From: not@www-no.ucsd.edu
"Ken Wallewein" wrote in message
news:40s6629nntrt5alg6qaqe1sn2sdcmqh0rf@4ax.com...
> Presumably sci.space.tech is not exclusively about propulsion.
>
> Has there been much study about what kind of weaponry a manned spacecraft
> might carry with near-current technology? There are a number of things
> that would work in vacuum that wouldn't work in air.
>
I don't know about spacecraft-to-spacecraft weapons, but I once held a
declassified document from the early 60's outlining the feasibility of
several conventional weapons for use on the moon.
The Pentagon authorizes all sorts of "blue sky" studies like this, and back
then everything about space exploration was an unknown. But it seemed that
whoever authorized the study wanted to look into what kind of weaponry and
what kinds of modifications to existing weapons would be needed if it came
down to armed conflict between Americans ans Soviets on the moon. As I
recall, there was a fairly large section on modifying existing projectile
weapon technology for use in vacuum; something about changing the bullets to
include an oxydizer, and using graphite lubrication in place of gun oil
(which would boil away in vacuum or burst into flames in a pure O2
environment). I think there was also some stuff about needing to make the
gun from materials with very similar coefficients of thermal expansion to
deal with the wide thermal ranges expected, but I don't recall seeing any
mention of how to handle recoil in a 1/6th G environment. If I recall
correctly, there was also some stuff about modifying the sights to work with
a spacesuit helmet, and the trigger to work with pressurized gloves.
I also remember hearing about a plan to put up a cloud of copper BB's in LEO
in case an ICBM attack became imminent. The thinking was that any ICBM
warhead reentering through the cloud would come out with it's ablative
shield covered with a layer of highly conductive (thermally) copper, and
would burn up. The fact that radio teloscopy or human space travel would
then become impossible for about a thousand years was considered an
acceptable tradeoff (and I have to say that I agree with that asessment,
harsh as it seems).
As far as technology for use against a manned spacecraft, both the US and
the Soviets had farily active anti-sattellite programs in the 80's, and
killing a robotic craft isn't that different from killing a manned vehicle.
I guess there are two schools of thought - one is that if you blow something
up in orbit, the pieces will sooner or later (probably sooner) become more
of a menace to your own spacecraft than the original threat. In this school
of thought, EMP (like an x-ray laser) would be a better bet; wipe out the
electronics and you've turned a manned spacecraft into a travelling tomb,
with no messy space junk to clean up. Of course, the other school of
thought is that you stick with known technology, and that means projectile
weapons and explosives. In that school of thought, you blow them up and let
other people worry about space junk.
Personally, I'd be surprised if the Boys in Blue hadn't already come up with
something like a cross between "brilliant pebbles" and a cluster bomb; small
but massive (as in heavy) objects with a rudimentary propulsion and GNC
system, possibly carried in a cluster munition (ok, a "mother ship"),
deployed in either a retrograde or polar orbit. In time of war, the mother
ship could release clouds of these things at several useful altitudes, and
from there they'd wait until activated from the ground to maneuver in front
of a bogie heading in thier direction. Basically, you're talking about a
bullet with an impact velocity of 34,0000 MPH, hitting a vehicle that
doesn't have any systems that aren't critical. In a pinch they could even
be used against ground targets.
Oh, by the way, X-Ray lasers need an atomic detonation to "pump" the
particles, and having a nuclear warhead in orbit is a violation of a LOT of
international treaties.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
