Hypervelocity Rod Bundles: Another way of saying Mass Drivers. Kinetic Interdiction strikes are the wave of the future!

Ground-Based Laser: Fires laser beams through the atmosphere to Low-Earth Orbit satellites to provide robust, post-2015 defensive and offensive space control capability.
Evolutionary Air and Space Global Laser Engagement (EAGLE) Airship Relay Mirrors: Significantly extends the range of both the Airborne Laser and Ground-Based Laser by using airborne, ground-based or space-based lasers and bouncing them off space-based relay mirrors. Using different laser powers and frequencies can achieve a broad range of effects, from illumination to destruction

Now this is a good idea... Why build the lasers into satellites, for exorbant cost and limited use, when you can do it with fairly close effectiveness right on the ground?

Thanks for the info Joe.

"Hypervelocity Rod Bundles"

In Rod we trust...

Spare the Rods and spoil the dictators, I always say...

Actually the rod bundles were proposed 10-15 years ago by Jerry Pournelle under the name of Thor (as in Hammer of).

Who are we going to use these weapons against? Would we ever use them and not launch a nuclear attack on the country? How is an orbital tugboat different than a space truck? What will we do if this enemy steals the plans from us and comes out with the same weapon two years later? Is Dr. Strangelove still on the payroll?

Seems like we'd be better off spending the money on SOCOM personnel, training, airlift and munitions.

Richard, when you have someone who has buried their nuclear facilities under hundreds of feet of rock(cough*North Korea*cough), and nukes are politically dangerous , having the ability to call down kinetic interdiction strikes would quite literally be a life saver. There are simply some things SOFs can't do.

FH,

I was under the impression that orbital kinetic weapons would be incredibly lossy in terms of energy expenditure--the energy required to put mass into orbit vastly exceeds the energy delivered to the target--and most other types of delivery system are much more efficient. Am I just misinformed on this point? It's not really my field.

Also, would those rods have THAT much penetrating power (hundreds of feet of rock)?

The energy lost putting an object into orbit does not come at the expense of the object's potential energy once in orbit. So long as the heat of reentry does not vaporize the rods, they should have a frightening amount of kinetic energy once they fall the full distance to earth. It would be even more damaging if some exploded just above ground like the Tungusta? asteroid in Russia, which flattened several square miles of forest.

All that and no fallout. The MOAB just became obsolete.

The age old problems arises again.

What, I wonder, would you or I think about our personal security if China was floating the 'we will militarize space' trial balloon? What motive would we read into such an act? What kind of speculation would run through the more reactive groups among us?

Do these actions increase our security or increase the likelyhood of victory in a less secure situation?

KevinG,

Correct.

FH,

So how much are we going to spend to drive a steel rod into a facility we can't locate? If we couldn't identify and seize any of the WMD sites in Iraq where UN inspectors, including our CIA folk, I presume, had spent nearly a decade, how will we find these valuable targets in Kimmies' other world that no one has seen for decades?

The cost to us financially and in threatening the world as KevinG points out are far in excess of any benefits and not consistent with the pre 1945 principles or traditions of the United States. Let's give the budget a break and send these guys out to work on the UCAV version of the F-22, a weapon much more likely to be used.

Richard- The other part of the Transformation Flight Plan that Joe K didn't post on dealt with UCAV work. Transformation isn't an either-or proposition as space is going to be transformed by somebody.

Or do you seriously think that WWI's transformation of airplanes into warplanes would not have occurred if everyone just subscribed to the concept that "gentlemen pilots shouldn't shoot at each other"? If that seems absurd in retrospect, then the implications of your post should seem equally dubious even without benefit of hindsight.

The space tug or orbital transfer vehicle (OTV) concept is the most misunderstood part of these proposals. It proposes that a capacity to raise low earth orbit satellites to higher or different orbits be established independent of the ground launch of that satellite. This would imply the establishment of a standing on orbit mobility element in space, along with the assets to coordinate and maintain such a capacity. What the plan does not mention is what can take a LEO sat to a GEO orbit can also destabilize anything else's orbit on the way back. So many of these concepts are dual purpose, while not being described as such.

Finally Richard- What pre 1945 principles of the US are you referring to? The Kellogg Briand Pact? The seizure of Carribean territories to protect access to the Panama Canal in the Spanish American War? Continuing interventions in various Latin American countries over a century to 'defend' a smorgasbord of humanitarian and economic US interests? You have quite a number to select from, and I sure you could select something that fits your argument. But your reference to the whole lot of them leaves the reader guessing which you meant to feature as the ones which you think the USAF transformation plan is contradicting.

Sam- One thing that most of these top level concepts don't get into are application details. The kinetic weapon concept requires two breakthrus to work:
a. a way to eliminate leading edge superheating
b. terminal guidance to account for weather or other local conditions

The most plausible way to do a is to turn the oncoming gas at the lead point to a plasma using a high energy laser. Plasmas don't produce drag, as they don't have a gaseous structure. Terminal guidance would involve small thrusters and a very fast control system (similar to the kinetic kill interceptor control problem for missile defense).

The types of targets would be fixed targets and not necessarily one's requiring lots of energy. Missile silos, mobile launcher pads during prelaunch operations, or bridges would be obvious targets. But the unstated big advantage is that these weapons are below the level of detection by present day radar systems. Too fast and too small, so you might not have to go to war to stop a first strike, or put a real obstacle in the way of somebody's invasion.

Want to see a good description of a Kinetic Interdiction Strike System (KISS). See David Weber's "The Shiva Option" in the assult on Telik chapters.

When I say "the future", I don't mean 10 years from now. I mean 40-50. As for militarization of space, tough call. Depends on if you trust other nations enough to follow any kind of ban. At this point in time, I don't. But in 10 years, who knows?