 What's a Thor Shot? |
  |
 Aug 15 2006, 05:19 PM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Target  Group: Members Posts: 9 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 211  |
I know it involves dropping something on someone from a great height, but can anyone be more specific?
|
 |
 
|
|
Aug 15 2006, 05:20 PM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
It involves launching a long tungsten rod from a satellite. I'm sure someone can be even more specific.
Thor shot at the Sixth World Wiki. "Space junk welded together" doesn't seem like an optimal projectile, though. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 15 2006, 05:43 PM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Chrome to the Core Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,152 Joined: 14-October 03 From: ::1 Member No.: 5,715 |
"They wasted a THOR shot on a guy?"
"No, they wasted one guy with a THOR shot." Ah, System Failure. I love that book. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 15 2006, 05:43 PM
Post
#4
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
i would guess that melted together would be a more usefull projectile then welded together.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 15 2006, 05:49 PM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
Space junk is more efficient. The problem with launching giant tungston rods into orbit is that you have to launch them into orbit. You can only get enough energy out of them as you expend in the form of fuel. It takes quite a bit of fuel to launch something heavy enough to cause substantial damage. This fuel can be used for better things. Using materials that are already up there but useless alows one to retrive the original fuel investment and convert it into destructive power.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 15 2006, 05:51 PM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
And the problem is that the projectile will most likely disintegrate well before it reaches the surface, leading to very limited damage to any form of hardened structure -- the most likely target of such an attack.
Unless they only use the toughest and heat-resistant "junk" they come across out there, and manage to press it together tough enough to survive entry at insane velocities. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 15 2006, 05:51 PM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
Right, right. The point is, welded together creates (at least in my mind) the image of a whole bunch of sattelites, wrenches, shopping carts, and random crap stuck together in a misshapen pile. Melted together makes me think of using already present metal to make a streamlined rod.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 15 2006, 05:57 PM
Post
#8
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
I thought I'd seen Cray74 discussing Thors before...
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 15 2006, 06:06 PM
Post
#9
|
|
|
King of the Hobos Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,117 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 127 |
Here's the Wikipedia entry for Kinetic Bombardment which is pretty much the same thing. The short version are that they're large solid metal poles with re-entry engines and a guidance system that allows them to be dropped out of orbit and on to some poor unsuspecting bastard below.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 15 2006, 06:42 PM
Post
#10
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,150 Joined: 19-December 05 From: Rhein-Ruhr Megaplex Member No.: 8,081 |
Cray74 seems to be off a little in the dimensions, but maybe the quote is out of context ;).
For nearly everything except hardened underground structures, space junk will suffice, as long as it doesn't break up on the way down. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 15 2006, 06:58 PM
Post
#11
|
|||
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
and that is the main issue... still, biggest reason for in-air desintegration would be friction, with heat as a byproduct. allso, these things would take the fastet path to ground. unlike the shuttle that have to take the safest way down. so with reasonable aerodynamic shape, some basic heat shielding, and a whole lot of mass, it should be able to get down quite nicely. and no, i have not read the link flackjacket posted. ill do it now. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 15 2006, 07:00 PM
Post
#12
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
Right. If you just smack crap together into a ball, you'll need a hell of a lot of it for it not to disintegrate up on entry.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 15 2006, 07:04 PM
Post
#13
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,102 Joined: 23-March 04 From: The Grizzly Grunion, in a VIP room. Member No.: 6,191 |
Tungsten rods, falling bovines...
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 15 2006, 07:04 PM
Post
#14
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
actually smelting the junk down and forging it into rods sounds at least as energy ineffecient as launching tungsten rods into orbit. though... hm, maybe if you had a permanent solar-powered station in place. there's still the energy expenditure involved in going out and bringing the space junk to the smelting/forging station, and then steering the resulting projectiles into place.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 15 2006, 07:13 PM
Post
#15
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
ion engines? not the most powerfull of engines but are more or less solar powered. and with drone tech, you could probably fully automate the prosess. just select the kind of junk and send out a couple of small tug drones to get it within reach of the "solar" smelters arms.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 15 2006, 07:16 PM
Post
#16
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,026 Joined: 23-November 05 From: Seattle (Really!) Member No.: 7,996 |
In Target Wastelands it was suggested that several Megas had orbital factories (which is a whole order of magnitude more energy costly I imagine) in operation. Unfortunately it never says just what they produce, and why that product requires zero gravity for production and is worth producing in such an expensive facility.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 15 2006, 07:19 PM
Post
#17
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,102 Joined: 23-March 04 From: The Grizzly Grunion, in a VIP room. Member No.: 6,191 |
Good plot hooks.
Woo, that gives me a FABULOUS idea... |
|
|
|
|
Aug 15 2006, 07:38 PM
Post
#18
|
|||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
Anything that they'd need in space, I'd imagine. It is far more energy efficient to build a factory in space, recycle junk, and mine asteroids for new raw materials than it is to manufacture on Earth and launch into space. There are enough space stations to justify such an expense. The amount of fuel it takes to manuever around the near solar system is far less than what is required to launch an equivilant mass into space, unless you go insane with the barrel rolls and loop-de-loops. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 15 2006, 07:52 PM
Post
#19
|
|||||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,428 Joined: 9-June 02 Member No.: 2,860 |
I know "Space junk" is the canon SR Thor shot, but I'm hoping it turns out to be misinformation. Space junk is lousy Thor shot material for several reasons. 1) Low density = high deceleration due to drag = low impact velocity. 2) It's likely to break up. The effect will be like peppering an area with debris from a blown up aircraft. Irritating, but not something that will bug a capital ship. 3) Aluminum, titanium, composites and other common aerospace materials are miserable penetrator materials. Tungsten and uranium have laudable properties at hypervelocity impact speeds. Examples of real life space debris bombardment show that debris can even hit relatively intact, considering what it's been through. The fuel tank in this link hit SLOW. http://www.space.com/news/raining_boosters_000510.html As for the efficiency of rods boosted to orbit, they are not limited to the fuel used to put them there. They can use external acceleration (e.g., mass drivers) for further acceleration, or even rocket motors. Further, in SR, you have the option of material mined on the moon. It's vastly cheaper in terms of fuel to get lunar material into Earth orbit. Mine a dense lunar material (tungsten, mebbe), turn it into a Thor shot, launch a couple dozen to Earth orbit, aerobrake into position, and then wait for your call to action.
How was I off in the dimensions? Few meteors less than a few hundred feet across hit the ground intact - they fragment easily. I didn't give the dimensions of the Thor shot in my quoted post, just its mass.
See above. Space junk might be less threatening than a blackpowder cannonball by the time it reaches the ground. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Aug 15 2006, 08:07 PM
Post
#20
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 944 Joined: 19-February 03 Member No.: 4,128 |
The first RPG reference to a "Thor Shot" I am aware of is from FASA's Renegade Legion Centurion. It was a orbital support weapon that could destroy nearly any grav tank in one hit.
I am not surprised there was a real research program for dropping heavy things on people from space, but I didn't know the real program was named Thor also. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 15 2006, 08:33 PM
Post
#21
|
|||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
Well, my point was that you're limited by the conservation of energy. If you use a rocket motor to accelerate it you have to burn rocket fuel. Not only that, but you have to burn rocket fuel to launch the rocket fuel into orbit. Likewise, if you use a mass driver you must have some way to power that mass driver. It isn't something for nothing. Usually, a 500lb bomb is faster and more efficient. The advantage of mining from the moon is that the materials already have the energy. They have had it for equite some time due to their position realitive to Earth's gravity well. This is the same advantage that recycling (very dense) junk has and the same advantage that mining asteroids has. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 15 2006, 08:38 PM
Post
#22
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 100 Joined: 7-December 05 Member No.: 8,054 |
Because of the scale of the Space Operations in Shadowrun, the normal factors that would limit this type of operation are somewhat relaxed.
The most likely approach (imo here) for a corp like Ares or SK with large lunar resources would be to exploit those. Thus a projectile of very hard lunar concrete (manufactured in solar powered molds-the leading contender material wise as far as lunar construction is concerned) surrounded by a casing of Titanium (also found in abundance on the moon) would be the way to go. A guidance and maneuver package could then be boosted into orbit and mated with the mass package (similar to, but more advanced than, the JDAM guidance packages that turn Iron (dumb) bombs into satellite guided Smart Bombs). The advantage here also being that the guidance/maneuver package could accommodate a wide verity of sized weapons. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 15 2006, 08:56 PM
Post
#23
|
|
|
Bushido Cowgirl Group: Members Posts: 5,782 Joined: 8-July 05 From: On the Double K Ranch a half day's ride out of Phlogiston Flats Member No.: 7,490 |
...ahhh then there's the Brimstone focused solar cannon. No physical projectiles needed.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 15 2006, 08:58 PM
Post
#24
|
|||||||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,428 Joined: 9-June 02 Member No.: 2,860 |
Substitute "ceramic" for "concrete" and I could agree with you, though I'd still prefer a dense metal. It'll have lower drag per unit mass.
Titanium's a poor choice, though better than aluminum. Titanium only has moderate strength, moderate hardness, and moderate temperature resistance. If you want easy temperature resistance, try a nickel alloy. Or, again, tungsten. Steel would also be superior to titanium, and the moon has plenty of iron in its surface material.
I'm well aware of that, but the argument only goes so far. You need a good projectile at the moment it's used, not at the moment it's launched. Since Thor shots are rarely used in SR, their users have time to make as many launches as their budget can afford to assemble Thor Shots that satisfy their requirements. Some people may be happy with scrap aluminum melted into a 1-ton dart and dropped passively from orbit. Some people may prefer a 10-ton tungsten dart with a 100-ton massdriver launcher to deliver it to the ground at super-orbital velocities, because they could get the same effect of the 1-ton aluminum dart with a 500lb bomb from a disposable UAV. If your military needs call for a large, elevated velocity Thor Shot, the issue with fuel requirements and energy conservation is just a factor in setting the price tag, not a stumbling block to technical feasibility.
Ditto for many modern weapon systems, like tanks, fighters, and warships. Yes, some weapons need power supplies. Sometimes the whole set-up gets so unweildy that you'd have an impractical weapon. Sometimes a big orbital gun is just what the doctor called for. |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Aug 15 2006, 09:10 PM
Post
#25
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,150 Joined: 19-December 05 From: Rhein-Ruhr Megaplex Member No.: 8,081 |
In a world with regular suborbital and orbital flights the price to bring a few (earth-made) thor shots into earth orbit doesn't really matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 3rd August 2025 - 11:48 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.