actually, it IS rocket science. . . .

[ArmsMerchant]

A columnist recently wrote the following: "If you can put a satellite into orbit, you can hit any continent with a missile."

This seems a tad illogical to me, but then what do I know? I'm just a simple country witch doctor.

Opinions from anyone knowing something about rocket science, please.

[BaconPie]

Definitely. Satellites have two types of orbit; Polar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_orbit) and Geostationary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary).

Geostationary orbital satellites orbit earth around equator in the same amount of time it takes the earth to spin once. As such the satellite remains above one place.

Polar orbital satellites go around the planet vertically (around the poles). As such the satellite does not go around with the planet. This type of satellite passes through each 'Y' axis of the planet and also each 'X' axis as the world turns below it. So its simply a case of maneuvering the satellite by slowing it down or causing it to accelerate in order to put it above a certain 'X' or 'Y' co-ordinate (Latitude and Longitude).

Now just add missiles.

[Mantikore]

well, if its floating above the earth, one can guess that it is possible to arm it. though it may be expensive to place heat shields on them.

who know? in the future, the ISS might become a defense platform

[emag]

If you can shoot a missile far enough to put it into orbit, then you can shoot one far enough to hit anywhere on Earth. When you put a satellite into orbit, you're really just making it circle the Earth a bunch of times before landing. You only need to be able to go half way around the Earth to be able to reach any target with a missile.

[ComradeAsh]

Ah, but it isn't rocket surgery.

[stiletto]

Interesting thing, when something is orbiting the earth (or anything) it is continuously falling without actually coming closer to the earth. i think because the amount it falls is proportional to the curvature of whatever it orbits. I could open up my Astronomy book and find out exactly why, but i couldn't be bothered at this point. It will start to slow down and go off it's orbital path due to atmospheric drag, but then you just fire the thrusters a little and get it back on course.

[LiquidIce]

Interesting thing, when something is orbiting the earth (or anything) it is continuously falling without actually coming closer to the earth. i think because the amount it falls is proportional to the curvature of whatever it orbits. I could open up my Astronomy book and find out exactly why, but i couldn't be bothered at this point. It will start to slow down and go off it's orbital path due to atmospheric drag, but then you just fire the thrusters a little and get it back on course.

Uh, what about centripetal force balancing gravity? :confused:

[PirateJoe]

Uh, what about centripetal force balancing gravity? :confused:

The centripetal force is gravity. centrifugal force doesn't apply in this situation.

[Anal Assassin]

The centripetal force is gravity. centrifugal force doesn't apply in this situation.

what you are saying contradicts all Epitonian theories and his aparetic cosmos'

[LiquidIce]

The centripetal force is gravity. centrifugal force doesn't apply in this situation.

G * M * m * r^-2 = m * V^2 * r^-1
G * M * r^-1 = V^2

Always thought it's something like that where the force of V propels something away from earth but it balances the force of gravity. Might be wrong though.

[Sydney-Floyd]

Interesting thing, when something is orbiting the earth (or anything) it is continuously falling without actually coming closer to the earth. i think because the amount it falls is proportional to the curvature of whatever it orbits. I could open up my Astronomy book and find out exactly why, but i couldn't be bothered at this point. It will start to slow down and go off it's orbital path due to atmospheric drag, but then you just fire the thrusters a little and get it back on course.

Thats pretty much it. Put clearly, it's because you are perpetually falling. Due to the curvature of the earth and your forward movement, the ground is falling away from you just as fast as you are falling towards it.

[Dr.Moo]

You don't need explosives. All you need to do is drop sharpened steel rods from a satellite onto any target: A long narrow pointed steel rod. This shape reduced air resistance so terminal velocity will not be achieved for some time.

The impact could wipe out a few city blocks. Imagine destroying the water treatment facilities, and electric power stations of a single large city with two bolts.

[Jizzmeister]

You don't need explosives. All you need to do is drop sharpened steel rods from a satellite onto any target: A long narrow pointed steel rod. This shape reduced air resistance so terminal velocity will not be achieved for some time.

The impact could wipe out a few city blocks. Imagine destroying the water treatment facilities, and electric power stations of a single large city with two bolts.

Lol, pure stupid right thar. I swear zoklet is more full of retards than totse was. :facepalm:

As someone said earlier centrifugal force is not really a force, I can't be bothered to explain it, but IIRC its more to do with centripetal force and the inertia of the object, and the satellite is falling at the same rate as the Earth.

This website seems to explain it : http://www.astronomynotes.com/gravappl/s6.htm

and a pic :
http://joshuacolwell.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/picture-2.png

[Agent 008]

This will probably happen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22EDzYagXqk

[ArmsMerchant]

My thought was that getting something into orbit would be relatively simple, as opposed to the weaponry and guidance expertise needed to actually get something from orbit onto a target.

[blackhype]

G * M * m * r^-2 = m * V^2 * r^-1
G * M * r^-1 = V^2

Always thought it's something like that where the force of V propels something away from earth but it balances the force of gravity. Might be wrong though.

you are absolutely right, the earth's gravity pull balances out the inertia of the satellite to be in an orbital motion. your equation is defined as orbital velocity.

[Rocko]

Sending a satellite into stable orbit requires much more energy than just hurling a missile warhead on a suborbital trajectory.

[phmeworp]

My thought was that getting something into orbit would be relatively simple, as opposed to the weaponry and guidance expertise needed to actually get something from orbit onto a target.

Actualy, No. And yes.

Getting something into orbit is pretty simple. Launching a spacecraft and docking that something with another object is pretty hairy.

Either way either it IS rocket science.

Kinda like shooting a gun or throwing a knife.

Allow me to wax nostalgic to the cold war...

ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missle) the first part is pretty simple, from one continet to another. Everyone knows what a missle is, no? Here comes the ballistic part:

Back in the 50's and 60's the concept was that you could fire one (or hundreds) of ICBM's and that would pretty much fix everything) one way or the other.

The concept of the ICBM was based, in large part upon what had been learned from, or taught to, the space program. If you could lauch a rocket from the earth and somehow manage to land that payload on the moon, you could pretty much put that thing anywhere you wanted to.

But the ICBM is both very similar and somehow quite different from Apollo whatever.

Ballistic: yeah, you can look it up if you want.

But, rocket science as much as you like, is the ability to project the trajectory of a missle. Back in the 1960's "we" were able to figure enough out enough to sucesfully land a man on the moon. That, took a LOT of math, science and math! Never mind the fact that we managed to launch a rocket that collided with a meteor. Or was that a film I watched on HBO last night?

The thing about the ICBM is the "B" part. They are, or at least were back then, truly 'ballistic' missles. They were, or would have been, fired like a shot, not unlike a shot fired from a gun, be it a modern weapon or a black powder muzzle loader from the past. The primary difference is that with today's weapons (nuclear) they really are not designed to "hit" a target. Quite the contrary, they are designed to detonate several thousand feet above the target zone. For them, an explosion within a few miles of the desired target is a "bullseye", because anything within that target range means total destructon within that area.

How did the gunsmen from the past manage to hit a target that was 15, 50, or even 100 yards away with their flintlock rifles? They took careful aim and fired.

That is not all that different from today's "rocket science". They take aim and fire. The target may be a bit farther away, the calculations may need to be a bit more precise (a computer rather than a moistened finger in the wind)

Uh Oh... I am sensing myself rambling on in a drunken rage.

later on, my friends...

[ArmsMerchant]

Dude, alcohol and rocket fuel doesn't mix. Or does it?

And did you?

[phmeworp]

Actually, alcohol IS my rocket fuel.

5, 4, 3, 2, 1, ignition... liftoff !