable mounts on the rods

 

[Dilandu]

just a sudden thought..... repourposed shuttle type SRB's? that have a certain amount of fuel in them to land them in a retrievable location?

They are not exactly space-proofed; any prolonged stay in orbit would most likely disable them due to heating-cooling cycle and zero-g effects on solid fuel.

 

[publiusr]

Who says a payload has to go up top.

Perhaps an OTRAG with the rods hidden within the cluster. They would all be the same length

 

[jsport]

'Global Strike From Space;' Did Kendall Reveal Chinese Threat? - Breaking Defense

WASHINGTON: When Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall used his Sept. 20 keynote speech at the annual Air Force Association conference to claim that China is developing the ability to launch “global strikes from space” against US targets, it raised more than a few eyebrows and sent military analysts...

breakingdefense.com

 

[TomcatViP]

FOBS:

Fractional Orbital Bombardment System - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Byeman]

Who says a payload has to go up top.

Perhaps an OTRAG with the rods hidden within the cluster. They would all be the same length

OTRAG concept is not viable.

 

[publiusr]

Interorbital was looking at it. If you go by Wade’s site, the CPRU confidence level was “higher than 6-sigma.”

Maybe that statement was just salesmanship…yet the design looks simple enough. Suppliers of steel tubing ought to jump at it. We got a lot of people hurting for work.

 

[antigravite]

'Global Strike From Space;' Did Kendall Reveal Chinese Threat? - Breaking Defense

WASHINGTON: When Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall used his Sept. 20 keynote speech at the annual Air Force Association conference to claim that China is developing the ability to launch “global strikes from space” against US targets, it raised more than a few eyebrows and sent military analysts...

breakingdefense.com

Title: Space-based kinetic energy weapon regressive orbit deployment method for regional striking task
Applicants: UNIV NORTHWESTERN POLYTECHNICAL
Inventors: LUO JIANJUN; YAO WEI; YUAN JIANPING; ZHU ZHANXIA; MA WEIHUA; TANG GESHI; HU SONGJIE; LI GEFEI
IPC: F41B15/00; F41G9/00; G06F19/00;
CPC: F41B15/00 (CN); F41G9/00 (CN); G16Z99/00 (CN);
Priorities: CN201610388969A·2016-06-02
Application: CN201610388969A·2016-06-02
Publication: CN106052482A·2016-10-26
Published as: CN106052482A;CN106052482B
Abstract The invention discloses a space-based kinetic energy weapon regressive orbit deployment method for a regional striking task. According to the space-based kinetic energy weapon regressive orbit deployment method for the regional striking task, the rapid striking task can be completed on the same task background only through nine platforms. By means of the orbit characteristic that a sub-satellite point track returns to an original passing path again a certain period of time later through the regression effect brought by the special relation between the regressive orbit cycle and the earth rotation cycle, an orbit deployment way of space-based kinetic energy weapons for the regional striking task in a single orbit plane can be achieved only through one platform, and thus the total number of platforms required by the task is greatly reduced.

A.