Weapons in space Watch

This discussion is closed.
Tyler Durden
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#41
Report Thread starter 13 years ago
#41
(Original post by Howard)
There's actually a word for that (bringing Hitler and/or Nazism into every debate). Apparently, any debate that goes on for a long(ish) period will inevitably degenerate until someone eventually draws a Hitler analogy. I don't remember the actual term for this phenomenon and I've just tried to google it without success.

Still, if you're interested, here's a bit more about this peculiar love of bringing Hitler into every discourse! And, if you can find out the word for it I'd be very grateful because I hate forgetting unusual ("defenestration" type) words that I can use every once in a while to give the illusion of having an education.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adnazium.html
Argumentum ad Nazium is pretty witty.
0
nikk
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#42
Report 13 years ago
#42
(Original post by Speleo)
I know that's off-topic, but it wasn't really my point. My point was that I believe many countries are developing weapons because of the USA's foreign policy, who wouldn't be developing them otherwise. I then make the comparison with space weapons, and conclude that the USA making space weapons would encourage others to.
I can't really dispute that because it is your opinion, which is just as valid as mine. I believe, that certain other countries would have a field day if the USA 'let it's foot off the pedal', so to speak. If the USA lost it's status, as the number one world power, I think the whole of the western world would be in a very vulnerable position to countries that may have, for want of a better phrase, 'world domination ambitions'.

It is because of this that I support the USA continuing to develop it's military's technology, including the space weapons program.
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#43
Report 13 years ago
#43
(Original post by Speleo)
'Godwin's Law'
Good hit!! And quick off the mark to boot! I'll try not to forget it this time.
0
Speleo
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#44
Report 13 years ago
#44
I can't really dispute that because it is your opinion, which is just as valid as mine. I believe, that certain other countries would have a field day if the USA 'let it's foot off the pedal', so to speak. If the USA lost it's status, as the number one world power, I think the whole of the western world would be in a very vulnerable position to countries that may have, for want of a better phrase, 'world domination ambitions'.

It is because of this that I support the USA continuing to develop it's military's technology, including the space weapons program.
I guess the only way that we'd settle that one is if the US stopped building weapons, so I guess we should just agree to disagree.


Good hit!! And quick off the mark to boot! I'll try not to forget it this time.
I aim to please.
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#45
Report 13 years ago
#45
(Original post by Speleo)
I aim to please.
Well, so did Hitler but that's hardly the point.........erm........ :rolleyes:
0
Tyler Durden
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#46
Report Thread starter 13 years ago
#46
(Original post by Howard)
Good hit!! And quick off the mark to boot! I'll try not to forget it this time.
Oh my God. Some people have too much time on their hands.
0
nikk
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#47
Report 13 years ago
#47
(Original post by Speleo)
I guess the only way that we'd settle that one is if the US stopped building weapons, so I guess we should just agree to disagree.
Don't get me wrong, I really do hope that what you suggest is true, and that one day, all countries will disarm. I just can't see it happening for the time being. So yup, agree to disagree!
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#48
Report 13 years ago
#48
(Original post by englishstudent)
Oh my God. Some people have too much time on their hands.
I know that feeling. "Corporate welfare" is a wonderful thing.
0
Speleo
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#49
Report 13 years ago
#49
Well, so did Hitler but that's hardly the point.........erm........
Nice.
0
Golden Maverick
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#50
Report 13 years ago
#50
(Original post by NikNak)
A small meterorite (I believe about the size of a house once it had penetrated the atmosphere) exploded in the atmosphere in the early 1990s over siberia, destroying hundreds of kilometres of forest. If that had happened over London, the whole subject would be looked upon alot more seriously than it is now.

The point being that, yes, to completely wipe out life on earth, it would have to be a very big asteriod. However, much much smaller asteriods could easily destroy a city.
Asteroids such as the airburst one would be about 150m in diameter according to calculations pre-impact. Typical asteroid densities are 2.5g/cm^3.

Quick calculation:
Volume of such an asteroid: 4/3 x Pi x 75^3 = 1.7million m^3
Mass: 1.7million x 100^3 x 2.5 = 4million tonnes

I don't think a platform made to deal with a satellite weighing a few hundred kgs, if that, would do anything against such an asteroid.

It will be telling if when the white house proposes this idea if they mention this use. I think it could be useful in developing the technology for weapons satellites to destroy asteroids, but the satellites they will build I don't think will have any use for that themselves.
0
nikk
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#51
Report 13 years ago
#51
(Original post by Golden Maverick)
I don't think a platform made to deal with a satellite weighing a few hundred kgs, if that, would do anything against such an asteroid.
I don't think the weight of the platform is very relevant, it is what weapons are attached to it. Nuclear weapons don't weigh as much as the amount of matter they can destroy (not that I am saying nuclear weapons would be used but you get the idea).

(Original post by Golden Maverick)
It will be telling if when the white house proposes this idea if they mention this use. I think it could be useful in developing the technology for weapons satellites to destroy asteroids, but the satellites they will build I don't think will have any use for that themselves.
I don't know enough about the specific specifications of the system they are proposing so couldn't comment.
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#52
Report 13 years ago
#52
(Original post by Golden Maverick)
Asteroids such as the airburst one would be about 150m in diameter according to calculations pre-impact. Typical asteroid densities are 2.5g/cm^3.

Quick calculation:
Volume of such an asteroid: 4/3 x Pi x 75^3 = 1.7million m^3
Mass: 1.7million x 100^3 x 2.5 = 4million tonnes
Thank you Sir Patrick.
0
Speleo
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#53
Report 13 years ago
#53
I don't think the weight of the platform is very relevant, it is what weapons are attached to it. Nuclear weapons don't weigh as much as the amount of matter they can destroy (not that I am saying nuclear weapons would be used but you get the idea).
If the station was firing the nukes, I imagine, due to the conservation of momentum, that the speed*mass of the nuke = the speed*mass of the platform. Even if the nuke is 10 times lighter, the platform would be fired into the earth at a tenth of the speed, which is probably too fast for it to stay in orbit.

Of course, there is probably some simple way of getting round this, self launching rockets maybe?
0
Golden Maverick
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#54
Report 13 years ago
#54
(Original post by Howard)
Thank you Sir Patrick.
Eh ?
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#55
Report 13 years ago
#55
(Original post by Golden Maverick)
Eh ?
Sir Patrick Moore.
0
nikk
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#56
Report 13 years ago
#56
(Original post by Speleo)
If the station was firing the nukes, I imagine, due to the conservation of momentum, that the speed*mass of the nuke = the speed*mass of the platform. Even if the nuke is 10 times lighter, the platform would be fired into the earth at a tenth of the speed, which is probably too fast for it to stay in orbit.

Of course, there is probably some simple way of getting round this, self launching rockets maybe?
Well I only used nuclear weapons as an example of how something of not much mass can be very powerful. But yet, I imagine that if you wanted to, you could use small thursters to move the missle away from the platform and then fire a main engine to propel the missle. Or fire compensatory rockets on the platform to hold it in place at the time of launch.
0
Golden Maverick
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#57
Report 13 years ago
#57
(Original post by Howard)
Sir Patrick Moore.
.:p:
0
Speleo
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#58
Report 13 years ago
#58
What's the point of the platform then?
0
Golden Maverick
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#59
Report 13 years ago
#59
(Original post by NikNak)
I don't think the weight of the platform is very relevant, it is what weapons are attached to it. Nuclear weapons don't weigh as much as the amount of matter they can destroy (not that I am saying nuclear weapons would be used but you get the idea).
I was thinking of the weapons that would be made to destroy other satellites, and how much the other satellites would weigh.

Aren't the US nukes fired into the upper atmosphere anyway if launched? If so couldn't you fire them from earth to asteroids?

Anyway, I'm going to stop this useless speculation, and play the xylophone and watch cricket, as any good astronomer should
0
LennonMcCartney
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#60
Report 13 years ago
#60
(Original post by Golden Maverick)
Asteroids such as the airburst one would be about 150m in diameter according to calculations pre-impact. Typical asteroid densities are 2.5g/cm^3.

Quick calculation:
Volume of such an asteroid: 4/3 x Pi x 75^3 = 1.7million m^3
Mass: 1.7million x 100^3 x 2.5 = 4million tonnes

I don't think a platform made to deal with a satellite weighing a few hundred kgs, if that, would do anything against such an asteroid.

It will be telling if when the white house proposes this idea if they mention this use. I think it could be useful in developing the technology for weapons satellites to destroy asteroids, but the satellites they will build I don't think will have any use for that themselves.
Oh my God. What a geek.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

Remain (1623)
79.13%
Leave (428)
20.87%

Watched Threads

View All