Re: Dyna-Soar question
- From: fairwater@xxxxxxxxx (Derek Lyons)
- Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2005 09:48:42 GMT
p-stickney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Peter Stickney) wrote:
>In article <42534638.7385504@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> fairwater@xxxxxxxxx (Derek Lyons) writes:
>> Scott Lowther <scottlowther@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>> *Or in a suborbital bombing mission, get his release point trajectory,
>>>> speed, and altitude correct so that the bomb comes down on Moscow
>>>> rather than on the Hague.
>>>
>>>Bombing a city sub-orbitally was something looked at in WWII, and that
>>>used nothign more than a periscope, Mark-1 eyeball and minimal
>>>bomb-aiming equipment.
>>
>> That seems hard to believe as the IP would be thousands of miles away
>> from the actual (planned) impact point.
>
>You don't need to be able to view the target diractly. (This was event
>true well before WW 2 - the Norden Bombsight was capable of computing
>solutions for offset aimpoints.) What you need to be able to do is
>determine that you're pointing the right way, & at the right speed &
>altitude at the drop point - or be able to adjust the drop point for
>speed & altitude.
That takes a pretty fair hunk o' inertial and computing machinery for
any significant accuracy. Machinery that wasn't available until the
mid 1950's. (I.E. ICBM's and the early cruise missiles.)
>FOr that you can use a suitable known reference point (Offset) that can
>be observed at teh most likely drop point.
WWII experience shows that at the low speeds and modest ranges of a
B-17 (or -24 or -29), as compared to a skip-bomber, that locating the
IP and putting the bombs on target was not a solved problem. (And
unlike a skip bomber, one could maintain a clear visual track on the
general area of the IP for many minutes before actually reaching it.
Lot's of interim waypoints, lots of time and capability to make minor
corrections.)
>A couple of side notes - the Norden was a Navy invention - Thank You
>Navy! It was also compromised by a German-born Inspector at, I
>believe, the Brooklyn Navy Yard (Boo, Hiss!), and used as the basis of
>the German Lofte 7 tachometric bomb sight. The Navy, of course, being
>leaders in developing ballistic computing systems. (The USN's
>shipboard Fire COntrol systems are marvels)
Indeed. Not as accurate as often claimed, but still incredible.
>The Navy also developed working toss-bombing computers during the war,
>which would calculate the impact point of a bomb after the desired
>target was designated, and automatically release the bomb to hit the
>target.
Certainly. But with much more modest requirements involved than a
putative skip-bomber. An error of a few feet per second or a mil or
two matters little when flight time of the weapon is a few tens of
seconds and the ranges a few tens of miles at most.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Dyna-Soar question
- From: Pat Flannery
- Re: Dyna-Soar question
- References:
- Re: Dyna-Soar question
- From: Derek Lyons
- Re: Dyna-Soar question
- From: Peter Stickney
- Re: Dyna-Soar question
- Prev by Date: Re: Dyna-Soar question
- Next by Date: Re: Pima Titan 2003
- Previous by thread: Re: Dyna-Soar question
- Next by thread: Re: Dyna-Soar question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|