Texas power prices briefly soar to $9,000/MWh as heat wave b

[Rick C]

On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 3:56:01 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 3:03:13 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 2:34:50 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 9:18:51 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 5:38:52 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 2:54:11 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 2:38:11 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 2:23:45 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:ac6b6869-4633-41dd-b3c7-3ecca5ec3eab@googlegroups.com:

He was talking about nuclear reactors, not power reactors - not a
distinction that you seem to recognise.


There are over a hundred in development or production.

Since full scale power plants and their reactors are the pinnacle
of that crowd, I'd say that most of that hundred are smaller, other
use developments with many being produced for satellites, ships,
submarines.

The idiot Russians are the only dumbfucks who would put radioactive
material in a missile as the booster medium. How stupid.

They're not powering boosters with nuclear. They are building an infinite range cruise missile that's nuclear powered, and which may have hyper velocity capability. You can't do something like that with a non-nuclear source.


That is what I was referring to when I said the US had built
prototypes of similar back in the 50s. They used an unshielded
nuclear reactor to create the tremendous heat for a ramjet
engine for a big cruise missile type device. I guess it
shouldn't be called a cruise missile either, since it's
hypersonic. Is hypersonic considered cruising?

The US one was planned to hold multiple warheads
that could be delivered to separate targets anywhere.
How they would do the targeting, have kept it on course as it
went across Russia or wherever back in the 50s, who knows.
Maybe that's one reason, besides the contamination, that the
US gave up on it. But DL is right, leave it to the Russians
to be actually developing it again 60 years later. Too bad
the thing didn't land on Putin.

Dunno the specifics of that development, but the only really long range navigation methodology available at the time was celestial navigation, and that would imply high altitude, very high, which sorta not makes it a cruise missile, except for the maneuverability part, but it does explain the MIRV part.

The distinction was between cruise missiles and ballistic missiles. Something hypersonic would have had to fly very high if it wasn't going to get burnt up by ram pressure heating, so celestial navigation could well have been an option.

This new Russian development should be low altitude, which makes it invisible to radar, until it's too late to do anything about it of course. They do mention planning a route that skirts all known coverage zones until it gets to its target.

It can't be low altitude and hypersonic for very long. It might cruise barely subsonic at low altitude and go hypersonic close to target.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

They've put this one into production recently. It's high altitude and hits 27x speed of sound. It's launched from an in-orbit FOBS ICBM, absolutely impossible to intercept.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avangard_(hypersonic_glide_vehicle)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment_System


No worries, it's just those peaceful Russians. You know, the ones that
stole Crimea and have troops in half of the rest of Ukraine. If this
turns into a new arms race, there will be question who started it.

Russians didn't steal Crimea, they voted to rejoin the Russian Federation..

Lol! You mean like South Carolina voted to leave the US?


> Ethnic Russian outnumber Ukrainians living there by 2:1. The place is basically Russian. There's still a bunch of ethnic Russians living in Ukraine.. Almost all the major cities, which Russia built, are pushing 50% ethnic Russian. Ukraine has doctored census statistics on that figure so be careful what you read about that. Then the Ukraine story presented to the American public is a complete fraud: Ukraine is definitely no friend of the U.S. Obama's foreign policy was a joke.

Huh? So are you suggesting Russia should take over the entire Ukraine?

--

Rick C.

+++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 4:34:50 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 9:18:51 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 5:38:52 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail..com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 2:54:11 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 2:38:11 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 2:23:45 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:ac6b6869-4633-41dd-b3c7-3ecca5ec3eab@googlegroups.com:

He was talking about nuclear reactors, not power reactors - not a
distinction that you seem to recognise.


There are over a hundred in development or production.

Since full scale power plants and their reactors are the pinnacle
of that crowd, I'd say that most of that hundred are smaller, other
use developments with many being produced for satellites, ships,
submarines.

The idiot Russians are the only dumbfucks who would put radioactive
material in a missile as the booster medium. How stupid.

They're not powering boosters with nuclear. They are building an infinite range cruise missile that's nuclear powered, and which may have hyper velocity capability. You can't do something like that with a non-nuclear source.


That is what I was referring to when I said the US had built
prototypes of similar back in the 50s. They used an unshielded
nuclear reactor to create the tremendous heat for a ramjet
engine for a big cruise missile type device. I guess it
shouldn't be called a cruise missile either, since it's
hypersonic. Is hypersonic considered cruising?

The US one was planned to hold multiple warheads
that could be delivered to separate targets anywhere.
How they would do the targeting, have kept it on course as it
went across Russia or wherever back in the 50s, who knows.
Maybe that's one reason, besides the contamination, that the
US gave up on it. But DL is right, leave it to the Russians
to be actually developing it again 60 years later. Too bad
the thing didn't land on Putin.

Dunno the specifics of that development, but the only really long range navigation methodology available at the time was celestial navigation, and that would imply high altitude, very high, which sorta not makes it a cruise missile, except for the maneuverability part, but it does explain the MIRV part.

The distinction was between cruise missiles and ballistic missiles. Something hypersonic would have had to fly very high if it wasn't going to get burnt up by ram pressure heating, so celestial navigation could well have been an option.

This new Russian development should be low altitude, which makes it invisible to radar, until it's too late to do anything about it of course. They do mention planning a route that skirts all known coverage zones until it gets to its target.

It can't be low altitude and hypersonic for very long. It might cruise barely subsonic at low altitude and go hypersonic close to target.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

They've put this one into production recently. It's high altitude and hits 27x speed of sound. It's launched from an in-orbit FOBS ICBM, absolutely impossible to intercept.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avangard_(hypersonic_glide_vehicle)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment_System

That's fast, but it doesn't make it impossible to intercept. Reagan's Star Wars defenses would make mincemeat of it, if they could actually be built.

Twenty-seven times the speed of sound is a lot less than the speed of light (or particle weapons) and something in low earth orbit is vulnerable to both.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 1:29:06 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 11:24:10 AM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 11:05:14 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

But some realize replying to BS is a waste of time.


Dan

+1

Trader4 posting stuff here is a waste of time, independent of who he might think he is responding to. He's even dimmer than Dan.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 12:44:13 AM UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:

On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 10:27:09 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

But some realize replying to BS is a waste of time.

Some people's responses to my posts are a waste of time. If Dan realises that his responses aren't being taken seriously - which they aren't because he couldn't argue his way out of paper bag - he should stop posting them.. Trader4 is even more inept.

Your IQ is showing in your response. A high school debate team would tear your post to shreds.

Now that I've had time to think about it, that's the kind of revealing response that shows dim Dan is.

High school debating - and debating in general - is a highly stylised form of argument. One of the conventions is that you can't assert that a proposition put forward by your opponents is factually wrong, no matter how nonsensical it is.

Bank in my university days, my college debating team famously won a debate on the subject that "Australia should move closer to the USA" by arguing on the basis that the entire continent should be physically shifted, which wrong-footed the opposition to such an extent that they never got going. I didn't have anything to do with it - our debating team was all lawyers.

Continental drift does mean that Australia is moving north (and slightly eastwards) at 7cm per years - faster than any other continent - roughly in the direction of the US. It's got 15,175 km to go (220,000 years if it were moving in the right direction, which it isn't) but I'm not sure that we knew that back then.

Dan - like Trader4 - seems to enter these kinds of discussions here with the assumption that his silly ideas about the real world are to be respected, rather than jeered at.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 8:56:11 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 4:34:50 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 9:18:51 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 5:38:52 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 2:54:11 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 2:38:11 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 2:23:45 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux....@decadence.org wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:ac6b6869-4633-41dd-b3c7-3ecca5ec3eab@googlegroups.com:

He was talking about nuclear reactors, not power reactors - not a
distinction that you seem to recognise.


There are over a hundred in development or production.

Since full scale power plants and their reactors are the pinnacle
of that crowd, I'd say that most of that hundred are smaller, other
use developments with many being produced for satellites, ships,
submarines.

The idiot Russians are the only dumbfucks who would put radioactive
material in a missile as the booster medium. How stupid.

They're not powering boosters with nuclear. They are building an infinite range cruise missile that's nuclear powered, and which may have hyper velocity capability. You can't do something like that with a non-nuclear source.


That is what I was referring to when I said the US had built
prototypes of similar back in the 50s. They used an unshielded
nuclear reactor to create the tremendous heat for a ramjet
engine for a big cruise missile type device. I guess it
shouldn't be called a cruise missile either, since it's
hypersonic. Is hypersonic considered cruising?

The US one was planned to hold multiple warheads
that could be delivered to separate targets anywhere.
How they would do the targeting, have kept it on course as it
went across Russia or wherever back in the 50s, who knows.
Maybe that's one reason, besides the contamination, that the
US gave up on it. But DL is right, leave it to the Russians
to be actually developing it again 60 years later. Too bad
the thing didn't land on Putin.

Dunno the specifics of that development, but the only really long range navigation methodology available at the time was celestial navigation, and that would imply high altitude, very high, which sorta not makes it a cruise missile, except for the maneuverability part, but it does explain the MIRV part.

The distinction was between cruise missiles and ballistic missiles. Something hypersonic would have had to fly very high if it wasn't going to get burnt up by ram pressure heating, so celestial navigation could well have been an option.

This new Russian development should be low altitude, which makes it invisible to radar, until it's too late to do anything about it of course. They do mention planning a route that skirts all known coverage zones until it gets to its target.

It can't be low altitude and hypersonic for very long. It might cruise barely subsonic at low altitude and go hypersonic close to target.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

They've put this one into production recently. It's high altitude and hits 27x speed of sound. It's launched from an in-orbit FOBS ICBM, absolutely impossible to intercept.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avangard_(hypersonic_glide_vehicle)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment_System

That's fast, but it doesn't make it impossible to intercept. Reagan's Star Wars defenses would make mincemeat of it, if they could actually be built..

Twenty-seven times the speed of sound is a lot less than the speed of light (or particle weapons) and something in low earth orbit is vulnerable to both.

Low earth orbit makes a weapon hard to see, but it doesn't actually make it harder to kill does it? Orbital counter weapons can work by using the weapon's speed against it. Fire a cloud of fairly small projectiles in front of the weapon and let the missile run into them. Likely you don't need a lot of them making contact.

--

Rick C.

---- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
---- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 10:18:28 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 12:44:13 AM UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 10:27:09 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

But some realize replying to BS is a waste of time.

Some people's responses to my posts are a waste of time. If Dan realises that his responses aren't being taken seriously - which they aren't because he couldn't argue his way out of paper bag - he should stop posting them. Trader4 is even more inept.

Your IQ is showing in your response. A high school debate team would tear your post to shreds.

Now that I've had time to think about it, that's the kind of revealing response that shows dim Dan is.

High school debating - and debating in general - is a highly stylised form of argument. One of the conventions is that you can't assert that a proposition put forward by your opponents is factually wrong, no matter how nonsensical it is.

Bank in my university days, my college debating team famously won a debate on the subject that "Australia should move closer to the USA" by arguing on the basis that the entire continent should be physically shifted, which wrong-footed the opposition to such an extent that they never got going. I didn't have anything to do with it - our debating team was all lawyers.
Sydney

Continental drift does mean that Australia is moving north (and slightly eastwards) at 7cm per years - faster than any other continent - roughly in the direction of the US. It's got 15,175 km to go (220,000 years if it were moving in the right direction, which it isn't) but I'm not sure that we knew that back then.

Dan - like Trader4 - seems to enter these kinds of discussions here with the assumption that his silly ideas about the real world are to be respected, rather than jeered at.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Higher IQ , better university, and more money all tend to imply you are dimmer than I. Your posts confirm it. For example one of your posts said that GPS had replaced inertial guidance systems. It is obvious to the most casual observer that GPS is much too vulnerable to spoofing and jamming to be used for guidance of intercontinental missiles.

Dan

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 10:16:32 PM UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:

On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 10:18:28 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 12:44:13 AM UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 10:27:09 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

But some realize replying to BS is a waste of time.

Some people's responses to my posts are a waste of time. If Dan realises that his responses aren't being taken seriously - which they aren't because he couldn't argue his way out of paper bag - he should stop posting them. Trader4 is even more inept.

Your IQ is showing in your response. A high school debate team would tear your post to shreds.

Now that I've had time to think about it, that's the kind of revealing response that shows dim Dan is.

High school debating - and debating in general - is a highly stylised form of argument. One of the conventions is that you can't assert that a proposition put forward by your opponents is factually wrong, no matter how nonsensical it is.

Bank in my university days, my college debating team famously won a debate on the subject that "Australia should move closer to the USA" by arguing on the basis that the entire continent should be physically shifted, which wrong-footed the opposition to such an extent that they never got going. I didn't have anything to do with it - our debating team was all lawyers.
Sydney

Continental drift does mean that Australia is moving north (and slightly eastwards) at 7cm per years - faster than any other continent - roughly in the direction of the US. It's got 15,175 km to go (220,000 years if it were moving in the right direction, which it isn't) but I'm not sure that we knew that back then.

Dan - like Trader4 - seems to enter these kinds of discussions here with the assumption that his silly ideas about the real world are to be respected, rather than jeered at.

Higher IQ ,

And if Dan's got one, it's wortht even less than I thought.

The thing about Iq

better university, and more money all tend to imply you are dimmer than I.. Your posts confirm it. For example one of your posts said that GPS had replaced inertial guidance systems. It is obvious to the most casual observer that GPS is much too vulnerable to spoofing and jamming to be used for guidance of intercontinental missiles.

Dan

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 10:16:32 PM UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:

On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 10:18:28 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 12:44:13 AM UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 10:27:09 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

But some realize replying to BS is a waste of time.

Some people's responses to my posts are a waste of time. If Dan realises that his responses aren't being taken seriously - which they aren't because he couldn't argue his way out of paper bag - he should stop posting them. Trader4 is even more inept.

Your IQ is showing in your response. A high school debate team would tear your post to shreds.

Now that I've had time to think about it, that's the kind of revealing response that shows dim Dan is.

High school debating - and debating in general - is a highly stylised form of argument. One of the conventions is that you can't assert that a proposition put forward by your opponents is factually wrong, no matter how nonsensical it is.

Bank in my university days, my college debating team famously won a debate on the subject that "Australia should move closer to the USA" by arguing on the basis that the entire continent should be physically shifted, which wrong-footed the opposition to such an extent that they never got going. I didn't have anything to do with it - our debating team was all lawyers.
Sydney

Continental drift does mean that Australia is moving north (and slightly eastwards) at 7cm per years - faster than any other continent - roughly in the direction of the US. It's got 15,175 km to go (220,000 years if it were moving in the right direction, which it isn't) but I'm not sure that we knew that back then.

Dan - like Trader4 - seems to enter these kinds of discussions here with the assumption that his silly ideas about the real world are to be respected, rather than jeered at.

Higher IQ ,

If Dan were a little brighter, he'd know that IQ tests are cheap and quick substitute for better estimates of whatever intelligence may be. I've always done well on them, but don't put any faith at all in the score.

> better university,

Universities - even picky ones - take a in wide range of students. Dan doesn't seem to have been one of the brighter products of his.

> and more money

Dan thinks he's got more money than I have, but he's got no idea how much I've got, so it's purely wishful thinking on his part.

> all tend to imply you are dimmer than I.

Somebody as dim as you - and as prone to self-deception - might think that.

> Your posts confirm it.

Only to somebody dim enough top miss most of what's going on.

> For example one of your posts said that GPS had replaced inertial guidance systems.

In civil aircraft.

> It is obvious to the most casual observer that GPS is much too vulnerable to spoofing and jamming to be used for guidance of intercontinental missiles.

Perhaps, but I wasn't suggesting that.

Spoofing or jamming the GPS signals for an intercontinental ballistic missile would be a neat trick - you'd have to know where it was to get the interfering signals powerful enough to over-power the satellite signals, and interfering signals that intense would be detectable from quite a way away.

Knocking out the GPS satellites would probably be more feasible, but it's even more obvious.

You look more like an under-informed observer, rather than casual one - possibly casual to the point of utter inanity.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 7:21:41 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 3:56:01 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 3:03:13 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 2:34:50 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 9:18:51 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 5:38:52 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 2:54:11 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 2:38:11 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre....@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 2:23:45 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:ac6b6869-4633-41dd-b3c7-3ecca5ec3eab@googlegroups.com:

He was talking about nuclear reactors, not power reactors - not a
distinction that you seem to recognise.


There are over a hundred in development or production.

Since full scale power plants and their reactors are the pinnacle
of that crowd, I'd say that most of that hundred are smaller, other
use developments with many being produced for satellites, ships,
submarines.

The idiot Russians are the only dumbfucks who would put radioactive
material in a missile as the booster medium. How stupid.

They're not powering boosters with nuclear. They are building an infinite range cruise missile that's nuclear powered, and which may have hyper velocity capability. You can't do something like that with a non-nuclear source.


That is what I was referring to when I said the US had built
prototypes of similar back in the 50s. They used an unshielded
nuclear reactor to create the tremendous heat for a ramjet
engine for a big cruise missile type device. I guess it
shouldn't be called a cruise missile either, since it's
hypersonic. Is hypersonic considered cruising?

The US one was planned to hold multiple warheads
that could be delivered to separate targets anywhere.
How they would do the targeting, have kept it on course as it
went across Russia or wherever back in the 50s, who knows.
Maybe that's one reason, besides the contamination, that the
US gave up on it. But DL is right, leave it to the Russians
to be actually developing it again 60 years later. Too bad
the thing didn't land on Putin.

Dunno the specifics of that development, but the only really long range navigation methodology available at the time was celestial navigation, and that would imply high altitude, very high, which sorta not makes it a cruise missile, except for the maneuverability part, but it does explain the MIRV part.

The distinction was between cruise missiles and ballistic missiles. Something hypersonic would have had to fly very high if it wasn't going to get burnt up by ram pressure heating, so celestial navigation could well have been an option.

This new Russian development should be low altitude, which makes it invisible to radar, until it's too late to do anything about it of course. They do mention planning a route that skirts all known coverage zones until it gets to its target.

It can't be low altitude and hypersonic for very long. It might cruise barely subsonic at low altitude and go hypersonic close to target.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

They've put this one into production recently. It's high altitude and hits 27x speed of sound. It's launched from an in-orbit FOBS ICBM, absolutely impossible to intercept.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avangard_(hypersonic_glide_vehicle)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment_System


No worries, it's just those peaceful Russians. You know, the ones that
stole Crimea and have troops in half of the rest of Ukraine. If this
turns into a new arms race, there will be question who started it.

Russians didn't steal Crimea, they voted to rejoin the Russian Federation.

Lol! You mean like South Carolina voted to leave the US?

You have it backwards. It is the Ukrainians who staged a violent revolution and threw out the pro-Russian politicians.

Ethnic Russian outnumber Ukrainians living there by 2:1. The place is basically Russian. There's still a bunch of ethnic Russians living in Ukraine. Almost all the major cities, which Russia built, are pushing 50% ethnic Russian. Ukraine has doctored census statistics on that figure so be careful what you read about that. Then the Ukraine story presented to the American public is a complete fraud: Ukraine is definitely no friend of the U.S. Obama's foreign policy was a joke.

Huh? So are you suggesting Russia should take over the entire Ukraine?

They don't want it. They already exercise enough control over the assets they left behind, big research institutions/complexes and manufacturing centers.

--

Rick C.

+++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 8:56:11 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 4:34:50 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 9:18:51 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 5:38:52 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 2:54:11 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 2:38:11 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 2:23:45 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux....@decadence.org wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:ac6b6869-4633-41dd-b3c7-3ecca5ec3eab@googlegroups.com:

He was talking about nuclear reactors, not power reactors - not a
distinction that you seem to recognise.


There are over a hundred in development or production.

Since full scale power plants and their reactors are the pinnacle
of that crowd, I'd say that most of that hundred are smaller, other
use developments with many being produced for satellites, ships,
submarines.

The idiot Russians are the only dumbfucks who would put radioactive
material in a missile as the booster medium. How stupid.

They're not powering boosters with nuclear. They are building an infinite range cruise missile that's nuclear powered, and which may have hyper velocity capability. You can't do something like that with a non-nuclear source.


That is what I was referring to when I said the US had built
prototypes of similar back in the 50s. They used an unshielded
nuclear reactor to create the tremendous heat for a ramjet
engine for a big cruise missile type device. I guess it
shouldn't be called a cruise missile either, since it's
hypersonic. Is hypersonic considered cruising?

The US one was planned to hold multiple warheads
that could be delivered to separate targets anywhere.
How they would do the targeting, have kept it on course as it
went across Russia or wherever back in the 50s, who knows.
Maybe that's one reason, besides the contamination, that the
US gave up on it. But DL is right, leave it to the Russians
to be actually developing it again 60 years later. Too bad
the thing didn't land on Putin.

Dunno the specifics of that development, but the only really long range navigation methodology available at the time was celestial navigation, and that would imply high altitude, very high, which sorta not makes it a cruise missile, except for the maneuverability part, but it does explain the MIRV part.

The distinction was between cruise missiles and ballistic missiles. Something hypersonic would have had to fly very high if it wasn't going to get burnt up by ram pressure heating, so celestial navigation could well have been an option.

This new Russian development should be low altitude, which makes it invisible to radar, until it's too late to do anything about it of course. They do mention planning a route that skirts all known coverage zones until it gets to its target.

It can't be low altitude and hypersonic for very long. It might cruise barely subsonic at low altitude and go hypersonic close to target.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

They've put this one into production recently. It's high altitude and hits 27x speed of sound. It's launched from an in-orbit FOBS ICBM, absolutely impossible to intercept.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avangard_(hypersonic_glide_vehicle)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment_System

That's fast, but it doesn't make it impossible to intercept. Reagan's Star Wars defenses would make mincemeat of it, if they could actually be built..

That's just it, they couldn't be built, and there was a big scandal at Livermore (?) about those sleazy bastards falsifying data about some kind nuclear blast x-ray generator that was going to take care of everything.

Twenty-seven times the speed of sound is a lot less than the speed of light (or particle weapons) and something in low earth orbit is vulnerable to both.

They can't point those kinds of things with enough accuracy to be effective.. I don't think you fully appreciate the vastness of the distances involved and just exactly what that translates into in terms of pointing accuracy, beam spreading and propagation loss. Space based surveillance first has to detect the targets, then it has to track them (very difficult to do with accelerating motion) with high accuracy, and then it has to point its weapon. And it has to point the with extreme accuracy to dwell on a very minute spot on the target. Because unless the laser/particle beam is energetic to the extreme, it will not damage the vehicle with the beam wandering on/off the target and all over the place on target. Far more modest attempts to build systems like that proved to be complete failures 30 years later for just that reason.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 9:51:23 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 8:56:11 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 4:34:50 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 9:18:51 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 5:38:52 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 2:54:11 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 2:38:11 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 2:23:45 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:ac6b6869-4633-41dd-b3c7-3ecca5ec3eab@googlegroups.com:

He was talking about nuclear reactors, not power reactors - not a
distinction that you seem to recognise.


There are over a hundred in development or production.

Since full scale power plants and their reactors are the pinnacle
of that crowd, I'd say that most of that hundred are smaller, other
use developments with many being produced for satellites, ships,
submarines.

The idiot Russians are the only dumbfucks who would put radioactive
material in a missile as the booster medium. How stupid.

They're not powering boosters with nuclear. They are building an infinite range cruise missile that's nuclear powered, and which may have hyper velocity capability. You can't do something like that with a non-nuclear source.


That is what I was referring to when I said the US had built
prototypes of similar back in the 50s. They used an unshielded
nuclear reactor to create the tremendous heat for a ramjet
engine for a big cruise missile type device. I guess it
shouldn't be called a cruise missile either, since it's
hypersonic. Is hypersonic considered cruising?

The US one was planned to hold multiple warheads
that could be delivered to separate targets anywhere.
How they would do the targeting, have kept it on course as it
went across Russia or wherever back in the 50s, who knows.
Maybe that's one reason, besides the contamination, that the
US gave up on it. But DL is right, leave it to the Russians
to be actually developing it again 60 years later. Too bad
the thing didn't land on Putin.

Dunno the specifics of that development, but the only really long range navigation methodology available at the time was celestial navigation, and that would imply high altitude, very high, which sorta not makes it a cruise missile, except for the maneuverability part, but it does explain the MIRV part.

The distinction was between cruise missiles and ballistic missiles. Something hypersonic would have had to fly very high if it wasn't going to get burnt up by ram pressure heating, so celestial navigation could well have been an option.

This new Russian development should be low altitude, which makes it invisible to radar, until it's too late to do anything about it of course. They do mention planning a route that skirts all known coverage zones until it gets to its target.

It can't be low altitude and hypersonic for very long. It might cruise barely subsonic at low altitude and go hypersonic close to target.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

They've put this one into production recently. It's high altitude and hits 27x speed of sound. It's launched from an in-orbit FOBS ICBM, absolutely impossible to intercept.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avangard_(hypersonic_glide_vehicle)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment_System

That's fast, but it doesn't make it impossible to intercept. Reagan's Star Wars defenses would make mincemeat of it, if they could actually be built.

Twenty-seven times the speed of sound is a lot less than the speed of light (or particle weapons) and something in low earth orbit is vulnerable to both.

Low earth orbit makes a weapon hard to see, but it doesn't actually make it harder to kill does it? Orbital counter weapons can work by using the weapon's speed against it. Fire a cloud of fairly small projectiles in front of the weapon and let the missile run into them. Likely you don't need a lot of them making contact.

You should work out the details and submit a proposal for further research to the Missile Defense Agency outlining your ideas.

--

Rick C.

---- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
---- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 10:56:51 AM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 9:51:23 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 8:56:11 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

Twenty-seven times the speed of sound is a lot less than the speed of light (or particle weapons) and something in low earth orbit is vulnerable to both.

Low earth orbit makes a weapon hard to see, but it doesn't actually make it harder to kill does it? Orbital counter weapons can work by using the weapon's speed against it. Fire a cloud of fairly small projectiles in front of the weapon and let the missile run into them. Likely you don't need a lot of them making contact.

You should work out the details and submit a proposal for further research to the Missile Defense Agency outlining your ideas.

I didn't invent this idea. It is well known and you know that.

But when you don't have any better argument, it's normal to resort to sarcasm.

--

Rick C.

--+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 9:23:16 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 10:16:32 PM UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 10:18:28 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 12:44:13 AM UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 10:27:09 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

But some realize replying to BS is a waste of time.

Some people's responses to my posts are a waste of time. If Dan realises that his responses aren't being taken seriously - which they aren't because he couldn't argue his way out of paper bag - he should stop posting them. Trader4 is even more inept.

Your IQ is showing in your response. A high school debate team would tear your post to shreds.

Now that I've had time to think about it, that's the kind of revealing response that shows dim Dan is.

High school debating - and debating in general - is a highly stylised form of argument. One of the conventions is that you can't assert that a proposition put forward by your opponents is factually wrong, no matter how nonsensical it is.

Bank in my university days, my college debating team famously won a debate on the subject that "Australia should move closer to the USA" by arguing on the basis that the entire continent should be physically shifted, which wrong-footed the opposition to such an extent that they never got going.. I didn't have anything to do with it - our debating team was all lawyers.
Sydney

Continental drift does mean that Australia is moving north (and slightly eastwards) at 7cm per years - faster than any other continent - roughly in the direction of the US. It's got 15,175 km to go (220,000 years if it were moving in the right direction, which it isn't) but I'm not sure that we knew that back then.

Dan - like Trader4 - seems to enter these kinds of discussions here with the assumption that his silly ideas about the real world are to be respected, rather than jeered at.

Higher IQ ,

If Dan were a little brighter, he'd know that IQ tests are cheap and quick substitute for better estimates of whatever intelligence may be. I've always done well on them, but don't put any faith at all in the score.

better university,

Universities - even picky ones - take a in wide range of students. Dan doesn't seem to have been one of the brighter products of his.

and more money

Dan thinks he's got more money than I have, but he's got no idea how much I've got, so it's purely wishful thinking on his part.

all tend to imply you are dimmer than I.

Somebody as dim as you - and as prone to self-deception - might think that.

Your posts confirm it.

Only to somebody dim enough top miss most of what's going on.

For example one of your posts said that GPS had replaced inertial guidance systems.

In civil aircraft.

It is obvious to the most casual observer that GPS is much too vulnerable to spoofing and jamming to be used for guidance of intercontinental missiles.

Perhaps, but I wasn't suggesting that.

Spoofing or jamming the GPS signals for an intercontinental ballistic missile would be a neat trick - you'd have to know where it was to get the interfering signals powerful enough to over-power the satellite signals, and interfering signals that intense would be detectable from quite a way away.

Knocking out the GPS satellites would probably be more feasible, but it's even more obvious.

You look more like an under-informed observer, rather than casual one - possibly casual to the point of utter inanity.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

It is still a waste of time to reply to Bill's posts.

Dan

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 10:17:18 AM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 4:32:19 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 3:56:01 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 3:03:13 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 2:34:50 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail..com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 9:18:51 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 5:38:52 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre....@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 2:54:11 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 2:38:11 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre....@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 2:23:45 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:ac6b6869-4633-41dd-b3c7-3ecca5ec3eab@googlegroups.com:

He was talking about nuclear reactors, not power reactors - not a
distinction that you seem to recognise.


There are over a hundred in development or production.

Since full scale power plants and their reactors are the pinnacle
of that crowd, I'd say that most of that hundred are smaller, other
use developments with many being produced for satellites, ships,
submarines.

The idiot Russians are the only dumbfucks who would put radioactive
material in a missile as the booster medium. How stupid.

They're not powering boosters with nuclear. They are building an infinite range cruise missile that's nuclear powered, and which may have hyper velocity capability. You can't do something like that with a non-nuclear source.


That is what I was referring to when I said the US had built
prototypes of similar back in the 50s. They used an unshielded
nuclear reactor to create the tremendous heat for a ramjet
engine for a big cruise missile type device. I guess it
shouldn't be called a cruise missile either, since it's
hypersonic. Is hypersonic considered cruising?

The US one was planned to hold multiple warheads
that could be delivered to separate targets anywhere.
How they would do the targeting, have kept it on course as it
went across Russia or wherever back in the 50s, who knows.
Maybe that's one reason, besides the contamination, that the
US gave up on it. But DL is right, leave it to the Russians
to be actually developing it again 60 years later. Too bad
the thing didn't land on Putin.

Dunno the specifics of that development, but the only really long range navigation methodology available at the time was celestial navigation, and that would imply high altitude, very high, which sorta not makes it a cruise missile, except for the maneuverability part, but it does explain the MIRV part.

The distinction was between cruise missiles and ballistic missiles. Something hypersonic would have had to fly very high if it wasn't going to get burnt up by ram pressure heating, so celestial navigation could well have been an option.

This new Russian development should be low altitude, which makes it invisible to radar, until it's too late to do anything about it of course. They do mention planning a route that skirts all known coverage zones until it gets to its target.

It can't be low altitude and hypersonic for very long. It might cruise barely subsonic at low altitude and go hypersonic close to target.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

They've put this one into production recently. It's high altitude and hits 27x speed of sound. It's launched from an in-orbit FOBS ICBM, absolutely impossible to intercept.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avangard_(hypersonic_glide_vehicle)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment_System


No worries, it's just those peaceful Russians. You know, the ones that
stole Crimea and have troops in half of the rest of Ukraine. If this
turns into a new arms race, there will be question who started it.

Russians didn't steal Crimea, they voted to rejoin the Russian Federation.

Yeah, they voted. After RUSSIA INVADED, took over the place, locked up
all the politicians and opponents who wanted to remain part of Ukraine,
with Russian troops, Russian tanks in the streets, they voted.

ROFL

And even if it would have been a fair and open election, it was iligitimate
anyway. Crimea as part of Ukraine, can't just vote and leave. It would
be like the state of Alaska voting to join Russia.

You're in dire need of knowledge about just exactly what was going on there. Ukraine was the one starting revolutions and violently ousting pro-Russian politicians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Ukrainian_revolution

From your own link:

'A December 2016 survey by the Kiev International Institute of Sociology found that thirty four percent of respondents in the government-controlled Ukraine regarded the change in power as an "illegal armed coup", while fifty six percent regarded it as a "popular revolution".[54]"

The majority were fed up with Yanukovych, who was blocking the Ukraine
people's wishes for closer ties with Europe and less ties with Russia.
Y was Putin's puppet.





> Crimea was always autonomous and pro-Russia.

Crimea wasn't fully autonomous, it was still part of Ukraine. And again,
whatever it was, does not give Russia a right to invade it, any more than
Hitler had the right to take the Sudetenland. BTW, how did that work out?



> Ukraine had been agitating for years to undermine that status and eliminate pro-Russian politicians from their parliament.

And that's an excellent idea. Why would anyone want to be aligned with
Russia, which is a corrupt country run by a despot that kills his opponents?
where Putin and his thug mafia friends stole all the wealth of the country?
Who would align with that, instead of with the EU?






Things finally came to a head with Crimean leaders requesting a Russian military occupation,


Sure, that's like the governor of Alaska requesting Russia to occupy
it.



as this was the only recourse remaining to deal with the thugs in Ukraine.

ROFL. How about the real thugs, eg Putin and his Russian mafia that have
looted the whole country, stolen the wealth and left the average person
no better off than they were under communism?

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 8:08:45 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:

I see Trump wants the G7 to welcome Russia back in. I wonder if Trump
will push that at the G7, should be fun to watch.

Is Trump still speaking to anyone in the G7? I thought he has been badmouthing them to the point he has severed all ties, no? Oh right, they all realize that was Trump and it was a couple of days ago. So he's swinging the other way today.

--

Rick C.

--++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, August 25, 2019 at 5:59:28 AM UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:

On Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 9:23:16 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 10:16:32 PM UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 10:18:28 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 12:44:13 AM UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 10:27:09 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

But some realize replying to BS is a waste of time.

Some people's responses to my posts are a waste of time. If Dan realises that his responses aren't being taken seriously - which they aren't because he couldn't argue his way out of paper bag - he should stop posting them. Trader4 is even more inept.

Your IQ is showing in your response. A high school debate team would tear your post to shreds.

Now that I've had time to think about it, that's the kind of revealing response that shows dim Dan is.

High school debating - and debating in general - is a highly stylised form of argument. One of the conventions is that you can't assert that a proposition put forward by your opponents is factually wrong, no matter how nonsensical it is.

Bank in my university days, my college debating team famously won a debate on the subject that "Australia should move closer to the USA" by arguing on the basis that the entire continent should be physically shifted, which wrong-footed the opposition to such an extent that they never got going. I didn't have anything to do with it - our debating team was all lawyers.
Sydney

Continental drift does mean that Australia is moving north (and slightly eastwards) at 7cm per years - faster than any other continent - roughly in the direction of the US. It's got 15,175 km to go (220,000 years if it were moving in the right direction, which it isn't) but I'm not sure that we knew that back then.

Dan - like Trader4 - seems to enter these kinds of discussions here with the assumption that his silly ideas about the real world are to be respected, rather than jeered at.

Higher IQ ,

If Dan were a little brighter, he'd know that IQ tests are cheap and quick substitute for better estimates of whatever intelligence may be. I've always done well on them, but don't put any faith at all in the score.

better university,

Universities - even picky ones - take a in wide range of students. Dan doesn't seem to have been one of the brighter products of his.

and more money

Dan thinks he's got more money than I have, but he's got no idea how much I've got, so it's purely wishful thinking on his part.

all tend to imply you are dimmer than I.

Somebody as dim as you - and as prone to self-deception - might think that.

Your posts confirm it.

Only to somebody dim enough top miss most of what's going on.

For example one of your posts said that GPS had replaced inertial guidance systems.

In civil aircraft.

It is obvious to the most casual observer that GPS is much too vulnerable to spoofing and jamming to be used for guidance of intercontinental missiles.

Perhaps, but I wasn't suggesting that.

Spoofing or jamming the GPS signals for an intercontinental ballistic missile would be a neat trick - you'd have to know where it was to get the interfering signals powerful enough to over-power the satellite signals, and interfering signals that intense would be detectable from quite a way away..

Knocking out the GPS satellites would probably be more feasible, but it's even more obvious.

You look more like an under-informed observer, rather than casual one - possibly casual to the point of utter inanity.


It is still a waste of time to reply to Bill's posts.

It's certainly a waste of time for Dan to reply to my posts - he puts his foot in his mouth with awesome reliability.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, August 25, 2019 at 12:48:23 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 8:56:11 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 4:34:50 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 9:18:51 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 5:38:52 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 2:54:11 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 2:38:11 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 2:23:45 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:ac6b6869-4633-41dd-b3c7-3ecca5ec3eab@googlegroups.com:

He was talking about nuclear reactors, not power reactors - not a
distinction that you seem to recognise.


There are over a hundred in development or production.

Since full scale power plants and their reactors are the pinnacle
of that crowd, I'd say that most of that hundred are smaller, other
use developments with many being produced for satellites, ships,
submarines.

The idiot Russians are the only dumbfucks who would put radioactive
material in a missile as the booster medium. How stupid.

They're not powering boosters with nuclear. They are building an infinite range cruise missile that's nuclear powered, and which may have hyper velocity capability. You can't do something like that with a non-nuclear source.


That is what I was referring to when I said the US had built
prototypes of similar back in the 50s. They used an unshielded
nuclear reactor to create the tremendous heat for a ramjet
engine for a big cruise missile type device. I guess it
shouldn't be called a cruise missile either, since it's
hypersonic. Is hypersonic considered cruising?

The US one was planned to hold multiple warheads
that could be delivered to separate targets anywhere.
How they would do the targeting, have kept it on course as it
went across Russia or wherever back in the 50s, who knows.
Maybe that's one reason, besides the contamination, that the
US gave up on it. But DL is right, leave it to the Russians
to be actually developing it again 60 years later. Too bad
the thing didn't land on Putin.

Dunno the specifics of that development, but the only really long range navigation methodology available at the time was celestial navigation, and that would imply high altitude, very high, which sorta not makes it a cruise missile, except for the maneuverability part, but it does explain the MIRV part.

The distinction was between cruise missiles and ballistic missiles. Something hypersonic would have had to fly very high if it wasn't going to get burnt up by ram pressure heating, so celestial navigation could well have been an option.

This new Russian development should be low altitude, which makes it invisible to radar, until it's too late to do anything about it of course. They do mention planning a route that skirts all known coverage zones until it gets to its target.

It can't be low altitude and hypersonic for very long. It might cruise barely subsonic at low altitude and go hypersonic close to target.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

They've put this one into production recently. It's high altitude and hits 27x speed of sound. It's launched from an in-orbit FOBS ICBM, absolutely impossible to intercept.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avangard_(hypersonic_glide_vehicle)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment_System

That's fast, but it doesn't make it impossible to intercept. Reagan's Star Wars defenses would make mincemeat of it, if they could actually be built.

That's just it, they couldn't be built, and there was a big scandal at Livermore (?) about those sleazy bastards falsifying data about some kind nuclear blast x-ray generator that was going to take care of everything.


Twenty-seven times the speed of sound is a lot less than the speed of light (or particle weapons) and something in low earth orbit is vulnerable to both.

They can't point those kinds of things with enough accuracy to be effective. I don't think you fully appreciate the vastness of the distances involved and just exactly what that translates into in terms of pointing accuracy, beam spreading and propagation loss. Space based surveillance first has to detect the targets, then it has to track them (very difficult to do with accelerating motion) with high accuracy, and then it has to point its weapon. And it has to point the with extreme accuracy to dwell on a very minute spot on the target. Because unless the laser/particle beam is energetic to the extreme, it will not damage the vehicle with the beam wandering on/off the target and all over the place on target. Far more modest attempts to build systems like that proved to be complete failures 30 years later for just that reason.

Star Wars was nonsense, at the time. I was reading Physics Today back then and the physicists were pretty insistenta about that point.

Pointing accuracy is a problem until you can put enough power on the target to get a detectable change in the target, after which you just maximise that change.

It isn't going to work until you've got enough satellites in fairly low orbits to guarantee that you've got one close enough to the target to get feedback from the target within a fraction of a second, but you need lots of them anyway to make it difficult for somebody to knock out most of them at once.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 10:58:13 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Sunday, August 25, 2019 at 12:48:23 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 8:56:11 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 4:34:50 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 9:18:51 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 5:38:52 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 2:54:11 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 2:38:11 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre....@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 2:23:45 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:ac6b6869-4633-41dd-b3c7-3ecca5ec3eab@googlegroups.com:

He was talking about nuclear reactors, not power reactors - not a
distinction that you seem to recognise.


There are over a hundred in development or production.

Since full scale power plants and their reactors are the pinnacle
of that crowd, I'd say that most of that hundred are smaller, other
use developments with many being produced for satellites, ships,
submarines.

The idiot Russians are the only dumbfucks who would put radioactive
material in a missile as the booster medium. How stupid.

They're not powering boosters with nuclear. They are building an infinite range cruise missile that's nuclear powered, and which may have hyper velocity capability. You can't do something like that with a non-nuclear source.


That is what I was referring to when I said the US had built
prototypes of similar back in the 50s. They used an unshielded
nuclear reactor to create the tremendous heat for a ramjet
engine for a big cruise missile type device. I guess it
shouldn't be called a cruise missile either, since it's
hypersonic. Is hypersonic considered cruising?

The US one was planned to hold multiple warheads
that could be delivered to separate targets anywhere.
How they would do the targeting, have kept it on course as it
went across Russia or wherever back in the 50s, who knows.
Maybe that's one reason, besides the contamination, that the
US gave up on it. But DL is right, leave it to the Russians
to be actually developing it again 60 years later. Too bad
the thing didn't land on Putin.

Dunno the specifics of that development, but the only really long range navigation methodology available at the time was celestial navigation, and that would imply high altitude, very high, which sorta not makes it a cruise missile, except for the maneuverability part, but it does explain the MIRV part.

The distinction was between cruise missiles and ballistic missiles. Something hypersonic would have had to fly very high if it wasn't going to get burnt up by ram pressure heating, so celestial navigation could well have been an option.

This new Russian development should be low altitude, which makes it invisible to radar, until it's too late to do anything about it of course. They do mention planning a route that skirts all known coverage zones until it gets to its target.

It can't be low altitude and hypersonic for very long. It might cruise barely subsonic at low altitude and go hypersonic close to target.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

They've put this one into production recently. It's high altitude and hits 27x speed of sound. It's launched from an in-orbit FOBS ICBM, absolutely impossible to intercept.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avangard_(hypersonic_glide_vehicle)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment_System

That's fast, but it doesn't make it impossible to intercept. Reagan's Star Wars defenses would make mincemeat of it, if they could actually be built.

That's just it, they couldn't be built, and there was a big scandal at Livermore (?) about those sleazy bastards falsifying data about some kind nuclear blast x-ray generator that was going to take care of everything.


Twenty-seven times the speed of sound is a lot less than the speed of light (or particle weapons) and something in low earth orbit is vulnerable to both.

They can't point those kinds of things with enough accuracy to be effective. I don't think you fully appreciate the vastness of the distances involved and just exactly what that translates into in terms of pointing accuracy, beam spreading and propagation loss. Space based surveillance first has to detect the targets, then it has to track them (very difficult to do with accelerating motion) with high accuracy, and then it has to point its weapon. And it has to point the with extreme accuracy to dwell on a very minute spot on the target. Because unless the laser/particle beam is energetic to the extreme, it will not damage the vehicle with the beam wandering on/off the target and all over the place on target. Far more modest attempts to build systems like that proved to be complete failures 30 years later for just that reason.

Star Wars was nonsense, at the time. I was reading Physics Today back then and the physicists were pretty insistenta about that point.

Pointing accuracy is a problem until you can put enough power on the target to get a detectable change in the target, after which you just maximise that change.

It isn't going to work until you've got enough satellites in fairly low orbits to guarantee that you've got one close enough to the target to get feedback from the target within a fraction of a second, but you need lots of them anyway to make it difficult for somebody to knock out most of them at once.

Putting up lots of satellites isn't a big problem these days. Are satellites any more expensive than ICBMs?

--

Rick C.

-+-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, August 25, 2019 at 3:42:40 PM UTC+10, Rick C wrote:

On Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 10:58:13 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, August 25, 2019 at 12:48:23 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 8:56:11 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 4:34:50 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 9:18:51 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 5:38:52 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre....@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 2:54:11 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 2:38:11 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre....@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 2:23:45 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:ac6b6869-4633-41dd-b3c7-3ecca5ec3eab@googlegroups.com:

He was talking about nuclear reactors, not power reactors - not a
distinction that you seem to recognise.


There are over a hundred in development or production.

Since full scale power plants and their reactors are the pinnacle
of that crowd, I'd say that most of that hundred are smaller, other
use developments with many being produced for satellites, ships,
submarines.

The idiot Russians are the only dumbfucks who would put radioactive
material in a missile as the booster medium. How stupid.

They're not powering boosters with nuclear. They are building an infinite range cruise missile that's nuclear powered, and which may have hyper velocity capability. You can't do something like that with a non-nuclear source.


That is what I was referring to when I said the US had built
prototypes of similar back in the 50s. They used an unshielded
nuclear reactor to create the tremendous heat for a ramjet
engine for a big cruise missile type device. I guess it
shouldn't be called a cruise missile either, since it's
hypersonic. Is hypersonic considered cruising?

The US one was planned to hold multiple warheads
that could be delivered to separate targets anywhere.
How they would do the targeting, have kept it on course as it
went across Russia or wherever back in the 50s, who knows.
Maybe that's one reason, besides the contamination, that the
US gave up on it. But DL is right, leave it to the Russians
to be actually developing it again 60 years later. Too bad
the thing didn't land on Putin.

Dunno the specifics of that development, but the only really long range navigation methodology available at the time was celestial navigation, and that would imply high altitude, very high, which sorta not makes it a cruise missile, except for the maneuverability part, but it does explain the MIRV part.

The distinction was between cruise missiles and ballistic missiles. Something hypersonic would have had to fly very high if it wasn't going to get burnt up by ram pressure heating, so celestial navigation could well have been an option.

This new Russian development should be low altitude, which makes it invisible to radar, until it's too late to do anything about it of course. They do mention planning a route that skirts all known coverage zones until it gets to its target.

It can't be low altitude and hypersonic for very long. It might cruise barely subsonic at low altitude and go hypersonic close to target.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

They've put this one into production recently. It's high altitude and hits 27x speed of sound. It's launched from an in-orbit FOBS ICBM, absolutely impossible to intercept.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avangard_(hypersonic_glide_vehicle)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment_System

That's fast, but it doesn't make it impossible to intercept. Reagan's Star Wars defenses would make mincemeat of it, if they could actually be built.

That's just it, they couldn't be built, and there was a big scandal at Livermore (?) about those sleazy bastards falsifying data about some kind nuclear blast x-ray generator that was going to take care of everything.


Twenty-seven times the speed of sound is a lot less than the speed of light (or particle weapons) and something in low earth orbit is vulnerable to both.

They can't point those kinds of things with enough accuracy to be effective. I don't think you fully appreciate the vastness of the distances involved and just exactly what that translates into in terms of pointing accuracy, beam spreading and propagation loss. Space based surveillance first has to detect the targets, then it has to track them (very difficult to do with accelerating motion) with high accuracy, and then it has to point its weapon. And it has to point the with extreme accuracy to dwell on a very minute spot on the target. Because unless the laser/particle beam is energetic to the extreme, it will not damage the vehicle with the beam wandering on/off the target and all over the place on target. Far more modest attempts to build systems like that proved to be complete failures 30 years later for just that reason.

Star Wars was nonsense, at the time. I was reading Physics Today back then and the physicists were pretty insistenta about that point.

Pointing accuracy is a problem until you can put enough power on the target to get a detectable change in the target, after which you just maximise that change.

It isn't going to work until you've got enough satellites in fairly low orbits to guarantee that you've got one close enough to the target to get feedback from the target within a fraction of a second, but you need lots of them anyway to make it difficult for somebody to knock out most of them at once.

Putting up lots of satellites isn't a big problem these days. Are satellites any more expensive than ICBMs?

The rocket used to get out of the atmosphere is likely to be the dominant cost.

A useful satellite is likely to be heavier than the business end of an ICBM, so might need a bigger rocket.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:8a12da7f-4861-4a2e-8c24-9ae91f7fa201@googlegroups.com:

Putting up lots of satellites isn't a big problem these days. Are
satellites any more expensive than ICBMs?

--

There are no spaced based weapon platforms... That any of 'them'
tell any of us about.

It is against international policy ('law'?).

The big deal is not doing it mechanically, it is about breaking the
rule, and then everyone that puts up satellites wants to put up
spaced based "defenses".

Satellites are hundreds of millions each. ICBMs are single use...
likely $10M for the booster and depending on warhead configurations,
tens of millions per endpoint device. Then there is the
geopositioning, altitude maintaining, weapon pointing, payload
releasing, hardware and control costs. Then there is the who has the
button and where is the button kept thingy.