Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: David Foster <fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US>
Subject: [SR3] Physics Help
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 15:11:23 -0400
Ok, I'm working on some designs of orbital-based weaponry and was
hoping if any of you physicists out there could tell me in a rounded
number, the amount of energy necessary to launch a 10 kilogram payload
into a stable orbit approximately 17 million meters above sea level.
My thoughts were (for everyone to shoot at), if a megacorp, Ares
is a good example, launched small devices into orbit whose sole purpose
was come down and destroy a target by kinetic energy, how difficult would
it be to put into orbit by simply launching it from the surface in one big
burst. Small directional jets in the objects would make minor course
changes and slow the object for decent to impact.
I'm probably way off base thinking it could be ground-launched but
could any of you physics guys lay odds on how feasible this is?
Especially considering the use of fullerene as the structural material.

Fixer --------------} The easy I do before breakfast,
the difficult I do all day long,
the impossible only during the week,
and miracles performed on an as-needed basis....

Now tell me, what was your problem?
Message no. 2
From: Oliver McDonald <oliver@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Physics Help
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 12:43:00 +0800
On Mon, 14 Sep 1998 15:11:23 -0400, David Foster wrote:

> Ok, I'm working on some designs of orbital-based weaponry and was
>hoping if any of you physicists out there could tell me in a rounded
>number, the amount of energy necessary to launch a 10 kilogram payload
>into a stable orbit approximately 17 million meters above sea level.
> My thoughts were (for everyone to shoot at), if a megacorp, Ares
>is a good example, launched small devices into orbit whose sole purpose
>was come down and destroy a target by kinetic energy, how difficult would
>it be to put into orbit by simply launching it from the surface in one big
>burst. Small directional jets in the objects would make minor course
>changes and slow the object for decent to impact.

Actually, what you are proposing is not workable for a couple of reasons.

1) Obital elements are not good for kinetic energy strikes as it takes too much energy to
de-orbit them, and their velocity is not high enough.

2) 10 Kg objects will tend to mostly burn up in the atmosphere before impact, unless
they are areodynamically shaped. No real mass distruction, but a good armour
penetrator.

Kinetic energy strikes from space usually involve payloads in the multi-tonne range, and
our closest launch site is Luna. Perferably with an electromagnetic cannon.
Message no. 3
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Physics Help
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 15:46:44 -0400
David Foster wrote:
> Ok, I'm working on some designs of orbital-based weaponry and was
> hoping if any of you physicists out there could tell me in a rounded
> number, the amount of energy necessary to launch a 10 kilogram payload
> into a stable orbit approximately 17 million meters above sea level.
>
So about half geo-synchronous? Lots. :-) No, I'm not going to
calculate it.

> My thoughts were (for everyone to shoot at), if a megacorp, Ares
> is a good example, launched small devices into orbit whose sole purpose
> was come down and destroy a target by kinetic energy, how difficult would
> it be to put into orbit by simply launching it from the surface in one big
> burst. Small directional jets in the objects would make minor course
> changes and slow the object for decent to impact.
>
It's just a question of using enough explosive. You'd want to make the
barrel out of meter-thick steel, and there's no point in slowing the
object (gravity'll do that for you). This was essentially the plan
for the so-called supergun (the main proponent of the supergun
apparently defected to Iraq just before the Gulf War). Rockets are
much more efficient (continual thrust instead of a single impulse).

> I'm probably way off base thinking it could be ground-launched but
> could any of you physics guys lay odds on how feasible this is?
>
Plans have been drawn up. The guy whose plan it was had a hard time
getting the funding for it...

> Especially considering the use of fullerene as the structural material.
>
*sigh* What next? Are people going to advocate taking fullerene as a
pain killer? Cancer cure? The stuff's useful, but it's not the end-all
and be-all of technology. It's mostly useful in really small
applications as molecular containers/supports etc. Building apartments
out of the stuff... :-P

James Ojaste
Message no. 4
From: Adam Getchell <acgetchell@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Physics Help
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 13:15:41 -0700
>*sigh* What next? Are people going to advocate taking fullerene as a
>pain killer? Cancer cure? The stuff's useful, but it's not the end-all
>and be-all of technology. It's mostly useful in really small
>applications as molecular containers/supports etc. Building apartments
>out of the stuff... :-P

Sorry, he's right. NASA *is* looking at fullerene because it, as I
mentioned in an earlier post, allows them to build rockets with more
payload than engine/fuel. By all means, read through the articles
(something I'm still doing) and you'll see what I mean.

>James Ojaste

--Adam

acgetchell@*******.edu
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu
Message no. 5
From: Adam Getchell <acgetchell@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Physics Help
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 13:25:41 -0700
> Ok, I'm working on some designs of orbital-based weaponry and was
>hoping if any of you physicists out there could tell me in a rounded
>number, the amount of energy necessary to launch a 10 kilogram payload
>into a stable orbit approximately 17 million meters above sea level.

To a crude, first approximation that would require 1.66 gigajoules.

> My thoughts were (for everyone to shoot at), if a megacorp, Ares
>is a good example, launched small devices into orbit whose sole purpose
>was come down and destroy a target by kinetic energy, how difficult would
>it be to put into orbit by simply launching it from the surface in one big
>burst. Small directional jets in the objects would make minor course
>changes and slow the object for decent to impact.

Deorbiting the device would require essentially enough fuel to get to very
upper reaches of the atmosphere, at which point friction will allow orbital
energy to be dumped sufficient for re-entry. Doing this faster will require
more fuel.

> I'm probably way off base thinking it could be ground-launched but
>could any of you physics guys lay odds on how feasible this is?

Use a half-kilometer long rail gun and it's not only feasible, it's
practical. Note that the same device could also be used to launch a shell
that would hit anywhere in the world, so such an installation is likely to
be viewed equivalently to an ICBM silo.

>Especially considering the use of fullerene as the structural material.

Fullerenes would mostly help launch vehicles such as the next generation
SSTO shuttle (that's Single Stage to Orbit). It wouldn't particularly help
for a railgun, unless you were using it as a superconductor.

>Fixer --------------} The easy I do before breakfast,

--Adam

acgetchell@*******.edu
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu
Message no. 6
From: David Foster <fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Physics Help
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 16:33:59 -0400
On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Adam Getchell wrote:

->>*sigh* What next? Are people going to advocate taking fullerene as a
->>pain killer? Cancer cure? The stuff's useful, but it's not the end-all
->>and be-all of technology. It's mostly useful in really small
->>applications as molecular containers/supports etc. Building apartments
->>out of the stuff... :-P

My plans on using it were based solely on it's toughness, high
melting point, usefullness in small volumes and fibered nature. I wasn't
planning on using it as a pain killer, that would be rather foolish given
it's not useful as a chemical, only as a fiber or material. As far as
that cancer cure.... way too silly... good thing for the emoticon or I'd
take ya seriously. ]:-)

Fixer --------------} The easy I do before breakfast,
the difficult I do all day long,
the impossible only during the week,
and miracles performed on an as-needed basis....

Now tell me, what was your problem?
Message no. 7
From: Paul Gettle <RunnerPaul@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Physics Help
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 17:12:53 -0400
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 04:33 PM 9/14/98 -0400, Fixer wrote:
> My plans on using it were based solely on it's toughness,
high
>melting point, usefullness in small volumes and fibered nature. I
wasn't
>planning on using it as a pain killer, that would be rather foolish
given
>it's not useful as a chemical, only as a fiber or material. As far
as
>that cancer cure.... way too silly... good thing for the emoticon or
I'd
>take ya seriously. ]:-)

Actually, if you go back to Scientific American's original article on
fullerines, one of the proposed uses for them was to use fullerine
structures to encase single-atom ammounts of radioactive elements for
use in chemotherapy.

No emoticon, I'm 100% serious.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3

iQCVAwUBNf2F3KPbvUVI86rNAQHVggP/WwIo0bYJ6QY1i2lnrgNjvPORMl0dgDyX
z4WN8pljDf8SURBfeoGZzjZnaZeyzugn+e1yNmNa0grejetxENojXg5bJhr7cZVN
XFc5dESCywtLfMuyiJPbxMrq8SE62yk3dzAq5J7qzGCAfngroZQbjjBHWNep2g6w
9RojrA6xnwk=
=JcfX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
-- Paul Gettle, #970 of 1000 (RunnerPaul@*****.com)
PGP Fingerprint, Key ID:0x48F3AACD (RSA 1024, created 98/06/26)
C260 94B3 6722 6A25 63F8 0690 9EA2 3344
Message no. 8
From: Michael Broadwater <neon@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Physics Help
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 17:17:56 -0500
At 03:46 PM 9/14/98 -0400, Ojaste,James [NCR] wrote:

>*sigh* What next? Are people going to advocate taking fullerene as a
>pain killer? Cancer cure? The stuff's useful, but it's not the end-all
>and be-all of technology.

I think this may explain Nerps...<g>




Mike Broadwater
Member of the Blackhand, White Wolf's Official Demo Team
http://www.olemiss.edu/~neon/
Message no. 9
From: Michael Coleman <mscoleman@********.NET>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Physics Help
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 05:41:03 -0500
> Ok, I'm working on some designs of orbital-based weaponry <snip>
>
> Fixer

Your post reminds me of orbital weapon I read in a book (fictional). The
satellite had a rack of metal rods the size of a telephone pole. You target
the weapon and shoot the pole into the atmosphere and let gravity do the
rest. The main target mentioned in the book was aircraft carriers and other
warships.

Mike
Message no. 10
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Physics Help
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 09:42:22 -0400
Adam Getchell wrote:
> >*sigh* What next? Are people going to advocate taking fullerene as a
> >pain killer? Cancer cure? The stuff's useful, but it's not the end-all
> >and be-all of technology. It's mostly useful in really small
> >applications as molecular containers/supports etc. Building apartments
> >out of the stuff... :-P
>
> Sorry, he's right. NASA *is* looking at fullerene because it, as I
> mentioned in an earlier post, allows them to build rockets with more
>
NASA looks at everything. It's their *job*. It doesn't mean that it'll
see large-scale commercial production in the next few decades.

> payload than engine/fuel. By all means, read through the articles
> (something I'm still doing) and you'll see what I mean.
>
Sorry, I don't really have the time - I've got what I consider to be
more important stuff to worry about. I keep up with SA, but I spend
most of my learning time on CS-related topics, given that that's *my*
job...

James Ojaste
Message no. 11
From: David Foster <fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Physics Help
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:51:24 -0400
On Tue, 15 Sep 1998, Michael Coleman wrote:

->> Ok, I'm working on some designs of orbital-based weaponry <snip>
->>
->> Fixer
->
->Your post reminds me of orbital weapon I read in a book (fictional). The
->satellite had a rack of metal rods the size of a telephone pole. You target
->the weapon and shoot the pole into the atmosphere and let gravity do the
->rest. The main target mentioned in the book was aircraft carriers and other
->warships.

That was from Footfall, baby elephants attack the Earth and do a
big number on it. I was thinking something like being able to launch the
shell into orbit from the ground (underground electromagnetic cannon w/ 15
degree turning) and the shell would adjust it's orbit to take the target
out. Needless to say, this is NOT a shoot-boom weapon. It's morelike a
shoot-wait a few days-boom weapon. Using GPS sattelites (I asked for my
original orbit height because it was inside their area) to track location
and using microcomputers to determine tragectory. Small compressed gas
cannisters to make course alterations and to slow the device for impact.
It'd only be good for small areas (like, a small building) but it was just
an idea.

Fixer --------------} The easy I do before breakfast,
the difficult I do all day long,
the impossible only during the week,
and miracles performed on an as-needed basis....

Now tell me, what was your problem?
Message no. 12
From: Adam Getchell <acgetchell@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Physics Help
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 12:58:13 -0700
>> Sorry, he's right. NASA *is* looking at fullerene because it, as I
>> mentioned in an earlier post, allows them to build rockets with more
>>
>NASA looks at everything. It's their *job*. It doesn't mean that it'll
>see large-scale commercial production in the next few decades.

NASA thinks so...

>James Ojaste

--Adam

acgetchell@*******.edu
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about [SR3] Physics Help, 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!