Search the Community

Hi! I was looking up articles about counter ICBM measures for the last twenty minutes and they described existing efforts to consist of a detection system and counter missiles they use to try to hit the incoming missile and destroy it with the impact. The primary difficulty according to these articles is as the speed of the ICBM making it extremely hard to hit. I'm a complete layman who spent about five minutes on the problem, so I assume that the idea I came up with is completely infeasible and ludicruous, but I'm curious as to the science of why. Think of it as a thought experiment. I'm making the following assumption: since the currently developed method is being tested in practice, it is possible to get kinda close to the target's trajectory. The idea: instead of trying to hit the ICBM directly, scatter a cloud of matter in its path, let's say each particle being a 0.5 cm diameter disc bent to add air resistance, made from a high density metal. The location of the cloud wouldn't have to be impecably precise, as it would cover a larger area, the timing wouldn't have to be down to the prepostorouseth decimal digits since the cloud can be spread over time and it's density in the critical location changes in the order of magnitude of seconds. In essence this would turn the incoming missile's speed from a hinderance to an asset in destroying it before it hits its target. Example with completely made up numbers: the detection systems picked up the ICBM and they calculate that it will pass through an area anywhere between time x seconds and x+1 seconds. The counter device, not necessarily a rocket, is launched. It begins shooting out the cloud at x-0.3 seconds, safely saturating the area (taking into account present wind conditions if within the atmosphere) by x, and keeps shooting metal until x + 0.5 seconds. For the remaining half a second the cloud is descending due to gravity and thinning out due to turbulence and wind, but maintaining a critical density long enough to last for until x+1. Somewhere within the time window the ICBM arrives, finding itself traveling at over 6000 km/s, being of several tons of weight and (I assume) carrying no armor plating and flies into a cloud of tens of thousands of few grams heavy, dense particles, which under these conditions shred it up, rendering it inoperable and if not completely destroying it, forcing it off course at the same time. The particles then keep falling to the ground at terminal velocity (low due to their shape), harmlessly landing to be sweapt up by whoever comes across them. Obviously there's the danger that if the missile carried a nuclear warhead the radioactive matter would also land spread around under the impact site, but the same is true for the conventional method and while the initial path of the ICBM is set and there are limitations due to the time it takes to calculate it's path, the launch site and speed of the counter device and potentially wind conditions, there is still a degree of control over the area where it is taken down. So, why is this stupid? Thoughts? zoliking

This thead is about how you learned to play ksp so orbit was a walk in the park. I learned from my mistakes and realised I was being very inefficient with my method of flying to space. I then progressed from that. So, how did you learn to play ksp? (*wait, my nana is scotish!!! Just like Scott Manley!*)

Does anyone here practice KSP and space-related things in real life too? Are you aerospace engineers, rocket science amateurs, aviators, pilots, airplane mechanics or whatever? Personally, I am going to get a Master of Science in Space Engineering - currently working on my thesis. I wonder if someone else here is mad enough to kerbalize his life to this point!

I have compiled together pieces of information about the kerbal rocket science. Some of this information you should know already and some of this information is completely for comical relief. But there is also information of rocket equations, how to close encounters, and other things that should be useful. To start this thread, I will post Law 1 of Kerbal Rocket Science For T/W ratio on Kerbin to be equal to 1, there has to be 16 Kilo-Newtons of Thrust for every 1 Ton. Or 0.065 tons for 1 Kilo-Newton. Hope you enjoyed this day's Law of Kerbal Rocket science.

Hello kerbonauts! I'm student in Polish Air Force Academy and I would like to create my own thesis topic related to KSP so I need some help and advice. I tought about describing idea of future manned Mars mission for example. KSP would be used to visualize progress of this mission (of course I would use realism mods). And there some difficulties showed up. How can I combine necessary calculations with KSP (navigation, fuel consuption, etc.)? Is it even possible? Do you know any websites with interesting and useful rocket science data? I'm asking you because I know that KSP players are rocket science enthusiast If you have any ideas, please post here. I would be very grateful for your help.

source:http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=4079 I thiiink this should be safe for this forum? Check the source for funny alt text.