Anti-satellite weapon test?, Is this true? |
Anti-satellite weapon test?, Is this true? |
Jan 19 2007, 02:39 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Junior Member Group: Members Posts: 96 Joined: 20-September 06 From: Hanoi, Vietnam Member No.: 1164 |
According to this link, China fired a missile to destroy an orbiting weather satellite last week: http://www.spacewar.com/reports/China_Tras...e_Test_999.html
I am curios about what kind of projectile could be used? A "smart" one with on board guidance system or just a dumb one? How close did the "killer satellite" came to the target? Does anybody have an idea? |
|
|
Jan 22 2007, 09:01 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Founder Group: Chairman Posts: 14432 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1 |
Just thinking in terms of 'impact window' - i.e. the time taken for the target to cover it's own size in terms of distance - the variable that identifies how accurate something has to be to hit something rushing past - not totally analogous ( you could drive 'down' the velocity vector for instance ) - but it gives you a sense of the scale of the problem.
Car - 4.3 metres - 26 m/sec - window is 0.165 seconds. Jumbo Jet - 57 metres - 223 m/sec - window is 0.255 seconds ( this is why a jumbo 'looks' so slow in the sky - it covers it's own length slower than a small car rushing past). F22 - .030 seconds. Satellite - 3 metre sized bus - 7500 m/sec - window is 0.0004 seconds i.e. stood watching the thing fly past - you've got to be 412 times more accurate hitting a spacecraft than a car doing 60 mph. 637 times more accurate than hitting a flying jumbo - and 75 times more accurate than hitting an F22 raptor. It's a big ask - I don't know how hard it actually is - but this isn't "let's modify a sidewinder' type thing. Doug |
|
|
Jan 23 2007, 07:32 AM
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 688 Joined: 20-April 05 From: Sweden Member No.: 273 |
It's a big ask - I don't know how hard it actually is - but this isn't "let's modify a sidewinder' type thing. Well, not early Sidewinder at least since they used pursuit-curve logic. This would be a collision-course interception, preferably from nearly dead ahead and would probably use constant-bearing logic. That is: if You keep the bearing to the target constant you are bound to hit it sooner or later. The main problem in this case is the very high closure rate which means that tracking and manoeuvring have to be precise at fairly long range otherwise very large and fast corrections will be needed at a late stage in the interception. The proximity fuse will also need to be fast and precise. The latter is more difficult than it sounds. Sufficiently precise fusing is one of the main challenges in building implosion-type nuclear weapons. tty |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 24th April 2024 - 10:46 AM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |