Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Icbm Test


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 Deepwater6

Deepwater6

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 900 posts

Posted 28 March 2019 - 09:50 AM

https://www.space.co...tdown-test.html

 

It's amazing how smart our weapons are these days. I'm sure they knew the test was coming, but I didn't see anything in the article about them knowing the exact launch site ahead of time. Even so the technology and ability to take it out is astounding.

 

We used to have a member here who did work in missile silo's (CraigD) He once stated that officials expect at least 20% of nukes to fall back on the country that launches it due to rocket failure or guidance issues. Armed in the silo this 20% could ruin our whole day. 
 


  • LaurieAG likes this

#2 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 28 March 2019 - 02:44 PM

The Ground-based Midcourse Defense system is vitally important to the defense of our homeland, and this test demonstrates that we have a capable, credible deterrent against a very real threat."

 

 

To be accurate, our defensive capacity is not the "deterrent."  The fact that we will quickly nuke your sorry azz in retaliation is.

 

Aint that right, Rocket Boy?


Edited by Moronium, 28 March 2019 - 02:46 PM.


#3 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1278 posts

Posted 28 March 2019 - 03:10 PM

There is a doctrine in military nuclear deployment called M.A.D. or Mutual Assured Destruction which keeps nuclear weapons from being deployed basically if someone says they are going to nuke your butt you are supposed to back down from the Military or Politician stance on them you are using. Otherwise you risk nuclear war between the Russians and US have gone through what is called M.A.D. several times if neither people backs down from nuclear war due to M.A.D. then you get things like the Cuban Missile Crisis. It is both polite in politics and Military Doctrine if faced with a M.A.D. situation to stop  the ideology that caused M.A.D.  but it is not necessarily what actually happens which situations dealing with nuclear weapons are sticky but usually between Russia and the United States which have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the planet, if you cause them to M.A.D. you better just leave it alone and stop immediately trying to push that idea. The Reason North Korea really started to settle down a bit was because Trump said he would nuke "Little Rocket man" which told him that he is serious all threats dealing with Nuclear Weapons are always taken seriously by the other party if the party that claims this has nuclear weapons, theoretically you could M.A.D. people with any weapon that you had enough of to destroy their entire country even Biological and Chemical weapons but usually it is nuclear weapons used to M.A.D. the enemy or people that have disturbed you. This is why Weapons of Mass Destruction are rarely used in combat due to M.A.D. doctrines. Like for Instance this is a Russian M.A.D. attempt in Crimea in the News, https://www.thetrump...mbers-to-crimea By saying that Putin and Russia is willing the deploy Nuclear Bombers in Crimea he is saying if someone trys to contest his control of Crimea he will use nuclear weapons on them which is M.A.D. in action.


Edited by VictorMedvil, 28 March 2019 - 03:24 PM.


#4 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 28 March 2019 - 04:01 PM

M.A.D. don't work.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[youtube][/youtube\



#5 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 638 posts

Posted 28 March 2019 - 05:47 PM

https://www.space.co...tdown-test.html

 

It's amazing how smart our weapons are these days. I'm sure they knew the test was coming, but I didn't see anything in the article about them knowing the exact launch site ahead of time. Even so the technology and ability to take it out is astounding.

 

We used to have a member here who did work in missile silo's (CraigD) He once stated that officials expect at least 20% of nukes to fall back on the country that launches it due to rocket failure or guidance issues. Armed in the silo this 20% could ruin our whole day. 
 

 

Damn is that why the US keeps many of its nukes on foreign soil and in submarines, and warships and in space, and on planes and and and .

 

With Challenger rockets blowing up on the launch pad I can believe that 20% would ruin your day, and require all the other launch pads to reduce the fallout :(



#6 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1278 posts

Posted 28 March 2019 - 06:17 PM

M.A.D. don't work.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[youtube][/youtube\

 

It works as well as any doctrine it has it purpose which is area denial and deterrence to attack.



#7 LaurieAG

LaurieAG

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1490 posts

Posted 29 March 2019 - 03:57 AM

It's amazing how smart our weapons are these days. I'm sure they knew the test was coming, but I didn't see anything in the article about them knowing the exact launch site ahead of time. Even so the technology and ability to take it out is astounding.

 

Hi Deepwater6, I read on the news a couple of days ago that India has also taken down a satellite (that was 300km above the earths surface) with a missile.

 

https://www.space.co...est-debris.html

 

Considering the plethora of satellites up there these days, and with many more being put up all the time, surely it would be considered a public service to take most of this space junk out before it comes down. Like putting your garbage in the bin.



#8 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 638 posts

Posted 29 March 2019 - 04:05 AM

With all the space junk just flying around up there could it knock a satellite full of nuclear war heads out of orbit, or cause it to malfunction and accidently blow up half the planet by mistake.  :eek:



#9 fahrquad

fahrquad

    All I know is that I know nothing.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1172 posts

Posted 29 March 2019 - 04:05 AM

Ah, Dr. Strangelove.  Nice to see someone else remembers it.  Full title:

 

"Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb"



#10 fahrquad

fahrquad

    All I know is that I know nothing.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1172 posts

Posted 29 March 2019 - 04:20 AM

With all the space junk just flying around up there could it knock a satellite full of nuclear war heads out of orbit, or cause it to malfunction and accidently blow up half the planet by mistake.  :eek:

 

That might be a little bit of an overstatement.  First there are no nuclear warheads in orbit, and second Tsar Bomba was the largest nuclear bomb ever detonated and it didn't take out half of the planet.  This hydrogen fusion bomb was detonated on Severny Island, and the island is still there.

 

Tsar_photo11.jpg

 

https://en.wikipedia...wiki/Tsar_Bomba

https://en.wikipedia.../Severny_Island



#11 fahrquad

fahrquad

    All I know is that I know nothing.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1172 posts

Posted 29 March 2019 - 04:35 AM

Damn is that why the US keeps many of its nukes on foreign soil and in submarines, and warships and in space, and on planes and and and .

 

With Challenger rockets blowing up on the launch pad I can believe that 20% would ruin your day, and require all the other launch pads to reduce the fallout :(

 

The reason for putting nuclear weapons closer to the Soviet Union was for a quicker response to a missile launch or for first strike capability.  This was a major factor in the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962.

 

https://en.wikipedia..._Missile_Crisis

 

Challenger didn't explode on the launch pad.  It exploded 73 seconds into the launch.  If I remember correctly, the O-ring seals in the solid rocket boosters were too hard because of the unusually low air temperature at launch and the flames ignited the liquid fuel tank between them.

 

https://en.wikipedia...lenger_disaster


Edited by fahrquad, 29 March 2019 - 04:44 AM.


#12 fahrquad

fahrquad

    All I know is that I know nothing.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1172 posts

Posted 29 March 2019 - 04:44 AM

M.A.D. don't work.

 

 

Well, M.A.D. actually DID work.  We are still here and the Soviet Union is gone.  The chance of a nuclear war with the remaining nuclear superpower, China, is very small, especially with the drug dealer/junky relationship the American consumer has with Chinese products.



#13 Deepwater6

Deepwater6

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 900 posts

Posted 29 March 2019 - 10:23 PM

Hi Deepwater6, I read on the news a couple of days ago that India has also taken down a satellite (that was 300km above the earths surface) with a missile.
 
https://www.space.co...est-debris.html
 
Considering the plethora of satellites up there these days, and with many more being put up all the time, surely it would be considered a public service to take most of this space junk out before it comes down. Like putting your garbage in the bin.


Hi LaurieAG - Good to hear from you again. Not to interject politics into the conversation, but the bottom of your article suggests India didn't inform Pakistan (or anyone else) about the test before hand. Seems a little risky on India's part to me, considering the state of the relationship between the two countries at present.

In respect to the debris created, space junk, and available space for all the players, it is quickly reaching a tipping point. To make matters worse, cube sats being deployed by the dozens per launch is quickly making the situation even more unmanageable.
  • LaurieAG likes this

#14 fahrquad

fahrquad

    All I know is that I know nothing.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1172 posts

Posted 30 March 2019 - 06:11 AM

Hi Deepwater6, I read on the news a couple of days ago that India has also taken down a satellite (that was 300km above the earths surface) with a missile.

 

https://www.space.co...est-debris.html

 

Considering the plethora of satellites up there these days, and with many more being put up all the time, surely it would be considered a public service to take most of this space junk out before it comes down. Like putting your garbage in the bin.

 

At 300 km, was the object really a satellite?

 

Low Earth Orbit (LEO) is an Earth-centered orbit with an altitude of 2,000 km (1,200 mi) or less (approximately one third of the radius of Earth),[1] or with at least 11.25 periods per day (an orbital period of 128 minutes or less) and an eccentricity less than 0.25.[2] Most of the manmade objects in space are in LEO.[3] A histogram of the mean motion of the cataloged objects shows that the number of objects drops significantly beyond 11.25.[4]

 

https://en.wikipedia...Low_Earth_orbit

 

As far as space debris goes, some 3000 dead satellites are still in orbit, so bring an umbrella next time you leave the house

.

On 4 October 1957 the Soviet Union launched the world's first artificial satellite, Sputnik 1. Since then, about 8,100 satellites from more than 40 countries have been launched. According to a 2018 estimate, some 4,900 remain in orbit, of those about 1,900 were operational; while the rest have lived out their useful lives and become space debris.[1] Approximately 500 operational satellites are in low-Earth orbit, 50 are in medium-Earth orbit (at 20,000 km), and the rest are in geostationary orbit (at 36,000 km).[2]

 

https://en.wikipedia.../wiki/Satellite



#15 LaurieAG

LaurieAG

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1490 posts

Posted 30 March 2019 - 11:43 PM

At 300 km, was the object really a satellite?

 

The usual 'Altitude of Nominal Burst' for a satellite or meteorite etc is usually much lower than 300km. TIANGONG I, much larger than your average satellite, spent almost 6 months below 300km when it reentered our atmosphere last year.

https://en.wikipedia...i/Orbital_decay

1280px-Altitude_of_Tiangong-1.svg.png

 

The PDF in the link below is from the references at the bottom of the Wikipedia link. At the bottom you will find several relevant diagrams.

http://www.sws.bom.g...alculations.pdf


Edited by LaurieAG, 30 March 2019 - 11:44 PM.


#16 Deepwater6

Deepwater6

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 900 posts

Posted 31 March 2019 - 12:36 AM

https://www.space.co...gnificance.html

By this article LEO seems to be semantics Fahrquad. If a country has the capability at one orbit to take out sats they have at others, and if they don't they're not far from acquiring it. From your post the 8100 sats put up since Sput didn't surprise, but the 40 countries responsible for it did. I didn't know that many countries had or have had the capability to put that many up. Interesting!
  • LaurieAG likes this

#17 fahrquad

fahrquad

    All I know is that I know nothing.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1172 posts

Posted 01 April 2019 - 08:47 PM

The usual 'Altitude of Nominal Burst' for a satellite or meteorite etc is usually much lower than 300km. TIANGONG I, much larger than your average satellite, spent almost 6 months below 300km when it reentered our atmosphere last year.

https://en.wikipedia...i/Orbital_decay

 

 

 

I agree that an object can orbit at less than 300km, but I generally tend to think of "orbit" a being located at one of the Lagrange points.

 

https://en.wikipedia...agrangian_point


  • LaurieAG likes this