Re: OT: Guns in Space
- From: "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 09:14:36 -0700
MassiveProng wrote:
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 19:01:00 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
<paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Gave us:
Again, due to orbital velocities, you'd have to pull alongside the
target, more or less.
Park a car in front of a train, and the damage is pretty severe.
Park a mass in front of an orbiting object, and the kinetic energy
upon impact is pretty severe.
For any practical gun and satellite, the bullet would be nearly
stationary by comparison. Most of the target acquisition and maneuvering
would have to be done by another orbital platform of some type. The
additional velocity provided by mounting a gun onboard would add a
trivial amount of kinetic energy to an impact and wouldn't be worth the
trouble.
The total impact velocity is all that matters. Both elements do not
need to be moving relative to each other, only one does.
Keeping a stationary object in a near earth location is another
problem.
That would be impossible. It would fall straight down.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------------------------------------------------------
Error reading FAT record: Try the SKINNY one? (Y/N)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: OT: Guns in Space
- From: MassiveProng
- Re: OT: Guns in Space
- References:
- OT: Guns in Space
- From: D from BC
- Re: OT: Guns in Space
- From: Paul Hovnanian P.E.
- Re: OT: Guns in Space
- From: MassiveProng
- OT: Guns in Space
- Prev by Date: Re: OT: Guns in Space
- Next by Date: Re: OT: Guns in Space
- Previous by thread: Re: OT: Guns in Space
- Next by thread: Re: OT: Guns in Space
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|