DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech exam­ines the inter­sec­tion of tech­nol­ogy and defense from every angle and pro­vides analy­sis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • 'Canes
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the "Buzz"
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT's Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar's Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples' Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward'z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Space » Weak Standard for Space Rods

Weak Standard for Space Rods

Of all the far-​​fetched space weapons hyped by the Times last month, “Rods from God” are prob­a­bly the most dubi­ous. That doesn’t stop the Weekly Standard from pant­ing about how totally wicked awe­some it would be if the Air Force really could drop giant tung­sten slabs from orbit, how­ever.
rods.jpg

The sys­tem could rep­re­sent a tremen­dous leap for­ward in the military’s abil­ity to destroy under­ground, hard­ened facil­i­ties of the type that have allowed Iran and other rogue states to vio­late the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty with impunity…
Iran has used deeply buried facil­i­ties to shel­ter its nuclear pro­gram… This has lim­ited America’s options for inter­ven­tion. A con­ven­tional attack on such facil­i­ties might suc­ceed in set­ting the Iranian pro­gram back a few years, but due to the pre­sumed dis­per­sal of equip­ment over a num­ber of sites across the Islamic Republic, only good intel­li­gence and a great deal of luck would elim­i­nate the threat entirely. And while a nuclear attack could be tac­ti­cally suc­cess­ful, it is polit­i­cally unvi­able. A few well-​​placed tung­sten rods, how­ever, would guar­an­tee the destruc­tion of the tar­geted facilities.

And so on. It’s not until the 9th para­graph (of a 12-​​graph story) that the Standard reveals, “the like­li­hood of the rods, or any other sys­tem, being deployed in space over the next decade [are] next to nil.’” What’s never men­tioned at all is the opin­ion of many physi­cists that the rods would only be a small frac­tion as effec­tive as con­ven­tional bombs.
There is room, how­ever, for a wee scare tac­tic before the story is through.

It’s likely that space will be weaponized. The only ques­tion is whether the U.S. Air Force or [China’s] People’s Liberation Army will be at the van­guard of the revolution.


(Big ups: Geek Press, Dr. J)
THERE’S MORE: Interestingly, the most sober moments in the Standard story read an awful lot like Popular Science’s June ’04 take on the rods. Here’s the Standard:

[The rods are] at least 10 years away from being oper­a­tional, and the cost of launch­ing heavy tung­sten rods into orbit would be, well, astro­nom­i­cal. Other finan­cial chal­lenges include the satellite’s “absentee-​​ratio,” which refers to num­ber of satel­lites, or in this case bun­dles of rods, which would be nec­es­sary to assure prox­im­ity to the tar­get.
Furthermore, it may be nec­es­sary to slow sub­stan­tially the rods’ rate of speed to pre­vent them from vapor­iz­ing on impact–though retro­rock­ets might offer a solu­tion to this prob­lem. Simply attach­ing a tung­sten rod to the tip of an ICBM would over­come many of these hurdles.


And here’s PopSci:

If so-​​called “Rods from God”… ever do mate­ri­al­ize, it wont be for at least 15 years. Launching heavy tung­sten rods into space will require sub­stan­tially cheaper rocket tech­nol­ogy than we have today. But there are numer­ous other obsta­cles to mak­ing such a sys­tem work.… The rods speed would be so high that they would vapor­ize on impact, before the rods could pen­e­trate the sur­face. Furthermore, the “absen­tee ratio” — the fact that orbit­ing satel­lites cir­cle the Earth every 100 min­utes and so at any given time might be far from the desired tar­get­would be pro­hib­i­tive. A bet­ter solu­tion, Pike argues, is to pur­sue the orig­i­nal con­cept: Place the rods atop inter­con­ti­nen­tal bal­lis­tic mis­siles, which would slow down enough dur­ing the down­ward part of their tra­jec­tory to avoid vapor­iz­ing on impact.

Hmmmm.

Share |

June 10th, 2005 | Space | 16359 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2005/06/10/weak-standard-for-space-rods/Weak+%3Ci%3EStandard%3C%2Fi%3E+for+Space+Rods2005-06-10+18%3A09%3A06noahmax You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « Rapid Fire 6/​10/​05 | Agency: Anti-​​Missile Tests = Bad » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. EARL KIRKMAN says:
    June 10, 2005 at 4:47 pm

    Oh pleeeeeease.……it was such a good con­cept in those sci­ence fic­tion novels.….can we at least have the intel­li­gent tanks with the energy dis­rup­tor bolts

    Reply
  2. Cranky Observer says:
    June 10, 2005 at 10:18 pm

    Does it really mat­ter that the rods would vapor­ize? I would think that the effect would be based on energy trans­fer, not mechan­i­cal pen­e­tra­tion, and that would be essen­tially the same regard­less of the phase of the mate­r­ial strik­ing the tar­get.
    I am sure that is wrong for some rea­son — enlight­en­ment please!
    Cranky

    Reply
  3. kelley b. says:
    June 11, 2005 at 12:02 am

    You can count on it: they might adver­tise the God Rods as tung­sten, but they’ll most likely be depleted ura­nium alloy with a temperature-​​resistant ceramic outer coat­ing to act as a heat shield and slow oxi­da­tion.
    An ion­ized plasma might dis­si­pate in the atmos­phere and wouldn’t pen­e­trate or trans­fer kinetic energy.
    Ceramic-​​coated depleted ura­nium would pen­e­trate, carry lots of mass for kinetic energy trans­fer, and burn fero­ciously. It might also leave a toxic radioac­tive residue for a final long term effect.

    Reply
  4. TravisA says:
    June 11, 2005 at 4:33 pm

    I read a Rand Corporation report called “Space Weapons, Earth Wars”; the report stated that liq­uid tung­sten is pyrophoric, so con­sid­er­ing that, and all the whin­ing that would come from the use of “radioac­tive” depleted ura­nium, tung­sten would be a bet­ter choice

    Reply
  5. paul says:
    June 12, 2005 at 8:08 pm

    I HATE CHINAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

    Reply
  6. JSAllison says:
    June 13, 2005 at 10:21 am

    If excess veloc­ity is a prob­lem, how about hang­ing a cone on the back­end as an air­brake? Figuring out the size needed doesn’t sound like it’d be rocket sci­ence.
    In hear­ing about the exotic mate­ri­als pro­posed for these things, well, I can’t help but remem­ber that all the destruc­tion that has resulted over the years from mother nature’s bom­bard­ment sys­tem has been done with rocks.

    Reply
  7. Eric S. says:
    June 13, 2005 at 10:39 pm

    So, peo­ple still buy that whole “vapor­izes on impact” thing? While there would be *some* vapor­iza­tion and/​or melt­ing, mostly what you ought to have is sim­ply a solid that’s past it’s plas­tic limit. BTW, the rule of thumb is at 3 km/​sec, an object’s KE is the equiv­a­lent of that same mass of TNT (for ref­er­ence sake).
    The real argu­ment against the Rods from God is: how do you tar­get the thing and guide it in when the plasma sheath from plow­ing through the atmos­phere at that speed will elim­i­nate the use of GPS and you’d need a REALLY sta­ble IMU to carry on from the last update. After all, we’re not talk­ing 100 m CEP being good enough, you’re going to need some­thing on the order of 10 m. And if you can locate the tar­get that pre­cisely to begin with, why wouldn’t you build some­thing like a hyper­sonic cruise mis­sile to take the tar­get out, rather than put all that mass in orbit. Finally, if I’m the bad guy, I take apart the best tank I can and dupli­cate a scaled-​​up ver­sion of the front glacis over top of my under­ground facil­ity.
    Finally, on the bright side, the deeply buried tar­get gen­er­ally doesn’t move much, so, unless you get spe­cific intel that per­son X will be in the bunker between 10:00 and 10:05, you don’t need to worry about the absen­tee ratio much. Just wait until the next satel­lite comes along and spank your tar­get.
    – Eric.

    Reply
  8. Hans-Ole says:
    August 29, 2005 at 8:16 am

    I would just say to all of you, that if it hasent been for Oncle Sam I would be speak­ing ger­man or russ­ian by now. I live in Denmark and some­body has to dom­i­nate the high ground, and I pre­fer Oncle Sam instead of China or Russia. They too has spaceweapons in progress so why not deter them with a weapon like rods from god ???. That would make a small nuke-​​explosion and a chock­wave through the con­crete, mak­ing the con­crete pul­veris­ing, because the mol­e­c­u­lar struc­ture cant hold together with such a sud­den chock­wave. Thank god for Oncle Sam resourch­ing in such weapons so that we as a free west can deter oth­ers from doing bad things.
    Hans-​​Ole from Denmark.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

    Most Popular Posts
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • Starship Troopers Meets G.I. Joe
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
    • Dowd's Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Adapting Women to Subs
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Mystery Drone Revealed
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    Recent Comments
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      "And no, the Koran does not say anything about killing...
      bdwilcox
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to...
      DualityOfMan
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Fascism? Last time I heard, the fascists promoted christianity. Or,...
      DualityOfMan
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      I see an M16 firing, and I see a 40 mm grenade launcher...
      DualityOfMan
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      "I'd say go read some history on fascist ideology and then compare...
      Sam
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      No. I am not saying a grenade launcher on a rifle is a hoax. I...
      Zandor
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      For someone who trashes all the readers of the blog you sure do...
      a1189
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
      These devices vibrate tissue and bone not just...
      WJS
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      So are you saying the grenade launcher is a hoax or the M-16?...
      WJS
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Dear Cannon Fodder; Only politically correct patriots should be accepted...
      Zandor
    Recent Articles
    • Semi-​​auto Grenade Thrower
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Airbag Defense
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Did Someone Move the Furniture Around?
    • Lockheed Says Sbirs Still on Track For 2010
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Adapting Women to Subs
  • Channels: Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty | Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money | Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network: Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz | SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps | Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program | Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | © 2009 Military Advantage