 What's a Thor Shot? |
  |
 Aug 16 2006, 07:38 PM
Post
#51
|
|
|
Running Target  Group: Members Posts: 1,428 Joined: 9-June 02 Member No.: 2,860  |
I should expand on those "hide-a-Thor" suggestions. You're probably not going to deceive people who look hard at satellites and catalogue their activities. You may manage some "hiding in plain sight" tricks, but you can't fool everyone all the time.
|
 |
 
|
|
Aug 16 2006, 08:09 PM
Post
#52
|
|
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
"Of course, the whole point of a doomsday machine is lost if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?"
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 16 2006, 09:44 PM
Post
#53
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,213 Joined: 10-March 02 From: Back from the abyss. Member No.: 2,316 |
The SLID and other missile defense systems.
It looks like the SLID is not being produced any more. Not sure why, but the idea was basically a rocket system that was mounted on vehicles or towed on trailor and had a radar to spot and track incoming artillery. The bullet shot from cannon style artillery. Then fire one of these rockets with solid heads to bump the artillery shell just enough to push it off course. There are a lot of weapons int he works for space based missile defense systems. Railguns, regular lasers, other missiles, particle beams and the x ray laser. Ideally they would shoot the missile before it clears the launch platform. Or at least over the enemies on terroritory. So even if the weapon we would use to shoot down the nuke was city busting, do you think wed care? They fired a nuke in our general direction to achieve just that goal. So worrying about whats below the missile when shot at is of little concern. The airborne laser is supposedly to shoot down theater missiles, I suppose if we have them floating around enemy terroritory it could shoot down stategic missiles. Its quiet possible to have those flying lasers to shoot down MIRVs, but that would be a desperate and last ditch effort. And I agree when would you use a fighter to chase down ICBMs? The Brits used fighters to chase down and kill V1 rockets, but when Germany moved to V2s they had no chance. The V2 is the basis for many of the American space rockets used in the mercury an apollo missions. If the fighters couldnt chase down that rocket, how would we do it today? I can see in the future having much better missile defense rockets and other weapons. If the dems didnt block the funding in the 80s we might have been much further along then we are now in that field of study. As for shooting down satellites. In one of the SR books I remember it being mentioned and in an article about future weapons, there will be satellite dazzeling lasers. Big lasers aimed upt o blind spy sats adn such. But even today we have the Pegasus Missile. Its carried on a wide variety of aircraft including the B52. It is capable fo being fired into orbit from these air craft and chase down satellite. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 16 2006, 11:24 PM
Post
#54
|
|||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 451 Joined: 8-May 06 Member No.: 8,533 |
Well, that's a simple answer: You don't chase the damn missile. You send the fighters out to either hit it when it starts to come down or as it's going up, or to eyeball it incase your lovely targetting systems are not working on it. If you have fighters capable of going to its level of atmosphere, shoot it down en-route or eyeball it from there. But in all cases, you're comming from where it's going or simply waving as it shoots out of sight. Oh, and I'm taking the game into consideration with my posts, which is where the Thor shot exists. In reality? In reality, we should have portable railguns perfected by that time, so you'll have people with portable weapons capable of taking out tanks in a single shot. To be honest, I don't think ICBM's will even be around in sixty years. Too high of an expense when you can probably build smaller and cheaper and get just as much devastation when you're done. Finally, fighters do something that technology cannot: They let people actually come close and see the missile. If technology is failing you, having a human up there telling where to aim your missile defense system will help.
#1, #2, and #3 also apply to the people making ICBMs. The time spent developping targetting software also means time spent developping target-jamming software. And the same anti-missile hardware today being developped for fighters and other craft could tomorrow be improved and stuck in missiles. All of those improvements in computer technology simply leave more room to add in more toys to your missiles. To add to that is improvements in fuel technologies, allowing you to either build smaller missiles or missiles of the same size but with a lot more computer equipment in them. #4 doesn't make a difference, as we already have demonstrated that today. If we actually focused a lot of funding there, we could concievably put an orbital weapons platform into space right now. #5 is nothing new as well. That type of weaponry has been around, at least in concept, for years. The problem is the fact that railguns still need a targetting system to shoot at something and lasers are easily dealt with by smoke. Okay, wow, all I need to do is add a smoke projector to my ICBM along with all of the other anti-targetting equipment I'm already putting in.
It's also a damned good shield for the missiles you're shooting at. You can either shoot the missile while it's launching and before it has all of its defensive systems online, or try it once it's launched and actively trying not to get shot before it suicides. I'm figuring the people who would be launching ICBMs in the 2064 wouldn't be stupid enough to use missiles made with 1964 standards. Pretty much, if you want an effective anti-missile platform in orbit, it needs to be able to strike the ground. You have to hit the missiles before they are away from the launch site if you want to guarantee that you have a successful shot. The moment the ECM of the ICBM is engaged, all guarantees are entirely dependent on how advanced the ECM is, how good the Pilot program is, and the weather. If all of those things combine to hate you, you need to eyeball the missile and try to blindshoot it.
Based on U.S. missile tests using advanced modern technology in attempts to shoot down missiles, and then advancing the tech about sixty years. The tech of all missiles, not just a select few. The result comes out to about the same, since you have your anti-missile missiles being actively jammed by the very thing they're trying to shoot down. |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Aug 16 2006, 11:54 PM
Post
#55
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,428 Joined: 9-June 02 Member No.: 2,860 |
...Wow. :| I kinda thought we were on the same page about what constitutes an ICBM, MIRVs, and Thor Shots and what the velocities involved meant, but if you're putting any value on human senses and reflexes (cybered or not) helping to spot and intercept a re-entry vehicle from something as sluggish and low-flying as a fighter...nevermind. It's kind of like saying a guy with a musket in a hot air balloon is more useful against a B52 bomber than a ground-launched SAM. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 16 2006, 11:57 PM
Post
#56
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 451 Joined: 8-May 06 Member No.: 8,533 |
Actually, I was looking at some of the sub-orbital fighter ideas I've seen floating around. The idea is simple: If we have the tech to get a plane that high into the air, why can't we attach a gun and some missiles to it and use it to bomb China? Better yet, why can't we use it to check for where that ICBM that just disappeared is? The reasoning behind it is simple: You can't jam natural human eyes with ECM.
Oh, and I wouldn't say that about a musket against a B52. I would say that it's more useful against kevlar than a M16, though. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 17 2006, 12:07 AM
Post
#57
|
|
|
Old Man Jones Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 4,415 Joined: 26-February 02 From: New York Member No.: 1,699 |
I think the point is that those "natural human eyes" would be nearly useless for this sort of thing, spotting high-velocity suborbital missiles.
By the time you see it it'll be well past you and have impacted on target by the time you can get a defense system to bear. -karma |
|
|
|
|
Aug 17 2006, 12:09 AM
Post
#58
|
|||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,556 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle Member No.: 98 |
Not really. Musket balls are heavy, slow, soft, and round. Even lighter-weight kevlar armor will stop them (although the backface deformation would probably be harsh). Stopping an M16 round, on the other hand, usually requires the addition of hard plates (as they're fast, hard, and pointy). |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 17 2006, 12:13 AM
Post
#59
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 451 Joined: 8-May 06 Member No.: 8,533 |
Depends, once again, on how far sixty years of advancement take us. Considering that it's more than enough time in SR to not only see the thing but to shoot it... In real-life, I would assume you're not looking for the actual missile, but up there looking for some sign of it. Like a "whoosh" as it flies by and nearly knocks you out of the plane. Hear whoosh, push button, THOR shot using your location combined with the missile's speed (based on what ICBMs typically do) hopefully shoots it down. You should at least have an idea of what direction it's going not long after it's launched. This is assuming you don't spot it in the distance and push a button (though, it if were this easy, the THOR shot would have shot it down by now).
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 17 2006, 12:14 AM
Post
#60
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 451 Joined: 8-May 06 Member No.: 8,533 |
And, according to a lot of people I've talked to in actual military service using the M16, easily deflected by kevlar. But, if you want, I can try to look up some firing tests. No guarantees. I'm absolutely sucktastic with a search engine. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Aug 17 2006, 12:22 AM
Post
#61
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,428 Joined: 9-June 02 Member No.: 2,860 |
Actually, President Bush (Sr) ordered the cutback from a true strategic defense to a smaller, more feasible project. (Indeed, Bush Sr. and Secretary of Defense Cheney were responsible for the largest post-Cold War cutbacks in the US DoD, not the Dems.) http://www.espionageinfo.com/Sp-Te/Strateg...le-Defense.html "At the order of President George H. Bush, the program assumed in 1990 a more limited mission: Global Protection against Limited Strikes (GPALS)." |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 17 2006, 12:24 AM
Post
#62
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 451 Joined: 8-May 06 Member No.: 8,533 |
Oh, and I'll say this now: Don't be shocked if my next post leaves even SR's skewed attempted at reality and enters a version of Lala Land where Einstein committed suicide while trying to figure out the laws of physics. I'm growing bored with the seriousness of my argument.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 17 2006, 12:26 AM
Post
#63
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,428 Joined: 9-June 02 Member No.: 2,860 |
Doesn't matter. That's just a faster platform for the pilot to "blink and miss it" when the MIRV or Thor Shot zips by. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 17 2006, 12:27 AM
Post
#64
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,635 Joined: 27-November 05 Member No.: 8,006 |
A Thor Shot. The last thing you never see or hear. :) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 17 2006, 12:29 AM
Post
#65
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 451 Joined: 8-May 06 Member No.: 8,533 |
Okay, one more serious post: Cray, I know that. When you end up needing them to not blink, then good chances are you're already in much deeper than you thought was possible and are relying on them to dig an escape tunnel.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 17 2006, 12:32 AM
Post
#66
|
|||
|
Old Man Jones Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 4,415 Joined: 26-February 02 From: New York Member No.: 1,699 |
Er, a THOR shot would be the absolute last thing I would want to use to shoot down an inbound ICBM. Well, maybe not the last thing, but it'd be on the list of "do not use vs ICBMs". THOR shots are really good against one type of target. The kind that doesn't move. They're not much different than a fellow pitching a crowbar off a skyscraper to hit something on the street, albeit this crowbar might have computer assisted targeting and flight surfaces to steer it. Against an ICBM? Try imagine someone next to you shooting a bottle rocket down from the top of that skyscraper, and then you dropping the crowbar a second later to try and hit the bottle rocket. If nothing else the bottle rocket will be traveling at a significantly higher velocity than the free-falling crowbar. You ideally want to have a defense system that travels towards an oncoming missile, not one that chases the missile from behind. Also, okay, you saw the ICBM and pressed the button. What's aiming the defense system to actually HIT the ICBM? Any situation where ther's enough jamming to prevent electronic detection is for sure going to also prevent electronic targeting. You'd be back to aiming with your eyes, which means the missile WILL have passed you in your little aircraft and be out of your visual range before you can even toggle the aiming reticle to "on". -karma |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 17 2006, 12:46 AM
Post
#67
|
|||||||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 451 Joined: 8-May 06 Member No.: 8,533 |
Note: THOR may or may not have been used by a very lazy person as a synonym for "massive spacial weapon array that can shoot at things in atmosphere." That said, it's about like shooting a missile using a pistol. You don't aim for where it is. You aim for where it will be. Doesn't matter if it's a THOR shot, a laser cannon, or a railgun except in how far ahead you have to aim. And, now, onto the scheduled silliness.
Well, good to know that the THOR shot can't be used against anything in the universe.
Add a couple of roman candles for boosters and then try it. Much better accuracy.
That's why you stick the crowbar in a railgun and fire it.
/me looks back at all of her previous posts, and then proceeds to slap Karma.
The gerbils. The gerbils you stick inside the THOR platform that run its engines are what aims it. They do so using the bizarre powers they'll get when Hellcows invade Area 51 and hold it hostage in exchange for the Necronomicon as part of their plot to ressurect Bill Gates and take over the world. Oh, and on a serious note: This is actually solved with a little something I like to call "math." The computer doesn't know where the object is. But, using the trajectory, speed, and last known position of said object, the computer can extrapolate where the object both is and will be. Thus, the whole reason for sending fighters up in the first place is to get data for the computer to do that with. If the sky is clear and the orbital platform has cameras, it can track it potentially by either pictures or by the inteference (extrapolating where it is by determining where it only possibly can be from where it's not). |
||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
Aug 17 2006, 01:52 AM
Post
#68
|
|||||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,213 Joined: 10-March 02 From: Back from the abyss. Member No.: 2,316 |
I dont really feel like digging into it, because itll skew the conversation into politics. But when Reagan first proposed the idea, Ted Kennedy and a bunch of dems started calling it Star wars instead of the stategic defense initiative and mocked it as a fantasy that would do nothing but make the Soviets think we were tring to make their nukes obselete thus be able to do first strike attacks and not worry about retaliation. A lot of people feared thats what the reds would think so they stopped funding it. Later to get things even little things like the Patriot Missile system Bush the first made consessions. Certain projects had to be dropped in order to keep other projects running. Stealth planes were one of the projects meant to be kept running so they dropped things like remote viewing and a bunch of other projects I cant remember at the moment.
If the conversation bores you so much why not just stop posting, I have done it before and you can too. And using a Roman Candle would be like strapping an old misfiring car engine to the rocket. Roman candles shoot off projectiles, youll need a thrusting form of fireworks. Like more bottle rocket, the big shits. :) I just like the idea of Thor shots being a weapon youd keep in space to take out things like airports, major road sections (like the mixing bowl in DC) and other hardened sites (like NORAD). Not things like planes, missiles or individual tanks. The cost to me would be prohibitive and just a collasal waste of resources. Taking out ICBMs would be asier to do with laser/particle based weapons. I would have a series of different munitions on the Thor Shot arsenal. Solid long rods for hardened site penetration, then canister like rounds that would open up like a mile above the target and release a flechette style attack on the area below, peppering run ways with smaller but just as dense rods shattering road ways and runways in a large area. You wouldnt really need air superiority to take out those soft targets before you sent in your airsupport. You could take out airstrips and sensor stations from space. Barring they dont take out your Thor platform first. But you could park your bird next to another persons bird so itll be really tricky for them to take it out. I believe they mentioned the Azzies did it with their death channel broadcasting satellites in one book. The programs broadcasted around the world were Azzie death games, illegal around the world in most cases, so they parked the sat next to some other countries bird so itll be hard to take out without causeing a major incident. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Aug 17 2006, 02:56 AM
Post
#69
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,428 Joined: 9-June 02 Member No.: 2,860 |
Mmm. Food for Thor thoughts:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/Pea...lgm118_6.jpgjpg [edit]Apparently, my 2 separate links got smooshed together by the automatic URLization of the forums. Toshiaki got them straightened out. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 17 2006, 03:07 AM
Post
#70
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,213 Joined: 10-March 02 From: Back from the abyss. Member No.: 2,316 |
Is that the right link Cray, I keep getting a page not found error?
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 17 2006, 04:01 AM
Post
#71
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 124 Joined: 7-February 05 Member No.: 7,063 |
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 17 2006, 09:17 AM
Post
#72
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 934 Joined: 26-August 05 From: Earth - Europe - AGS - Norddeutscher Bund - Hannover Member No.: 7,624 |
Those are images of several MIRVs released by a Peacekeeper ICBM, reentering atmosphere.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 17 2006, 12:17 PM
Post
#73
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,428 Joined: 9-June 02 Member No.: 2,860 |
Yes, they are. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 17 2006, 12:54 PM
Post
#74
|
|||||||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
The Box of Truth is your friend. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Aug 17 2006, 03:08 PM
Post
#75
|
|||
|
Old Man Jones Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 4,415 Joined: 26-February 02 From: New York Member No.: 1,699 |
Trajectory, speed, and position as recorded by what? You've already set up a condition where electronic detection won't work. Are you suggesting you figure all this out by eye? In the split second where you can actually see the ICBM? Or perhaps the targeting computer can magically figure out trajectory, speed, and position from the spotter saying "Uh, hey, I just saw a missile, heading somewhere over there." If you're using optical electronic sensors to figure it out, hooked into that targeting computer, why do you even need a human eye in the loop? And an abysmally slow human reaction time to slow things down? Even with all the cyber-boosting in the world a computer is going to be able to react faster than a guy with his hand on a button. Hell, you don't even need to mount that optical sensor on an aircraft. They can work just fine from the ground. We have cameras today that can read license plates from orbit. It also sounds like you might be unclear on what a Thor Shot is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bomba...nt#Project_Thor It's a telephone pole made of tungsten. It's used for dropping a lot of pain down on hardened bunkers, bridges, taking out whole city blocks at a time. It's a WMD. It's for when you want a tactical nuclear strike but don't want the associated radiation. It's an ICBM pre-parked in orbit. It is not, in any way, a defense system. You're basically suggesting we use one ICBM to hit another ICBM. And to target it using your eyes. -karma |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 6th August 2025 - 02:24 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.