The Workshops
- Thread starter 8BitCosmonaut
- Start date
Access to the bunker system is so well hidden and guarded, that rumor has it, even the Prime Minister himself doesn't know how to get past its defenses.
He'll either be turned into cooked meat paste from its advanced defense systems, or suffer the same fate as the very workers who constructed this underground leviathan of hematically sealed reinforced concrete.
He'll either be turned into cooked meat paste from its advanced defense systems, or suffer the same fate as the very workers who constructed this underground leviathan of hematically sealed reinforced concrete.
Pink
(Mooncrasher)
Staff member
Team Valiant
Discord Staff
Voyager Quest
Man on the Moon
Forum Legend
Thought you might like this.
A short time ago, Musk mentioned that they eventually want to embed the Rapter engines on Starship partially inside the fuel tanks to increase volume efficiency.
Someone on reddit pointed out that the only submarine launched ballistic missiles capable of putting a payload in orbit (no small feat given how small they are) used this trick to gain more fuel packed into a limited volume. And the nozzle of the second stage engine is in the tank of the first stage, and separation is achieved via cutting charges in the tank wall.
Downside: engines can't gimbal, so you need beefy RCS.
A short time ago, Musk mentioned that they eventually want to embed the Rapter engines on Starship partially inside the fuel tanks to increase volume efficiency.
Someone on reddit pointed out that the only submarine launched ballistic missiles capable of putting a payload in orbit (no small feat given how small they are) used this trick to gain more fuel packed into a limited volume. And the nozzle of the second stage engine is in the tank of the first stage, and separation is achieved via cutting charges in the tank wall.
Downside: engines can't gimbal, so you need beefy RCS.
Pink
(Mooncrasher)
Staff member
Team Valiant
Discord Staff
Voyager Quest
Man on the Moon
Forum Legend
Look: sub-launched space rocket that was actually used:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shtil'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shtil'
Cool, I don't really think sea based launch vehicles are that useful for my country, I think stratolaunches are easier and "design malleable".
Design speak, I don't have to worry about integrating the shape of the rocket so it properly fits into the silos which can limit future modifications that affect the outer diameter. I also don't have to worry about sea water.
Political speak, countries owning a submarine that can launch orbit capable rockets already raises many eyebrows, so political wise, a giant aircraft is less offensive.
Design speak, I don't have to worry about integrating the shape of the rocket so it properly fits into the silos which can limit future modifications that affect the outer diameter. I also don't have to worry about sea water.
Political speak, countries owning a submarine that can launch orbit capable rockets already raises many eyebrows, so political wise, a giant aircraft is less offensive.
Horus Lupercal
Primarch - Warmaster
Professor
Swingin' on a Star
Deja Vu
Biker Mice from Mars
ET phone home
Floater
Copycat
Registered
*laughs in non-offensive strategic bomber*
Also going back to AI designed tech
https://www.dezeen.com/2020/03/30/hyperganic-ai-rocket-engine-3d-printed/
what's so threatening about a giant aircraft? It's not stealth so you can see it from miles away, and it has no defensive features. One shot from any SAM or interceptor is enough to bring it down. I think a rocket launching submarine is more of a threat.
That thing looks biological, anyways, that weird design is impossible to fabricate by any other means than printing. I guess for single use launch vehicles, printed parts is feasible, but if they wanna reuse it over and over again, they're risking it. SLS printed metal parts aren't structurally reliable due to porosity formed during fabrication, the many cycles of starts and restarts will cause it to fail quicker than say an engine made by heat treated rolling.
That thing looks biological, anyways, that weird design is impossible to fabricate by any other means than printing. I guess for single use launch vehicles, printed parts is feasible, but if they wanna reuse it over and over again, they're risking it. SLS printed metal parts aren't structurally reliable due to porosity formed during fabrication, the many cycles of starts and restarts will cause it to fail quicker than say an engine made by heat treated rolling.
Horus Lupercal
Primarch - Warmaster
Professor
Swingin' on a Star
Deja Vu
Biker Mice from Mars
ET phone home
Floater
Copycat
Registered
It's a giant aircraft capable of conventionally glassing an area 2 miles long. And that is the key word, conventionally.
The threat of force has to be backed up with the use of violence in order to be a viable deterrent.
The US was loathe to use atomic weapons during a world war against a global power. They were never going to nuke a load of rice farmers to save face.
By contrast, any single B-52 has killed more people than every SSBN of every nation ever. B-52s have dropped more tonnage of bombs than any other aircraft type in existence. Hell, by itself it rivals and exceeds the accumulative dropped ordnance of almost any nation on Earth. Arclight and Rolling Thunder alone accounted for more explosives than the entire Allied airwar in WWII (not counting the atomic weapon strikes).
The VC weren't scared of nuclear weapons. Because they knew the chances of them being targeted by submarine launched nuclear weapons was zero.
However.
They were absolutely fucking terrified of BUFFs, because at least you got warning of a nuclear strike. The first time some Charlie would know he was the lucky recipient of Arclight would be when the jungle around him turns into fire, splinters and shockwaves.
Fun Fact.
The B-2 Spirit stealth bomber is in fact visible to the naked eye, and can be seen from over 20 miles away.
Jokes aside, of course it's not stealth. It was designed before that was a thing. And funnily enough, it's out-lived the stealth bombers that were supposed to replace it.
The truth is, nothing is invincible or invisible dude. The Yugoslavians shot down Nighthawk. Even without a stunt in a Lightning, U2 can and has been brought down and the mighty Blackbird could theoretically be shot down (the Swedes proved it, although to manage it highlighted just how difficult a task it would be as it required prior flight path knowledge, a passive SR-71 crew and a waiting fighter screen).
It's fitted with similar defensive capabilities to any other bomber aircraft in service in the form of ECM/EECM systems. Hell it even had a tail gun, back when that was a thing.
B-52s carry more weight than any other bomber aircraft in the world. Its major defence in hostile SAM areas is by not needing to go into those places in the first place as its current task is delivery of lots of stand off weapons.
And that's not including its own nuclear capabilities. Strategic Air Command maintained B-52s in the sky 24hrs a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year for most of the 60s. And i don't mean on the ground ready to go like we did it back then.
I mean in flight, doing laps of the US, flying to Italy, Greenland and back with armed nuclear weapons on board as a threat of force as part of the MAD holy trinity (subs, silos and bombers).
That meant it was pointless launching a surprise first strike in the hope you could catch the US before it got bombers in the air.
Because the bombers had already been in the air for 3 years and just needed releasing.
The threat of force has to be backed up with the use of violence in order to be a viable deterrent.
The US was loathe to use atomic weapons during a world war against a global power. They were never going to nuke a load of rice farmers to save face.
By contrast, any single B-52 has killed more people than every SSBN of every nation ever. B-52s have dropped more tonnage of bombs than any other aircraft type in existence. Hell, by itself it rivals and exceeds the accumulative dropped ordnance of almost any nation on Earth. Arclight and Rolling Thunder alone accounted for more explosives than the entire Allied airwar in WWII (not counting the atomic weapon strikes).
The VC weren't scared of nuclear weapons. Because they knew the chances of them being targeted by submarine launched nuclear weapons was zero.
However.
They were absolutely fucking terrified of BUFFs, because at least you got warning of a nuclear strike. The first time some Charlie would know he was the lucky recipient of Arclight would be when the jungle around him turns into fire, splinters and shockwaves.
Fun Fact.
The B-2 Spirit stealth bomber is in fact visible to the naked eye, and can be seen from over 20 miles away.
Jokes aside, of course it's not stealth. It was designed before that was a thing. And funnily enough, it's out-lived the stealth bombers that were supposed to replace it.
The truth is, nothing is invincible or invisible dude. The Yugoslavians shot down Nighthawk. Even without a stunt in a Lightning, U2 can and has been brought down and the mighty Blackbird could theoretically be shot down (the Swedes proved it, although to manage it highlighted just how difficult a task it would be as it required prior flight path knowledge, a passive SR-71 crew and a waiting fighter screen).
It's fitted with similar defensive capabilities to any other bomber aircraft in service in the form of ECM/EECM systems. Hell it even had a tail gun, back when that was a thing.
B-52s carry more weight than any other bomber aircraft in the world. Its major defence in hostile SAM areas is by not needing to go into those places in the first place as its current task is delivery of lots of stand off weapons.
And that's not including its own nuclear capabilities. Strategic Air Command maintained B-52s in the sky 24hrs a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year for most of the 60s. And i don't mean on the ground ready to go like we did it back then.
I mean in flight, doing laps of the US, flying to Italy, Greenland and back with armed nuclear weapons on board as a threat of force as part of the MAD holy trinity (subs, silos and bombers).
That meant it was pointless launching a surprise first strike in the hope you could catch the US before it got bombers in the air.
Because the bombers had already been in the air for 3 years and just needed releasing.
Who are you kidding?
So after all that, you recommend sub launched orbit capable LV's? It will demand more of the rocket, which is the "throw away" part, but a giant aircraft doing nearly half the work of the vehicle? Could drive the cost of the rocket down further.
Another issue is with vehicle maintenance of either the sub or aircraft, I have no idea how expensive it is to maintain subs but I know the cost of maintaining a massive 200 meter or more wingspan aircraft might cost a fortune, which may undo the savings we made off the rocket.
But if you're a country with no room for a launch site, what choice do you have?
So after all that, you recommend sub launched orbit capable LV's? It will demand more of the rocket, which is the "throw away" part, but a giant aircraft doing nearly half the work of the vehicle? Could drive the cost of the rocket down further.
Another issue is with vehicle maintenance of either the sub or aircraft, I have no idea how expensive it is to maintain subs but I know the cost of maintaining a massive 200 meter or more wingspan aircraft might cost a fortune, which may undo the savings we made off the rocket.
But if you're a country with no room for a launch site, what choice do you have?
Pink
(Mooncrasher)
Staff member
Team Valiant
Discord Staff
Voyager Quest
Man on the Moon
Forum Legend
Horus Lupercal
Primarch - Warmaster
Professor
Swingin' on a Star
Deja Vu
Biker Mice from Mars
ET phone home
Floater
Copycat
Registered
The biggest lie I've ever heard is 'this thing is *****-proof'. Especially at work.
Mastiff is 'bomb-proof'. That concept worked right up until someone buried a 500lb device under a road.
Apache is small arms proof. Unless that small arm is an AK.
U2 is untouchable at altitude. Unless you're a nutcase in a twin engined interceptor.
Not so. I recommend both, and use each to its strengths. I'm not saying trident isn't scary. I'm saying that B-52 is also pretty fucking scary, and a much more 'real-world' threat.
The anology I'll use is animals. I'm not scared of cobras, but I'm wary of stray dogs. Not because the dog is deadlier (it'll still fuck you up though), but because the chances of me standing on a cobra in Wales is zero.
The trident update is set to become the single most expensive expenditure in military history. And that doesn't include the cost associated with acquiring, running and disposing of nuclear submarines either.
It's a shame, America doesn't practice true carpet bombing anymore. The days of big belly mod B-52Ds depositing nearly a hundred bombs in one stack are long gone.
Mastiff is 'bomb-proof'. That concept worked right up until someone buried a 500lb device under a road.
Apache is small arms proof. Unless that small arm is an AK.
U2 is untouchable at altitude. Unless you're a nutcase in a twin engined interceptor.
Not so. I recommend both, and use each to its strengths. I'm not saying trident isn't scary. I'm saying that B-52 is also pretty fucking scary, and a much more 'real-world' threat.
The anology I'll use is animals. I'm not scared of cobras, but I'm wary of stray dogs. Not because the dog is deadlier (it'll still fuck you up though), but because the chances of me standing on a cobra in Wales is zero.
The trident update is set to become the single most expensive expenditure in military history. And that doesn't include the cost associated with acquiring, running and disposing of nuclear submarines either.
It's a shame, America doesn't practice true carpet bombing anymore. The days of big belly mod B-52Ds depositing nearly a hundred bombs in one stack are long gone.