Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Mike Sapp <cynner29@******.NET>
Subject: Re: Patriots vs Thor's {was Dunklezahn's Will, revisted)
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 23:25:42 -0400
At 09:36 PM 8/17/97 EDT, you wrote:
>
><snip : concerning targetting and accuracy of Anti-missle systems>

>The most effective of the current Anti-missiles (the Patriot, I think,
>it's what I'm talking about anyway:) works through the use of a proximity
>based explosion: When the missile gets close enough to the target, it
>blows up, with the intent being to explode the other warhead. If the Thor
>is a mass-driver device, one which fires solid (or mostly solid), inert
>projectiles without explosives of any kind, then a Patriot-like missile
>won't do anyone any good.
>

This was my first reaction as well. Although after I thought about it I
realized that the Thor system (as currently purposed) doesn't have the
ability to realign or track a target after launch. This means that any
sudden pressure change (such as a proximity warhead detonating nearby)
would alter the course of the Thor strike. Although this doesn't destroy
the projectiles it does prevent it from hitting it's intended target
assuming that target isn't larger than say a industrial complex.
Of course by 205x, with Shadowrun's massive technological jump,
Anti-missle systems, useful against ICBM's, would probably be laser based
sitting on a Geostat orbiting platform (a la Reagan's Star Wars). Since
this system and ICBM's are beyond all but the greatest of munchkin's I
can't see why FASA would publish any stat's.
Message no. 2
From: Jonathan Hurley <jhurley1@************.EDU>
Subject: Re: Patriots Vs Thor's {was Dunklezahn's Will, revisted)
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 00:15:52 -0400
On Sunday, August 17, 1997 23:25, Mike Sapp[SMTP:cynner29@******.NET]
wrote:

> This was my first reaction as well. Although after I thought
about it I
> realized that the Thor system (as currently purposed) doesn't have the
> ability to realign or track a target after launch. This means that any
> sudden pressure change (such as a proximity warhead detonating nearby)
> would alter the course of the Thor strike. Although this doesn't destroy
> the projectiles it does prevent it from hitting it's intended target
> assuming that target isn't larger than say a industrial complex.
> Of course by 205x, with Shadowrun's massive technological jump,
> Anti-missle systems, useful against ICBM's, would probably be laser based
> sitting on a Geostat orbiting platform (a la Reagan's Star Wars). Since
> this system and ICBM's are beyond all but the greatest of munchkin's I
> can't see why FASA would publish any stat's.

The problem is, Thors are heading towards the ground in a heck of a hurry.
It is quite probable that the shockwave from the interceptor missile will
be outrun by the Thorshot.

In FASA's Renegade Legion universe, where I first heard about Thor, it is
intercepted by "clean" gravitic-fusion (IE, not fission started) warhead
with a effective kill radius of 7.5 km. And that's about all the anti-Thor
defense there is, short of killing the launch platform first. (Which is
what mainly happens.) However, in that universe, the Thor projectile is
able to see and kill tank-sized targets moving at up to a few hundred kph.
After launch. (I'd like to know what the seeker head is made out of to be
able to survive re-entry.)

--
Quicksilver rides again
--------------
Those who would give up a little freedom for security
deserve neither freedom nor security
-Benjamin Franklin
Yeah, I have Attention Deficit Dis - Hey, look at that butterfly!
Jonathan Hurley (mailto:jhurley1@************.edu)
Message no. 3
From: Mike Bobroff <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Patriots vs Thor's {was Dunklezahn's Will, revisted)
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 03:14:38 -0400
In a message dated 97-08-18 02:20:43 EDT, you write:

> This was my first reaction as well. Although after I thought about it I
> realized that the Thor system (as currently purposed) doesn't have the
> ability to realign or track a target after launch. This means that any
> sudden pressure change (such as a proximity warhead detonating nearby)
> would alter the course of the Thor strike. Although this doesn't destroy
> the projectiles it does prevent it from hitting it's intended target
> assuming that target isn't larger than say a industrial complex.

Think again, a THOR, as I remember it, has fins so that it can perform course
corrections. Here is how it could work ... a satellite has the target
sighted and has a gps lock on the target ... then communicating via a digital
link to the THOR it can give course corrections ...
Message no. 4
From: George Metz <W0lfstar@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Patriots Vs Thor's {was Dunklezahn's Will, revisted)
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 04:08:43 -0400
In a message dated 97-08-18 03:26:50 EDT, you write:

> In FASA's Renegade Legion universe, where I first heard about Thor, it is
> intercepted by "clean" gravitic-fusion (IE, not fission started) warhead
> with a effective kill radius of 7.5 km. And that's about all the anti-Thor
> defense there is, short of killing the launch platform first. (Which is
> what mainly happens.) However, in that universe, the Thor projectile is
> able to see and kill tank-sized targets moving at up to a few hundred kph.
> After launch. (I'd like to know what the seeker head is made out of to be
> able to survive re-entry.)

Space-based laser is really the only effective, non tiptoe-around-the-ammo
countermeasure for this weapon system. As for tracking, it probably doesn't
have a seeker head. It probably takes manuevering commands from the launch
platform, using SBR - Space Based Radar - Arrays. In microgravity, you can
build as large a radar imaging system as you want, without worrying about a
lot of the restrictions earth-based radar suffers, such as curvature of the
Earth and power levels(Solar power, ain't it great?). And SBR's have no
problem tracking ground targets car-sized or larger. Ground clutter doesn't
come into play.

Wolfstar
Message no. 5
From: "MARTIN E. GOTTHARD" <s457033@*******.GU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Patriots vs Thor's {was Dunklezahn's Will, revisted)
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 20:37:26 +1000
> > This was my first reaction as well. Although after I thought about it I
> > realized that the Thor system (as currently purposed) doesn't have the
> > ability to realign or track a target after launch. This means that any
> > sudden pressure change (such as a proximity warhead detonating nearby)
> > would alter the course of the Thor strike. Although this doesn't destr=
oy
> > the projectiles it does prevent it from hitting it's intended target
> > assuming that target isn't larger than say a industrial complex.
>
> Think again, a THOR, as I remember it, has fins so that it can perform co=
urse
> corrections. Here is how it could work ... a satellite has the target
> sighted and has a gps lock on the target ... then communicating via a dig=
ital
> link to the THOR it can give course corrections ...
>

The original design specs called for them to be targetted a bit like a
smart bomb; ie, They home in on a laser-painted target using guidance
fins for mid-flight course corrections.

Of course, there would have been trouble with adjusting the trajectory
fast enough while dropping from orbit at an obsence rate of knots, but
I'd guess that computers have gotten fast enough (or nearly so) to handle=

the required maths.

Another problem (leaving aside re-entry) is the laser-designation, which
can be detected and reuqires visual contant with the target. I'd
guess that a 'modern' Thor would use optical or thermal image recognition t=
o
find its target.

AFAIK, the idea never really got past the 'blue sky' stage, but then again,=

knowing the military's penchant for secrecy, anyhing is possible.

Finally; The cost of each Thor would probably be on the order of 10+
million dollars inculding the cost of orbital lift, and this may make it
uneconomical.

(Just my 2¥ worth, off the top of my head)

Marty
Message no. 6
From: Mike Sapp <cynner29@******.NET>
Subject: Re: Patriots vs Thor's {was Dunklezahn's Will, revisted)
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 10:32:56 -0400
At 03:14 AM 8/18/97 -0400, you wrote:
>In a message dated 97-08-18 02:20:43 EDT, you write:
>
>> This was my first reaction as well. Although after I thought about it I
>> realized that the Thor system (as currently purposed) doesn't have the
>> ability to realign or track a target after launch. This means that any
>> sudden pressure change (such as a proximity warhead detonating nearby)
>> would alter the course of the Thor strike. Although this doesn't destroy
>> the projectiles it does prevent it from hitting it's intended target
>> assuming that target isn't larger than say a industrial complex.
>
>Think again, a THOR, as I remember it, has fins so that it can perform course
>corrections. Here is how it could work ... a satellite has the target
>sighted and has a gps lock on the target ... then communicating via a digital
>link to the THOR it can give course corrections ...
>
>
When Thor was concieved, the idea was to have a space based weapon system
that was affordable without residuals such as radiation. Thor was basically
shards of metal, large enough to have a significant portion survive
re-entry, which had a solid fuel cell with fins and a simple telementry
reciever for initial positioning and launch. (In your best Johnny Cash
sing, "Crowbars in the sky".) They would sit in a Geo-stationary orbit over
potential targets after being placed by either the shuttle or a special
purpose launch vehicle.

The core of the system was the fact that it was cheap, re-entry shielding
or after launch guidance would eliminate it's affordability. Guidance
systems are expensive, Russia decided that it was cheaper to just continue
lobbing SCUDs at targets until one hit, than to equip one missle with a pin
point system and dozens if not hundreds of these things need to be used in
a single strike to be effective.

Regarding a later post on this topic}
Tracking a painted target might have been part of the system, though I
don't remember a mention, I'll go check out a "Jane's" later. If it was
then it would most likely have been part of the Satellite that forwarded
ground based telementry, since those sights are even more expensive and
delicate than the GPS system it would make sense to have one that
controlled the projectiles instead of each projectile having it's own.

Regarding yet another post}
The Goalkeeper, Phalanx and other "Wall'o'Lead" systems, would have
little
effect on Thor, since the maximum range of those systems are only a couple
of hundred meters (they're only machineguns after all). At that range even
the individual projectiles you manage to hit wouldn't deviate far enough to
miss a decent sized target.

In the end, the simple fact of what Thor was, killed the idea. Ask the
Austrailians on this list about the fun that comes with another country's
crap falling on or near your country.
Message no. 7
From: Jonathan Hurley <jhurley1@************.EDU>
Subject: Re: Patriots Vs Thor's {was Dunklezahn's Will, revisted)
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 14:39:07 -0400
On Monday, August 18, 1997 04:08, George Metz[SMTP:W0lfstar@***.COM] wrote:
> In a message dated 97-08-18 03:26:50 EDT, you write:
>
> > In FASA's Renegade Legion universe, where I first heard about Thor, it
is
> > intercepted by "clean" gravitic-fusion (IE, not fission started)
warhead
> > with a effective kill radius of 7.5 km. And that's about all the
anti-Thor
> > defense there is, short of killing the launch platform first. (Which
is
> > what mainly happens.) However, in that universe, the Thor projectile
is
> > able to see and kill tank-sized targets moving at up to a few hundred
kph.
> > After launch. (I'd like to know what the seeker head is made out of to
be
> > able to survive re-entry.)
>
> Space-based laser is really the only effective, non
tiptoe-around-the-ammo
> countermeasure for this weapon system. As for tracking, it probably
doesn't
> have a seeker head. It probably takes manuevering commands from the
launch
> platform, using SBR - Space Based Radar - Arrays. In microgravity, you
can
> build as large a radar imaging system as you want, without worrying about
a
> lot of the restrictions earth-based radar suffers, such as curvature of
the
> Earth and power levels(Solar power, ain't it great?). And SBR's have no
> problem tracking ground targets car-sized or larger. Ground clutter
doesn't
> come into play.
>
> Wolfstar
>

The RenLeg universe is set around 6000 CE, so tech is whatever the writers
want. As they have battlefield-grade lasers, it doesn't really matter.
Besides, the Thor satellite doesn't want to have a high profile, otherwise
it gets nailed before launch instead of after. And in that universe, the
Throe has a seeker head.

In SR, it probably doesn't.
--
Quicksilver rides again
--------------
Those who would give up a little freedom for security
deserve neither freedom nor security
-Benjamin Franklin
Yeah, I have Attention Deficit Dis - Hey, look at that butterfly!
Jonathan Hurley (mailto:jhurley1@************.edu)
Message no. 8
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Patriots vs Thor's {was Dunklezahn's Will, revisted)
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 20:01:00 +0100
In message <Pine.SOL.3.91.970818203150.16831H-100000@*****.student.gu.ed
u.au>, "MARTIN E. GOTTHARD" <s457033@*******.GU.EDU.AU> writes
>Finally; The cost of each Thor would probably be on the order of 10+
>million dollars inculding the cost of orbital lift, and this may make it
>uneconomical.

Call it several times that per round, and add the cost of the targeting
sensors and comms links. This will be an expensive system. Worth it to
kill a billion-dollar warship, but uneconomic for killing individual
tanks.

It also adds a large incentive to countermeasure development. If the
"price of admission" rises (meaning you have to drop four THORs to
saturate the hard-kill defences, plus another four to get a hit despite
enemy jamming/decoys) then instead of one THORshot costing X million,
you now need to spend 8X on a given target to get a kill, and have eight
times as many available in any given location. A vital equation,
particularly for corporations.

For attacking high-value point targets (ICBM silos, major warships,
command bunkers) this might be a useful system: but it's not going to
stop an infantry assault.


This assumes the rounds are individual and fairly large (kinetic-kill
bunker-busters). If the system is a "shotgun" (ten tons of heat-
resistant crowbars dropped to saturate a mile-wide area) then it's both
more and less useful, and the only really effective countermeasures are
soft-kill (have it be shot at the wrong target) or preemption (kill it
before it is dropped).

The shotgun suffers from the problem of lack of discrimination (meaning
high collateral damage) and low target density: in a world including
DPICM shells and nuclear weapons, military forces spread out for
survival. A mile-wide target area might only include a company of
infantry, or one or two ships of a battlegroup: and while the rods might
be cheap, ten tons is an expensive payload to haul into orbit.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 9
From: Jonathan Hurley <jhurley1@************.EDU>
Subject: Re: Patriots vs Thor's {was Dunklezahn's Will, revisted)
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 16:32:32 -0400
On Monday, August 18, 1997 15:01, Paul J.
Adam[SMTP:shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK] wrote:

First, I'd like to say that I am not arguing Paul's points as much as
stating my views on those points. The following is what I think Thor would
be in 205X, and my reasoning.

> In message <Pine.SOL.3.91.970818203150.16831H-100000@*****.student.gu.ed
> u.au>, "MARTIN E. GOTTHARD" <s457033@*******.GU.EDU.AU> writes
> >Finally; The cost of each Thor would probably be on the order of 10+
> >million dollars inculding the cost of orbital lift, and this may make it
> >uneconomical.
>
> Call it several times that per round, and add the cost of the targeting
> sensors and comms links. This will be an expensive system. Worth it to
> kill a billion-dollar warship, but uneconomic for killing individual
> tanks.

IMHO, I don't think that the cost per warhead in 205X is that high. Lift to
LEO is (apparently) relatively cheap, as an airliner (suborbital) with
strap-ones can make LEO, apparently with a fairly large amount of cargo
(cf. NAGRL under the airliners section.) Most of the expense would be in
the platform that launches it, as it must at least be capable of
crosslinking targeting info from an external source, and figuring a
ballistic path to the target from the current location of the Thor
Satellite. The warheads themselves are pretty "dumb," having little need
for guidance, and what little they have can be downlinked from the launch
platform.

> It also adds a large incentive to countermeasure development. If the
> "price of admission" rises (meaning you have to drop four THORs to
> saturate the hard-kill defences, plus another four to get a hit despite
> enemy jamming/decoys) then instead of one THORshot costing X million,
> you now need to spend 8X on a given target to get a kill, and have eight
> times as many available in any given location. A vital equation,
> particularly for corporations.
>
> For attacking high-value point targets (ICBM silos, major warships,
> command bunkers) this might be a useful system: but it's not going to
> stop an infantry assault.

Never said it would. Thor in 205X would primarily be deployed by
corporations and governments to be used against (non-mobile) strategic
targets, preferably lacking in ASAT technology, or against high-value,
low-maneuverable targets such as a carrier group. And in that case, the
carrier group can probably disrupt the launching satellite after its first
salvo. The rub is. of course, that the carrier has to survive that first
salvo. Hence, the last few decades have seen a fair amount of money being
dumped into anti-Thor capability, and ASAT technology.

> This assumes the rounds are individual and fairly large (kinetic-kill
> bunker-busters). If the system is a "shotgun" (ten tons of heat-
> resistant crowbars dropped to saturate a mile-wide area) then it's both
> more and less useful, and the only really effective countermeasures are
> soft-kill (have it be shot at the wrong target) or preemption (kill it
> before it is dropped).
>
> The shotgun suffers from the problem of lack of discrimination (meaning
> high collateral damage) and low target density: in a world including
> DPICM shells and nuclear weapons, military forces spread out for
> survival. A mile-wide target area might only include a company of
> infantry, or one or two ships of a battlegroup: and while the rods might
> be cheap, ten tons is an expensive payload to haul into orbit.

My guess, Thor rounds individually are designed to pack enough energy to be
able to cripple a carrier with a glancing hit (at least the anti-shipping
ones. For larger Targets, see _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_ by Robert
Heinlein, where rocks up to a half-tonne (metric) are dropped on target.
Pretty dumb guidance, too. But even a near-miss with a nuc-tipped
interceptor missile won't stop them.)

--
Quicksilver rides again
--------------
Those who would give up a little freedom for security
deserve neither freedom nor security
-Benjamin Franklin
Yeah, I have Attention Deficit Dis - Hey, look at that butterfly!
Jonathan Hurley (mailto:jhurley1@************.edu)
Message no. 10
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Patriots vs Thor's {was Dunklezahn's Will, revisted)
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 22:11:38 +0100
In message <01BCABF4.54E82080@********.u96.stevens-tech.edu>, Jonathan
Hurley <jhurley1@************.EDU> writes
>On Monday, August 18, 1997 15:01, Paul J.
>Adam[SMTP:shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK] wrote:
>> Call it several times that per round, and add the cost of the targeting
>> sensors and comms links. This will be an expensive system. Worth it to
>> kill a billion-dollar warship, but uneconomic for killing individual
>> tanks.
>
>IMHO, I don't think that the cost per warhead in 205X is that high. Lift to
>LEO is (apparently) relatively cheap, as an airliner (suborbital) with
>strap-ones can make LEO, apparently with a fairly large amount of cargo
>(cf. NAGRL under the airliners section.)

Are THOR satellites LEO? I'd have gone for geosynch. It's possible for a
carrier group to stay out of sight of a LEO satellite, as the US and
Royal Navies used to demonstrate against the Soviet radar ocean
reconnaisance satellites: geosynch allows you to dominate an area and
gives you more KE on impact, at the price of higher energy costs for
launch.

You'd have to do as the Shuttle does, and lift a package into low orbit
with an attached booster to kick it to high orbit.

Also, if it's that cheap and easy to put payloads in orbit, then
identified THORshot satellites and their targeting / comms relay birds
are shadowed closely by innocuous-looking recon sats / communications
satellites / GPS satellites which are actually killersats. If tensions
rise, rob your enemy of as much of his orbital weaponry as fast as
possible.

Ditto for SOMs (another good reason to put THOR birds in geosynch:
otherwise air-launched ASATs could kill them over the enemy's home turf
on Day 1 of the conflict).

>Most of the expense would be in
>the platform that launches it, as it must at least be capable of
>crosslinking targeting info from an external source, and figuring a
>ballistic path to the target from the current location of the Thor
>Satellite. The warheads themselves are pretty "dumb," having little need
>for guidance, and what little they have can be downlinked from the launch
>platform.

Which makes the sensor platform and the datalinks key targets for either
hard or soft kill. Again, it's weapon systems, not individual hardware.

>> The shotgun suffers from the problem of lack of discrimination (meaning
>> high collateral damage) and low target density: in a world including
>> DPICM shells and nuclear weapons, military forces spread out for
>> survival. A mile-wide target area might only include a company of
>> infantry, or one or two ships of a battlegroup: and while the rods might
>> be cheap, ten tons is an expensive payload to haul into orbit.
>
>My guess, Thor rounds individually are designed to pack enough energy to be
>able to cripple a carrier with a glancing hit (at least the anti-shipping
>ones. For larger Targets, see _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_ by Robert
>Heinlein, where rocks up to a half-tonne (metric) are dropped on target.
>Pretty dumb guidance, too. But even a near-miss with a nuc-tipped
>interceptor missile won't stop them.)

Of course, I can't see any corporation or nation managing to complete a
linear accelerator on the Moon before it "suffers a catastrophic
accident", precisely because of the potential it offers.

Anywhere else, the cost of hauling half-ton rocks into orbit becomes
prohibitive: not that it cannot be done, but the weapon cannot be used
deniably, is lethal and indiscriminate, and generally costs more than
its target :)


--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 11
From: Jonathan Hurley <jhurley1@************.EDU>
Subject: Re: Patriots vs Thor's {was Dunklezahn's Will, revisted)
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 20:10:36 -0400
On Monday, August 18, 1997 17:11, Paul J.
Adam[SMTP:shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK] wrote:
> >> Call it several times that per round, and add the cost of the
targeting
> >> sensors and comms links. This will be an expensive system. Worth it to
> >> kill a billion-dollar warship, but uneconomic for killing individual
> >> tanks.
> >
> >IMHO, I don't think that the cost per warhead in 205X is that high. Lift
to
> >LEO is (apparently) relatively cheap, as an airliner (suborbital) with
> >strap-ones can make LEO, apparently with a fairly large amount of cargo
> >(cf. NAGRL under the airliners section.)
>
> Are THOR satellites LEO? I'd have gone for geosynch. It's possible for a
> carrier group to stay out of sight of a LEO satellite, as the US and
> Royal Navies used to demonstrate against the Soviet radar ocean
> reconnaisance satellites: geosynch allows you to dominate an area and
> gives you more KE on impact, at the price of higher energy costs for
> launch.

Geosynch is too expensive (as you just pointed out) and too hard to get to.
If a Thorsat can be lofted for as much as, say, a few Phoenix AAMs costs
today, you don't care about the fact that they are vulnerable, and don't
get full coverage.

> Also, if it's that cheap and easy to put payloads in orbit, then
> identified THORshot satellites and their targeting / comms relay birds
> are shadowed closely by innocuous-looking recon sats / communications
> satellites / GPS satellites which are actually killersats. If tensions
> rise, rob your enemy of as much of his orbital weaponry as fast as
> possible.

Is every satellite with military potential followed by a killersat in 205X?
Its a hell of a cost, especially when surface to orbit missiles are as
cheap, non-dedicated, and not as obvious. ("Hey Fuchi, why did you just put
a sat next to our peaceful commsat?")

> Ditto for SOMs (another good reason to put THOR birds in geosynch:
> otherwise air-launched ASATs could kill them over the enemy's home turf
> on Day 1 of the conflict).

Yep. Thor in SR (IMHO) is not a "permanent" threat, in that during war,
OpFor ASAT weaponry will sweep the pre-postitioned ones out of orbit (along
with the rest of the militarily useful satellites.) It makes a great stick
for the corps to wave at non ASAT-capable targets. And it has a decent
first strike capability.

> >Most of the expense would be in
> >the platform that launches it, as it must at least be capable of
> >crosslinking targeting info from an external source, and figuring a
> >ballistic path to the target from the current location of the Thor
> >Satellite. The warheads themselves are pretty "dumb," having little
need
> >for guidance, and what little they have can be downlinked from the
launch
> >platform.
>
> Which makes the sensor platform and the datalinks key targets for either
> hard or soft kill. Again, it's weapon systems, not individual hardware.

OK. But if it suddenly starts raining Thor, the CV-group has to deal with
the incoming shots before they can deal with the launch platform. And if
the platform was just launched (as sort of a modernized FOBS system; that
is, the Thor platform is launched from the OpFor interior into a fractional
orbit which will cross over the are in which the CV-group is thought to be
in, it detects the target and engages with Thorshot. Of course, you can
still jam the guidance link/detection gear.)

> >My guess, Thor rounds individually are designed to pack enough energy to
be
> >able to cripple a carrier with a glancing hit (at least the
anti-shipping
> >ones. For larger Targets, see _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_ by Robert
> >Heinlein, where rocks up to a half-tonne (metric) are dropped on target.
> >Pretty dumb guidance, too. But even a near-miss with a nuc-tipped
> >interceptor missile won't stop them.)
>
> Of course, I can't see any corporation or nation managing to complete a
> linear accelerator on the Moon before it "suffers a catastrophic
> accident", precisely because of the potential it offers.
>
> Anywhere else, the cost of hauling half-ton rocks into orbit becomes
> prohibitive: not that it cannot be done, but the weapon cannot be used
> deniably, is lethal and indiscriminate, and generally costs more than
> its target :)

Yep. :)

Please note: I am not saying that any of the points you have brought up are
invalid. I'm saying that Thor probably exists in 205X Shadowrun, and that
countermeasures that can be carried about a ship exist as well. The
original start of this thread was that I thought that the Firetrack system
as presented in the Lone Star sourcebook made a lot of sense as such a
system.

--
Quicksilver rides again
--------------
Those who would give up a little freedom for security
deserve neither freedom nor security
-Benjamin Franklin
Yeah, I have Attention Deficit Dis - Hey, look at that butterfly!
Jonathan Hurley (mailto:jhurley1@************.edu)
Message no. 12
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Patriots vs Thor's {was Dunklezahn's Will, revisted)
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 01:25:44 +0100
In message <01BCAC12.CB6DF0E0@********.u96.stevens-tech.edu>, Jonathan
Hurley <jhurley1@************.EDU> writes
>On Monday, August 18, 1997 17:11, Paul J.
>Adam[SMTP:shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK] wrote:
>> Are THOR satellites LEO? I'd have gone for geosynch. It's possible for a
>> carrier group to stay out of sight of a LEO satellite, as the US and
>> Royal Navies used to demonstrate against the Soviet radar ocean
>> reconnaisance satellites: geosynch allows you to dominate an area and
>> gives you more KE on impact, at the price of higher energy costs for
>> launch.
>
>Geosynch is too expensive (as you just pointed out) and too hard to get to.
>If a Thorsat can be lofted for as much as, say, a few Phoenix AAMs costs
>today, you don't care about the fact that they are vulnerable, and don't
>get full coverage.

As you say: depends on the target you're after.

The UCAS probably doesn't quake in its boots at the mention of THOR
these days, but if the nation of Uckfay Ouyay decides to get rowdy with
Ares, then the Presidential Palace, the main military barracks and a few
other key points might grow craters the next time a particular satellite
passes overhead...

>> Also, if it's that cheap and easy to put payloads in orbit, then
>> identified THORshot satellites and their targeting / comms relay birds
>> are shadowed closely by innocuous-looking recon sats / communications
>> satellites / GPS satellites which are actually killersats. If tensions
>> rise, rob your enemy of as much of his orbital weaponry as fast as
>> possible.
>
>Is every satellite with military potential followed by a killersat in 205X?

Almost certainly not, but the sensor birds would be. Shoot out the eyes
and the system's blind.

Also, I'll bet that the UCAS has one or more lasers able to maim
satellites in orbit: either high-powered ground sites or systems like
AOA, putting the laser on an aircraft and shooting from above the
thickest atmosphere.

Of course, if your nation/corporation can't affort that...

>Its a hell of a cost, especially when surface to orbit missiles are as
>cheap, non-dedicated, and not as obvious. ("Hey Fuchi, why did you just put
>a sat next to our peaceful commsat?")

"It's a navigational beacon. Space is free. Bug off." :) After all,
lofting orbital weapons is a fairly aggressive move: someone positioning
countermeasures is hardly escalation.

>> Which makes the sensor platform and the datalinks key targets for either
>> hard or soft kill. Again, it's weapon systems, not individual hardware.
>
>OK. But if it suddenly starts raining Thor, the CV-group has to deal with
>the incoming shots before they can deal with the launch platform.

Again: countermeasures based on preventing that first shot.

Shades of the Cold War, really... ;)

>And if
>the platform was just launched (as sort of a modernized FOBS system; that
>is, the Thor platform is launched from the OpFor interior into a fractional
>orbit which will cross over the are in which the CV-group is thought to be
>in, it detects the target and engages with Thorshot. Of course, you can
>still jam the guidance link/detection gear.)

Now a FOBS THOR is genuinely nasty, and I hadn't thought of that option
before.

>Please note: I am not saying that any of the points you have brought up are
>invalid. I'm saying that Thor probably exists in 205X Shadowrun, and that
>countermeasures that can be carried about a ship exist as well. The
>original start of this thread was that I thought that the Firetrack system
>as presented in the Lone Star sourcebook made a lot of sense as such a
>system.

Agreed completely. This is a system for most forces to fear, corporate
or national. A handful of players can counter it, but for most it's the
sword of Damocles over their heads.

I know from experience that some, unchecked, will claim it as the
ultimate unstoppable weapon, so I play devil's advocate to point out how
you could (with enough money) defeat it. Most forces don't have the
budget for more than the most basic countermeasures, though...

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 13
From: Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Patriots vs Thor's {was Dunklezahn's Will, revisted)
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 03:52:42 +0000
> >Finally; The cost of each Thor would probably be on the order of 10+
> >million dollars inculding the cost of orbital lift, and this may make it
> >uneconomical.
>
> Call it several times that per round, and add the cost of the targeting
> sensors and comms links. This will be an expensive system. Worth it to
> kill a billion-dollar warship, but uneconomic for killing individual
> tanks.

IMHO the Thor system is unrealistic if the basis is that the
rods has to be hauled from earth. The Hammers are nothing more than
large rocks; launching those into space would be very inefficient
payloads. Launching a tenth the weight in hyperadvanced missiles
would be both cheaper and better. Or laser platforms, emp pulsers,
solar reflecetor foci (100*100KM parabolic mirror reflecting the sun
onto a 100*100M area of choice.. power converters or battlefields..)
X-Laser satellites (Cute and utterly illegal weapons), whatever.

Project Thor is feasible when space/asteroid mining is feasible. A
lunar base with a huge 'railgun' to transport materials to earth
could easily also be a similar launching facility for hammers.
(Without the need for either guidance or rockets.. just big, huge,
lumps of rock thrown. Also, return rockets on crowbars from asteroid
belts could work similarily. Those would be the two best
'super' weapon grade launch methods. According to Niven & Pournelle
each rod would release the energy of a medium nuke upon impact, which
makes the point of direct hits mote.

Both the lunar and asteroid launch method would use the earth's
gravity to accelerate the hammers in addition to their normal
propellants rather than braking them, as would normally be the case.

Note that almost all of the abovementioned systems is perfectly
reasonable commercial space systems that can be easily converted to
military use; a lot 'better' weapons than obvious military targets.

Paul wrote:
> I know from experience that some, unchecked, will claim it as the
> ultimate unstoppable weapon, so I play devil's advocate to point out how
> you could (with enough money) defeat it. Most forces don't have the
> budget for more than the most basic countermeasures, though...

Shoot the shooter first is the best defence.. ASAT missiles is
oldtech; it can be used against its eyes if not the hammers
themselves.

Powerful (railguns, lasers, missiles) can cause the hammer to
fragment, and thus evaporate before hitting the ground... or reduce
the effect.

Can tricks be played on the atmosphere itself to increases friction?
(And thus evaporate the thing faster.. say, several high-atmosphere
FAB detonations..).

Asat missiles ought to be commonly available to almost any nation.


--
Fade

"Do you wish to dance with Lucretia, Mr. President?"
Message no. 14
From: Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Patriots vs Thor's {was Dunklezahn's Will, revisted)
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 12:06:01 GMT
Jonathan Hurley writes
> >


> > Ditto for SOMs (another good reason to put THOR birds in geosynch:
> > otherwise air-launched ASATs could kill them over the enemy's home turf
> > on Day 1 of the conflict).
>
> Yep. Thor in SR (IMHO) is not a "permanent" threat, in that during war,
> OpFor ASAT weaponry will sweep the pre-postitioned ones out of orbit (along
> with the rest of the militarily useful satellites.) It makes a great stick
> for the corps to wave at non ASAT-capable targets. And it has a decent
> first strike capability.
>
This is where i see it being used.
For intimidation 'as per House of the Sun' where Thor was waved at
the UCAS fleet to tell them to keep out, it's expensive so it's use
shows commitment but hitting empty water doesn't do much collateral
Start throwing Thor at The UCAS enough to get retaliation and we get
back to MAD and goodby planet Earth in very short order.
The other time its wonderful is for intimidating the drek out of
minor nations etc. Irradiating large parts of the globe is not
popular so Thor replaces Nukes for 'big nasty mega tech weapon' to
hold over the heads of folks without the worries about radiation
making you public enemy number one the moment you use it.
Like most such weapons in practice it's used for waving at folks not
firing, just plain too expensive, but the fact you could and will use
it if you have to discourages stupidity.

> > Which makes the sensor platform and the datalinks key targets for either
> > hard or soft kill. Again, it's weapon systems, not individual hardware.
>
> OK. But if it suddenly starts raining Thor, the CV-group has to deal with
> the incoming shots before they can deal with the launch platform. And if
> the platform was just launched (as sort of a modernized FOBS system; that
> is, the Thor platform is launched from the OpFor interior into a fractional
> orbit which will cross over the are in which the CV-group is thought to be
> in, it detects the target and engages with Thorshot. Of course, you can
> still jam the guidance link/detection gear.)
>
Yeah. I would call a carrier group out in the ocean at speed a pretty
poor Thor target (the House of the Sun example was close to the
island i think). Nuclear powered carriers can maintain 30-32 knots
for a long time but catch em flag waving at low speed and sure. Yes,
the launch platform and a decker does stike as the best solution :)
Oh that Thor you just fired off at the Artic ice cap, yeah that Thor
:)

> > Anywhere else, the cost of hauling half-ton rocks into orbit becomes
> > prohibitive: not that it cannot be done, but the weapon cannot be used
> > deniably, is lethal and indiscriminate, and generally costs more than
> > its target :)
>
> Yep. :)
>
Depends what you are dropping it on, but 1/2 ton rocks from orbit are
pretty indescriminate, not sure how big the bang wound be but not
funny. If you start getting bigger well. I'm not sure how much your
average launch costs (larger launchers) but in SR it's probably not
to bad, Comms Sats in Geosynch now weigh up to several tons, and
launchers that size should get cheaper as technology continues to
improve, 'spaceplane' technology which SR has will make another huge
difference (your suborbital with strap on boosters)

> Please note: I am not saying that any of the points you have brought up are
> invalid. I'm saying that Thor probably exists in 205X Shadowrun, and that
> countermeasures that can be carried about a ship exist as well. The
> original start of this thread was that I thought that the Firetrack system
> as presented in the Lone Star sourcebook made a lot of sense as such a
> system.
>
I don't remember the particulars for Lone Star but the US presently
tracks LEO junk down to about 10cm stuff with Radar so By SR the Big
corps should be able to see Satelite sized stuff going over.

Mark

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Patriots vs Thor's {was Dunklezahn's Will, revisted), you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!