NationStates Jolt Archive

OOC: Write up and description still in the works. Will bump when completed. Please limit OOC comments whenever possible.

http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm410/Marshuno/WMD-2Satellite.jpg

WMD-2 "Godsend" Kinetic Strike Satellite
Primary function: Tactical WMD Launcher
Primary contractor: Falkasian Aerospace Division
Power Plant: Solar panels generating 150 Kilowatts
Weight: About 17,500 pounds fully loaded (7937.86 kilograms)
Orbit Altitude: 253 nautical miles (geosynchronous orbit)
Payload: (All Falkasian Systems)
TAS MKII (2nd Generation Target Analyzation Suite) Target Classification System
GLSM MKII (2nd Generation Global Lock-on System, Military) Tracking/ Targeting Computer
AOWCS MKII (2nd Generation Advanced Orbital Weapons Control System) Weapons Control Computer
ATSM MKII (2nd Generation Advanced Transmission Suite, Military) Secure Data Uplink System
12 "Godsend" Kinetic Strike Munitions (Information Forthcoming)
Unit Cost: 225 Billion USD

Description:
Forthcoming......

OOC:Wheres my free one? lol.

OOC: On the way. Use it wisely.

(Commence EVIL laugh.)

One question.

Wouldn't reloading one of these be mind-fuck inducingly expensive?

Appears to me as though it is a one-shot system. Once the ammunition is spent, the weapon system has to be completely replaced.

Unless it has some sort of Ionic Death Ray...

Bah! Microwave cannons are easier.

Congrats, you have just wasted 225 billion dollars on a system that is only a little more effective then a several-hundred-million-dollar-airplane(which is also reusable, mind you) carrying a couple-of-hundred-thousand-dollar-bunker-busters.

Bah! Microwave cannons are easier.

If you want to make it warmer in a few hundred mile radius of the target, then yes.

They can consider the sudden increase in heat as incentive not to get shot at again.

They can consider the sudden increase in heat as incentive not to get shot at again.

By warmer, I mean maybe five-ten degrees F, over an hour or two. Who knows, you might turn that snow into slush.

Cool. If they're a nation with some barely-frozen ice on mountains, aim at the mountains and attempt to drown them.

(Do I really have to make the satire more obvious?)

Cool. If they're a nation with some barely-frozen ice on mountains, aim at the mountains and attempt to drown them.

(Do I really have to make the satire more obvious?)

Yes. Please do.

[OOC: Erm, you do realise how fast the satellite would have to be moving at only 239nmi, correct? To maintain a geosynchronous orbit, most satellites stay some 35,000 km away from the surface of the earth, and staying only 443 km away from the centre of the earth would need a very low tangential velocity to stay in the same spot. There is a reason as to why space shuttles orbit the earth once every ninety minutes. At nearly 8,000 m/s, the space shuttle can maintain a stable orbit, though your geosynchronous satellite would fall down to the earth since the speed required for a geosynchronous orbit would be too low to counteract the effect of the force of gravity on the satellite.

That said, it is presumed that NSEarth is far larger than Earth, and would as such be far more massive. However, assuming that the NSEarth has the same force of gravity for some unknown reason, and that it rotates at the same speed, then the satellite would still be moving too slow to counteract the effects of gravity. It's an expensive asteroid that shoots one thing and then dies.]

( Well mine is reusable and rearmable. It has an armory pod where it reloads the projectiles again and again.)

OOC: Thank you for all your comments. Now, first and foremost, this is not an OOC thread which means unless you have some sort of critism or would like to purchase a satellite, please do not post.

Now to all of you who think this is a waste of money and non-reusable. It is not. The weapon itself contains not only a single munition, as most of you people assumed it did, but 12 separate warheads. I clearly noted this in the stats.

Secondly, all you need to do to reload it is;
1. Send a cargo shuttle into space.

2. Send an computer-controlled cargo shuttle into space.

3. Add a loading bay.

All of these methods will be included and/or discussed in the write up, as I said was still in the writing process but was somehow overlooked.

OOC: In all seriousness...

1) The proposed method of reloading the satellite is, itself, quite expensive, compared to the cost of reloading a plane.

2) The cost of the satellite alone, while having a nice payload, only adds to the argument to instead rely upon a combat fighter, for which I could get an entire squadron at the price you want for a single satellite. And that squadron would carry more missiles.

3) I don't know the specs of your missiles, but unless you've heat-shielded them, they won't exactly do much except put on a pretty light show as they blow up in atmosphere from the plasma buildup on them during entry.

4) The satellite itself is too low in orbit. Pretty much, with how far up it is, you would have to launch all missiles immediately and then buy a new satellite to replace the one that just burned up during reentry.

My concerns are that, for this price, I could get a more effective solution that I could use more often and which could do more damage.

OOC: In all seriousness...

1) The proposed method of reloading the satellite is, itself, quite expensive, compared to the cost of reloading a plane.

2) The cost of the satellite alone, while having a nice payload, only adds to the argument to instead rely upon a combat fighter, for which I could get an entire squadron at the price you want for a single satellite. And that squadron would carry more missiles.

3) I don't know the specs of your missiles, but unless you've heat-shielded them, they won't exactly do much except put on a pretty light show as they blow up in atmosphere from the plasma buildup on them during entry.

4) The satellite itself is too low in orbit. Pretty much, with how far up it is, you would have to launch all missiles immediately and then buy a new satellite to replace the one that just burned up during reentry.

My concerns are that, for this price, I could get a more effective solution that I could use more often and which could do more damage.

Ok Forensatha, you apparently aren't understanding the design itself. It is a WMD Weapon, not an orbital guided missile launcher. The munitions the satellite fires are not missiles per say, as they have no warhead. This satellite acts like a giant railgun, minus the immense energy required to operate one. It uses the Earth's gravitational pull to super-accelerate the shell towards the ground. The specs for the munitions are forthcoming, as I posted this design in a hurry.

As for how far the satellite up it is, I know that there needs to be some modifications there. I knew it from the beginning, but haven't hardly had time to fix it. This satellite is not supposed too, or even designed to be used often. It is considered a weapon of Mass Destruction, which should not be used lightly or with a free finger.

[OOC: I questioned the altitude issue earlier, in post 15.]

OOC: Yea, I meant to address you too. I'm surprised The Beatus has posted and threatened me with yet, lol.

Ah! So you're not using kinetic warheads, but railgun rounds. That makes some sense. Unfortunately, the stats of the satellite itself don't make it entirely obvious about whether it's launching missiles with kinetic warheads or railgun rounds, and the missiles idea seems to be far more common for satellite ideas. Part of what would help is if you specifically included ammunition velocity.

At the speed you're talking, there's still a question about the ammunition burning up. The space shuttle typically enters Earth's atmosphere at an angle, in part to reduce the problem of atmospheric resistance, and it still is typically travelling at around Mach 30 for some of the trip. At that speed, if it wasn't for heat shielding, the shuttle would burn up in atmosphere. These rounds, at the speed they're travelling, will encounter atmospheric resistance at a much greater intensity. Assuming you're firing them at an angle and using gravity to provide the railgun effect, you would still need to shield the rounds to prevent them from burning up in atmosphere. If you're firing them using rails, then you'd have the problem that they may be going fast enough to burn up before hitting the target no matter what you do. Need to see the round specs to get an idea.

Ah! So you're not using kinetic warheads, but railgun rounds. That makes some sense. Unfortunately, the stats of the satellite itself don't make it entirely obvious about whether it's launching missiles with kinetic warheads or railgun rounds, and the missiles idea seems to be far more common for satellite ideas. Part of what would help is if you specifically included ammunition velocity.

At the speed you're talking, there's still a question about the ammunition burning up. The space shuttle typically enters Earth's atmosphere at an angle, in part to reduce the problem of atmospheric resistance, and it still is typically travelling at around Mach 30 for some of the trip. At that speed, if it wasn't for heat shielding, the shuttle would burn up in atmosphere. These rounds, at the speed they're travelling, will encounter atmospheric resistance at a much greater intensity. Assuming you're firing them at an angle and using gravity to provide the railgun effect, you would still need to shield the rounds to prevent them from burning up in atmosphere. If you're firing them using rails, then you'd have the problem that they may be going fast enough to burn up before hitting the target no matter what you do. Need to see the round specs to get an idea.

OOC: Ok, now were getting somewhere. Thank you very much for all your tips. They greatly helped. I'm going back into editor mode now.

As for the rounds, they are kind of like a Kinetic Warhead and kind of like a railgun. When they impact the ground, it reacts kinetically by obliterating the ground. It is fired like a railgun though, minus the magnets and rails. As for heat shielding, I'll probably strap an exterior heat-resistant cover that falls away once the shell exits the upper atmosphere.

OOC: The US military has looked into orbital based KE weapons for awhile, especially for use against hard targets like Iranian or North Korean bunker complexes. There are some large technical issues that have to be resolved first though.

[OOC: What are the kinetic warheads made out of? There's a difference between a big lead projectile and a tungsten projectile.]

Well, it all depends. Kinetic and Railgun rounds are all based off the same principle of super-accelerating a super-dense piece of metal or material into another object to cause damage. They can really be made out of anything, although realistically speaking, the sheer amount of metal and energy required would limit what metals and materials could be used for such a munition. In my opinion, a shell of Depleted Uranium would get the job done pretty well.

OOC: The US military has looked into orbital based KE weapons for awhile, especially for use against hard targets like Iranian or North Korean bunker complexes. There are some large technical issues that have to be resolved first though.

Tank busters actually. Bunker busting is a job for a nuclear weapon, not a flying crowbar with all the impact energy of a 250-kg GP bomb.

In my opinion, a shell of Depleted Uranium would get the job done pretty well.

It also burns.

Yes, but if you read I think 2 posts up, I developed a solution. An exterior heat-resistant cover that falls away once the shell exits the upper atmosphere.

Maybe tungsten-carbide would do the job better.

Maybe, but Tungsten isn't that dense of metal. Yet, now that I think about it, it does have a few desirable properties worth looking into.

OOC: Ok, now were getting somewhere. Thank you very much for all your tips. They greatly helped. I'm going back into editor mode now.

As for the rounds, they are kind of like a Kinetic Warhead and kind of like a railgun. When they impact the ground, it reacts kinetically by obliterating the ground. It is fired like a railgun though, minus the magnets and rails. As for heat shielding, I'll probably strap an exterior heat-resistant cover that falls away once the shell exits the upper atmosphere.

Hmm... Actually, quite nice. I can't think of any reason for this not to work.

Yes, but if you read I think 2 posts up, I developed a solution. An exterior heat-resistant cover that falls away once the shell exits the upper atmosphere.

Okay. What you want is a ablative coating then. But this isn't going to do any more damage then a 500 kilogram bomb depending on mass/velocity. Biggest KE weapons I've seen deployed are 20 ton tungsten impactors boosted to 70 km/s - with translunar slightshot. Still only does 1 kT of damage at target though.

Hmm... Actually, quite nice. I can't think of any reason for this not to work.

Thanks :)!

Okay. What you want is a ablative coating then. But this isn't going to do any more damage then a 500 kilogram bomb depending on mass/velocity. Biggest KE weapons I've seen deployed are 20 ton tungsten impactors boosted to 70 km/s - with translunar slightshot. Still only does 1 kT of damage at target though.

Yes, but that is the less dense tungsten and not depleted uranium.

Yes, but that is the less dense tungsten and not depleted uranium.

DU: 19.05 g/cm3

Tungsten: 19.3 g/cm3

Huh. Guess I'm proven wrong. I always thought, and was told, that Depleted uranium was the densest substance known to Mankind.

How about gold, plutonium, or platinum? They're all dense.

What you have been told, Falkasia, is as much a lie as idea that there's no gravity in space.

Yes, but gold and platinum would cost a lot and would drain the precious metals market. Plutonium could be a possiblity, although it would cost an incredible amount to process and refine it, not to mention radioactive decay and leakage up in space.

I'm also trying to keep this weapon as radiological and biologically free as possible. I'm not trying to make an orbitally launched kinetic nuke.

Just found out that Iridium is the densest substance on Earth.

Then build a satellite that goes into space carrying a few tonnes of cork and then have your cosmonauts piece together a huge-ass plate of cork and attach the heat-shields to it. Bam, you have an unstable flattener thingy.

Why not just use huge amounts of tungsten, then? DU is very bad for biological things. And no, Ununoctium is densest, but it's man-made and lasts for an extremely short period of time.

Unfortunately, you can't have a railgun in orbit without having that in some capacity, only minus the radiation afterwards. Realistically, what you're making is a nuke that uses kinetic energy instead of nuclear energy.

Perhaps. I'm tired and need to get off for the night. Good night.

I wonder how easy it would be for an ASAT to take one of these things down. If there was a way to hide the true purpose of these satellites, it would be a important to apply, but I lack ideas for such endeavor.

Try reading "the earth is a harsh mistress" by R Heinlein, Luna colony on the moon beats earth into submission by launching rocks covered in iron out of a magnetic launch mass driver. Same principle here, but with shorter drop than lunar orbit, and denser projectiles.

Personally what I would be doing is a iron core (cheap and relatively heavy, at least compared to cork or helium) coated in an inch or so of tungsten carbide with an ablative coating of a few more inches of something like aluminium. strap that on the pointy end of a big rocket and orbit pods of a half dozen of those per pod at geo-synchronous orbit linked by maser to a Low Earth Orbit string of targeting satellites.

Soldiers in the field are faced by a armoured hard point, pull out a satellite communicator and hook into the sensors of a LEO satellite coming overhead, the targeting system pre-orientates the satellite sensors at the co-ordinates of the soldiers communicator so there's little time wasted in finding the enemy site, it's close tot he soldier anyway. the targeting satellite locks on and passes the data to the pod satellite above it, and the rocket fires, driving the penetrator down and providing a boost as opposed to just releasing the warhead. the rocket boost cuts off and the rocket body blows free just above upper atmosphere, the warhead takes a last look at the target lock and orientates itself for fully ballistic terminal phase, during re-entry through the atmosphere, the ablative coating burns off, making pretty flames and smoky streaks through the sky, and finally the warhead impacts the target in a big kinetic thump.


Ablatives dissatipate heat by taking it with them as they dissapear off the body of the projectile, as opposed to ceramics which attempt to keep the heat outside the body of the projectile by being non-conductive. the old russian re-entry pods used cork tiles.
And railguns on a satellite are pretty useless if you only want to fire a single round, firing a warhead out means recoil is produced and applied to the satellite unless equal mass is ejected at 180 degrees to the vector of the first thrust axis. use a rocket and the thrust is not a vector added to the satellite.

I wonder how easy it would be for an ASAT to take one of these things down. If there was a way to hide the true purpose of these satellites, it would be a important to apply, but I lack ideas for such endeavor.

Well, if I coupled one of my BI-Series Satellites with this, an ASAT attack would be impossible.

Try reading "the earth is a harsh mistress" by R Heinlein, Luna colony on the moon beats earth into submission by launching rocks covered in iron out of a magnetic launch mass driver. Same principle here, but with shorter drop than lunar orbit, and denser projectiles.

Personally what I would be doing is a iron core (cheap and relatively heavy, at least compared to cork or helium) coated in an inch or so of tungsten carbide with an ablative coating of a few more inches of something like aluminium. strap that on the pointy end of a big rocket and orbit pods of a half dozen of those per pod at geo-synchronous orbit linked by maser to a Low Earth Orbit string of targeting satellites.

Soldiers in the field are faced by a armoured hard point, pull out a satellite communicator and hook into the sensors of a LEO satellite coming overhead, the targeting system pre-orientates the satellite sensors at the co-ordinates of the soldiers communicator so there's little time wasted in finding the enemy site, it's close tot he soldier anyway. the targeting satellite locks on and passes the data to the pod satellite above it, and the rocket fires, driving the penetrator down and providing a boost as opposed to just releasing the warhead. the rocket boost cuts off and the rocket body blows free just above upper atmosphere, the warhead takes a last look at the target lock and orientates itself for fully ballistic terminal phase, during re-entry through the atmosphere, the ablative coating burns off, making pretty flames and smoky streaks through the sky, and finally the warhead impacts the target in a big kinetic thump.


Ablatives dissatipate heat by taking it with them as they dissapear off the body of the projectile, as opposed to ceramics which attempt to keep the heat outside the body of the projectile by being non-conductive. the old russian re-entry pods used cork tiles.
And railguns on a satellite are pretty useless if you only want to fire a single round, firing a warhead out means recoil is produced and applied to the satellite unless equal mass is ejected at 180 degrees to the vector of the first thrust axis. use a rocket and the thrust is not a vector added to the satellite.

Again, this is not a guided missile satellite. It is designed to be a WMD, only to be used in select situations. However, you did get my brain thinking about a smaller satellite that could be used in conjunction for ground operations.

Any of you ever hear of Project Thor? I'm pretty confident you all know about it. It drops nothing more than a fin-stabilized tungsten rod with a guidance computer in it. Of course, the guidance computer isn't necessary when you're aiming for a stationary target (i.e. a base). I don't see why it can't be used on NS if we know how to do it in RL. The term "Crowbar" doesn't literally mean the rod is the size of a crowbar, either. Also, larger versions (The "Telephone Pole" one) can give off around the same energy as a small nuclear bomb.

@ Izistan: Using nukes to take out bunkers? That's ridiculous. The radiation, pissed off nations, and waste of millions of dollars makes me think that anyone who knew a thing about warfare and politics would think your idea is retarded.

Any of you ever hear of Project Thor? I'm pretty confident you all know about it. It drops nothing more than a fin-stabilized tungsten rod with a guidance computer in it. Of course, the guidance computer isn't necessary when you're aiming for a stationary target (i.e. a base). I don't see why it can't be used on NS if we know how to do it in RL. The term "Crowbar" doesn't literally mean the rod is the size of a crowbar, either.

The US looked at telephone pole sized projectiles I believe.

@ Izistan: Using nukes to take out bunkers? That's ridiculous. The radiation, pissed off nations, and waste of millions of dollars makes me think that anyone who knew a thing about warfare and politics would think your idea is retarded.

The US also looked into this, the idea was a small enough nuke detonated underground would generate little to no fall out. However, the cost coupled with technical and political issues ultimately led to the DoD gutting the program budget and sticking on the back burner.

The US looked at telephone pole sized projectiles I believe.

Correct. There were two main sizes of it.


The US also looked into this, the idea was a small enough nuke detonated underground would generate little to no fall out. However, the cost coupled with technical and political issues ultimately led to the DoD gutting the program budget and sticking on the back burner.

The fallout is still there, just underground. And of course, it'll creep out of the ground later on. And as I said, the political issues would be a problem as well.

@ Izistan: Using nukes to take out bunkers? That's ridiculous. The radiation, pissed off nations, and waste of millions of dollars makes me think that anyone who knew a thing about warfare and politics would think your idea is retarded.

Err...Command bunkers? NORAD was going to get hit with ~80 megatons in the event of WWIII.

Also, larger versions (The "Telephone Pole" one) can give off around the same energy as a small nuclear bomb.

About the same as a GP bomb. I'd do math and shit but Ui'm tired as hell right now.

I feel so special. I got not one, but two posts from the GWO!

lol

Well, I'm off now. Night guys... or good morning to you Europeans. Tommorrow, I'm gonna finalize my design and re-post it for "sale."

Err...Command bunkers? NORAD was going to get hit with ~80 megatons in the event of WWIII.


Those were standard ICBMs and we're talking an all out nuclear exchange that would destroy humanity. That's very different from the US (or anyone) dropping a low yield nuke on Iran just beacuse our conventional bombs can't reach their bunkers.

The problem with these kinetic weapons is that the energy is focused into a very specific area, so you really don't get the full energy of a nuke IIRC. It's much easier to either cruise missile it with the bunker busting warhead/nuke or use a stealth plane to do it, rather then spending billions developing such a project.

The problem with these kinetic weapons is that the energy is focused into a very specific area, so you really don't get the full energy of a nuke IIRC. It's much easier to either cruise missile it with the bunker busting warhead/nuke or use a stealth plane to do it, rather then spending billions developing such a project.

As my post laid out, they make a good hardpoint removal device rather than an area destruction WMD. the only way a kinetic kill weapon could be classified as a WMD is if it's measured in the 10's to 100's of tons from lunar orbit or similiar. Taking out a hardened emplacement would be right up a KK weapons alley, taking out a city would have to be done building by individual building.

Well, if I coupled one of my BI-Series Satellites with this, an ASAT attack would be impossible.

Actually, ASAT's are so cheap that they can easily overwhelm any anti-ballistic missile systems.

And that is talking about ground-based missiles, let's not even get into orbit-orbit weapons.

No, even ground based systems would not be effective against a cluster of BI-4s. Rach one has 4 separate laser that can eliminate incoming attacks. Once those attacks are dealt with (usually 1-2 seconds), the lasers realign and target more incoming munitions.

Actually, ASAT's are so cheap that they can easily overwhelm any anti-ballistic missile systems.

Actually the same is true for ICBM's. How do you think the Soviets were going to defeat SDI? :p

No, even ground based systems would not be effective against a cluster of BI-4s. Rach one has 4 separate laser that can eliminate incoming attacks. Once those attacks are dealt with (usually 1-2 seconds), the lasers realign and target more incoming munitions.

Uh dude, you won't be able to do that with 30 kilowatt lasers...

Another possible use for kinetic strikes is the destruction of simple tunnels used by the enemy that are protected by ground forces and anti-air/missile systems. I'm sure the shockwave of the pole slamming into the ground would make them collapse.