4 ms·
That’s definitely not their limit since they can shoot down satellites at the altitude of the International Space Station. And that’s the stuff we’re allowed to
by oceanplexian 4y ago
That’s definitely not their limit since they can shoot down satellites at the altitude of the International Space Station. And that’s the stuff we’re allowed to know about.
- robswc 4y agoCould they shoot down the ISS, if they wanted? Isn't that thing moving insanely fast? haha. Not a space guy but always found it interesting.
- XorNot 4y agoASAT weapons already exist, so most countries could kill the ISS if they wanted.
- ianburrell 4y agoThe SM-3, which is launched from ships for ballistic missile defense, can be used as anti-satellite missile. Its ceiling is supposed to be 1000 km. Which means could reach ISS. It was tested in 2008 to destroy failed recon satellite.
- vkou 4y agoThe ISS orbits at ~420 KM. Epotential = mgh = 420,000m * 9.8 m/s^2 * mass ~= 4,200,000 m^2/s^2 * mass To reach that altitude, ignoring air resistance, you'd need kinetic energy, provided by the formula: Ekinetic = (mv^2)/2 Solving for v, we get v = sqrt(8,400,000 m^2/s^2) ~= 2.900 m/s ~= Mach 9 That's the minimum muzzle velocity you need to send a projectile up into the ISS's path (Add a few more mach numbers due to air resistance). It's certainly easier than getting into orbit, a single-stage missile could do it without any trouble.
- jakeinspace 4y agoThis calculation is for a ballistic projectile without air resistance. For a missile with a rocket engine, there is no minimum velocity, but you can compute the fuel energy required for the change of altitude. Delta-v isn’t important for a sub-orbital intersection trajectory, although you’ll obviously want your interceptor missile to get there fairly quickly (which will end up being more fuel efficient than a slow climb).
- cm2187 4y agoYeah but not with cannons. We are talking about a cheap way to shoot it down, ie not with a missile.