5 ms·

Yeah, it does forbid nukes. Good thing it doesn't forbid Kinetic Kill Weapons. The kind of thing you need to keep in-orbit for long periods of time. No/little

• blueskin_ 12y ago
  Slower response than an ICBM if you have to move it into position first, although if they were deployed (they aren't; they are completely impractical with current technology), I guess they'd be stationed to always have coverage over Russia/China/North Korea/the US anyway.
• arethuza 12y ago
  "quicker response than any ICBM" From what I can see it would be a lot slower than most ICBMs as you have to wait until it's orbit passes over or is close to the thing you want to hit. This article seems to have details of its orbit: http://forden.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/2742/x37b-orbit-found-mystery-remains http://forden.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/2742/x37b-orbit-fo...
  • serf 12y ago
    Although wikipedia isn't tremendously reliable : "In the case of the system mentioned in the 2003 USAF report above, a 6.1 m × 0.3 m tungsten cylinder impacting at Mach 10 has a kinetic energy equivalent to approximately 11.5 tons of TNT (or 7.2 tons of dynamite). The mass of such a cylinder is itself greater than 9 tons, so it is clear that the practical applications of such a system are limited to those situations where its other characteristics provide a decisive advantage - a conventional bomb/warhead of similar weight to the tungsten rod, delivered by conventional means, provides similar destructive capability and is a far more practical method. Some other sources suggest a speed of 36,000 ft/s (11,000 m/s),[8] which for the aforementioned rod would amount to a kinetic energy equivalent to 120 tons of TNT or 0.12 kt. With 6-8 satellites on a given orbit, a target could be hit within 12–15 minutes from any given time, less than half the time taken by an ICBM and without the warning. Such a system could also be equipped with sensors to detect incoming anti-ballistic missile-type threats and relatively light protective measures to use against them (e.g. Hit-To-Kill Missiles or megawatt-class chemical laser) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment It's not the idea to have one single bombardment weapon, but many in an orbit. That's what makes it a quick reaction. A single unit could likely be a testing platform for such a system.
  • dspillett 12y ago
    Slower for a retaliatory strike, yes. But if you are hitting first and by surprise, you might be able to coordinate around this limitation. Once the object is in the right place it has the delivery speed advantage.
  • DanBC 12y ago
    Slower than ICBM if the target is Earth, but if the target is massive satellite damage by spewing orbital debris then it's probably in the right place.
• iwwr 12y ago
  Kinetic weapons would work better on an airless planet or for space combat.
  • serf 12y ago
    far range space combat perhaps, otherwise the launch should be pretty detectable as the propulsion would need to be provided by the launcher, rather than the mechanics of the orbit (unless , perhaps, a slingshot maneuver was used to propel the mass through the enemy via an indirect route)
• MPSimmons 12y ago
  Seems like the perfect device for visiting foreign satellites and making changes.
• Shivetya 12y ago
  with the advances in rail guns being in orbit may not be a necessity.