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
  • Af-Cam
  • 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
  • Crazy Ivan
  • 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
  • F-35 Watch
  • 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 Bubble with Joe Buff
  • 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
  • PEO Soldier
  • 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

  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • 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

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

    Recent Articles
    • And, the Vertical Landing
    • NLOS-LS Missile Fail Could Impact Navy’s LCS
    • JFCOM’s JOE Whacks Defense Industry
    • New F-35B Hover Video
    • China’s Shipbuilding in a Regional Context
    • Debating the Pros and Cons of LCS
    • Bigger, Badder IEDs in Afghanistan
    • Petraeus to SASC Today; Israel-Palestine to Come Up? (Updated)
    • South of the Border Mayhem
    • F-16 Sale to Taiwan, Would It Make A Difference?
    Recent Comments
    • Petraeus to SASC Today; Israel-Palestine to Come Up? (Updated)
      You are senile. The...
      jaythehistorian
    • And, the Vertical Landing
      F-35 has not been canceled…The F-22 has. Alternate engine...
      Robert
    • NLOS-LS Missile Fail Could Impact Navy’s LCS
      Is General Dynamics LCS still in the...
      Wildcard
    • NLOS-LS Missile Fail Could Impact Navy’s LCS
      NLOS-PAM is important to the LCS for some...
      Will
    • And, the Vertical Landing
      Well, that's a lot more stable than any AV-8B...
      Cranky Observer
    • Debating the Pros and Cons of LCS
      Isn't this the reason why the Navy went with a...
      @Earlydawn
    • JFCOM’s JOE Whacks Defense Industry
      It's a reduction in spending compared with...
      gmanaz
    • And, the Vertical Landing
      Perfect, just in time for the program's cancellation.
      John
    • NLOS-LS Missile Fail Could Impact Navy’s LCS
      I don't doubt that...
      Wildcard
    • And, the Vertical Landing
      It looked like a Transformer at the end!
      Wes
  • 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| © 2010 Military Advantage