Timeline for Satguns - railgun on a satellite with evasive capabilities
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 5, 2017 at 9:00 | vote | accept | Nahshon paz | ||
| Sep 4, 2017 at 9:41 | comment | added | a4android | Keep watching the sky! Mysterious orbital projectiles can be anywhere. | |
| Sep 4, 2017 at 9:07 | comment | added | Nahshon paz | @a4android - Took out the "secret thoughts of army" comment for fear of being struck by a mysterious projectile from orbit (looking suspiciously up at the sky every couple of minutes) | |
| Sep 4, 2017 at 9:01 | history | edited | Nahshon paz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 63 characters in body
|
| Sep 4, 2017 at 9:00 | comment | added | Nahshon paz | @Cort Ammon - I added "not guided" to my clarifications. The rest are part of my question an is subject to change per what people who know more than I will say. It's basically maneuverability vs need to stay in orbit, as small as can be vs must be large enough, and plausible vs what everyone are saying in their answers... | |
| Sep 4, 2017 at 8:54 | history | edited | Nahshon paz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Scared of what a4android said, took out that comment for fear of the CIA coming to eat my children...
|
| Sep 4, 2017 at 7:18 | comment | added | user8827 | This sounds super cool, but it has problems. The US shot down a satellite in the 80s, and again in 2008 - granted, they weren't taking evasive action. An orbital railgun sounds super awesome, but a Rods-From-God weapon is maybe more practical- maybe. Railguns are hard on themselves and get super hot, neither of which is great for an orbital project. Projectile weapons won't be used against satellites that are known to be able to evade, except maybe in unavoidable Kessler cascade clouds. And at LEO velocity, I just have to steer a marble into your counter-orbit to wipe out your platform. | |
| Sep 3, 2017 at 23:17 | answer | added | Thucydides | timeline score: 2 | |
| Sep 3, 2017 at 19:58 | comment | added | Cort Ammon | I know this isn't a hard science question, but can you put some hard numbers to this question. In particular, how maneuverable they actually need to be. If you're avoiding an unguided railgun slug, firing your own railgun will likely perturb your own orbit enough to cause them to miss. However, if they're firing guided projectiles, the capabiltiies of the enemy guided weapons is critical to gaguing the order of magnitude of manueverability needed. | |
| Sep 3, 2017 at 19:37 | answer | added | Willk | timeline score: 3 | |
| Sep 3, 2017 at 18:01 | comment | added | pojo-guy | A rail gun (or any mass thrower) is subject to Newton's third law of motion. The act of launching the slug will change the orbit substantially | |
| Sep 3, 2017 at 13:20 | comment | added | a4android | The disadvantage of orbital weapons is they are predictable. Easy to know when they're in range of targeting your territory. Easy to target too. There are better antisatellite weapons than surface-based railguns. With your scenario, this will only start a satgun arms race. | |
| Sep 3, 2017 at 13:16 | comment | added | a4android | I hate to do this, but duty bound I must. Surely, you're not actually interested in the secret thoughts of army scientists. I suggest that unfortunate phrase be edited out. There's less distraction in doing so. Let them focus on the design question. | |
| Sep 3, 2017 at 10:50 | review | Close votes | |||
| Sep 3, 2017 at 20:47 | |||||
| Sep 3, 2017 at 10:30 | history | edited | Nahshon paz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 57 characters in body
|
| Sep 3, 2017 at 10:11 | answer | added | ZioByte | timeline score: 3 | |
| Sep 3, 2017 at 9:41 | answer | added | o.m. | timeline score: 2 | |
| Sep 3, 2017 at 9:06 | history | edited | Nahshon paz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Sep 3, 2017 at 9:01 | history | asked | Nahshon paz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |