Sounding like science fiction, Project Thor actually proposed dropping metal rods the size of Telephone Poles onto targets from space at speeds of Mach 20+. Could this project really have worked?
Hey Marc, this is great thanks. I would argue the biggest reason this project never came to be was launch costs. Launch costs necessitated a high "effect per dollar," i.e. nuclear in scope. Because why would the DoD spend the $300M on a launch for one weapon that's smaller than a nuke in effect?
What I think could be an interesting analysis is what is the minimum effective size of weapon that could create an effect similar to a more average bomb? For example, can you create a "Rod" that is comparable in kilojoules to that of the Mk-82 500lb bomb? Comparing it to the MOAB example it's about 200 times smaller than the MOAB. Translate that to Kinetic energy, I believe you could make the tungsten rod 14x smaller than your listed size or 2.5 tons. In other words, with one SpaceX Starship you could have an inventory of 30. Now, it's a small weapon, however, it has the effect of permanence on-orbit unlike an aircraft. Additionally it has worldwide reach.
If you can do that, it solves a number of the challenges you pointed out IMO, 1) it's not nuclear in scope 2) tungsten availability requirements is much less.
Anyways, if the DoD was actually exploring this concept, many more engineering trade-offs could be made to make this a useful weapon.
Thank you for the suggestions. It makes sense to me what you said, and I appreciate the comments. I agree that a project like this would be much more feasible if they went with smaller effects than that of a nuclear weapon. The biggest hurdle I would see against this project at this point would be more geo-political rather than science and engineering, as no country would like the idea of having something like this overhead targeting them.
Hey Marc, this is great thanks. I would argue the biggest reason this project never came to be was launch costs. Launch costs necessitated a high "effect per dollar," i.e. nuclear in scope. Because why would the DoD spend the $300M on a launch for one weapon that's smaller than a nuke in effect?
What I think could be an interesting analysis is what is the minimum effective size of weapon that could create an effect similar to a more average bomb? For example, can you create a "Rod" that is comparable in kilojoules to that of the Mk-82 500lb bomb? Comparing it to the MOAB example it's about 200 times smaller than the MOAB. Translate that to Kinetic energy, I believe you could make the tungsten rod 14x smaller than your listed size or 2.5 tons. In other words, with one SpaceX Starship you could have an inventory of 30. Now, it's a small weapon, however, it has the effect of permanence on-orbit unlike an aircraft. Additionally it has worldwide reach.
If you can do that, it solves a number of the challenges you pointed out IMO, 1) it's not nuclear in scope 2) tungsten availability requirements is much less.
Anyways, if the DoD was actually exploring this concept, many more engineering trade-offs could be made to make this a useful weapon.
Thank you for the suggestions. It makes sense to me what you said, and I appreciate the comments. I agree that a project like this would be much more feasible if they went with smaller effects than that of a nuclear weapon. The biggest hurdle I would see against this project at this point would be more geo-political rather than science and engineering, as no country would like the idea of having something like this overhead targeting them.