Re: Cult spacecraft Part One: The Little Spaceplane That Couldn't
- From: Pat Flannery <flanner@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2008 12:35:16 -0600
Fred J. McCall wrote:
:Since RORSATs (plus our equivalents) and Command Data Buffers -> RECT
:(plus Soviet equivalents) were deployed, it's been obvious -- if
:unpalatable to admirals -- that any carrier task force is very
:vulnerable to a triplet of 200KT ICBM warheads. (Or two triplets, or
:three... the cost tradeoff remains very attractive.) Flank speed
:simply isn't all that fast, even with the maximum possible warning
:time.
:
What are you assuming is "the maximum possible warning time"?
That would depend on the time from retro burn to impact for a system striking from orbit.
Since there would be no crew aboard G forces aren't a concern, so how fast you can get it to the target depends on the overall thermal effects it can withstand and how big of a velocity shift the retro engine can impart to it.
In the case of the BOR lifting body RVs shown leaving the Buran cargo bay in the bomber mode, they are supposed to home on their targets after reentry via internal sensors.
Assuming 1/2 hour from retrofire to impact, then a carrier task force could get around 15-18 nautical miles from its position at retrofire (assuming that it's going at 30-35 knots).
That would be a survivable distance for a multi-megaton thermonuclear strike, but it presupposes two things:
1.) That the warhead is aimed at its current position, and doesn't incorerate a "lead" factor of where it's going to be in a half hour's time.
2.) That the retroburn can be detected, allowing the carrier force to immediatly turn around 180 degrees and flee at flank speed. If the RV is indeed "leading" the target, this could be quite effective in getting the ships out of its way.
However, if the RV has a lifting body design and a homing capability, then the movement the target can accomplish after retrofire probably isn't going to be enough to get it out of the cross range footprint of the incoming warhead.
Pat
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cult spacecraft Part One: The Little Spaceplane That Couldn't
- From: Fred J . McCall
- Re: Cult spacecraft Part One: The Little Spaceplane That Couldn't
- References:
- Cult spacecraft Part One: The Little Spaceplane That Couldn't
- From: dumpster4
- Re: Cult spacecraft Part One: The Little Spaceplane That Couldn't
- From: Damon Hill
- Re: Cult spacecraft Part One: The Little Spaceplane That Couldn't
- From: Pat Flannery
- Re: Cult spacecraft Part One: The Little Spaceplane That Couldn't
- From: Damon Hill
- Re: Cult spacecraft Part One: The Little Spaceplane That Couldn't
- From: Pat Flannery
- Re: Cult spacecraft Part One: The Little Spaceplane That Couldn't
- From: Monte Davis
- Re: Cult spacecraft Part One: The Little Spaceplane That Couldn't
- From: Fred J . McCall
- Cult spacecraft Part One: The Little Spaceplane That Couldn't
- Prev by Date: Re: Obama's NASA Review Team
- Next by Date: Re: Cult spacecraft Part One: The Little Spaceplane That Couldn't
- Previous by thread: Re: Cult spacecraft Part One: The Little Spaceplane That Couldn't
- Next by thread: Re: Cult spacecraft Part One: The Little Spaceplane That Couldn't
- Index(es):