“Houston, the only thing that can kill the project is if it is “cost” prohibitive. We think a small bank of capacitors could power the detonation sequence for several microseconds.
Is the amount of power needed “cost” prohibitive for a small bank of capacitors? Every objection you've given thus far is not cost prohibitive."
tlb wrote:More like too little gain for the added complexity. As in, no gain at all has been identified.
Incoming message: Header: Bolthole
See me in my office. Stat. You might need a transfer.—SF
penny wrote:Again, too cost prohibitive?”
tlb wrote:Again, that is the wrong question. Every proposed feature for a missile has to undergo a cost vs benefit analysis. So if a feature adds a significant benefit; then it is probably worthwhile, no matter how expensive it may be. Conversely if the feature degrades performance; then it is probably not worthwhile, no matter how cheap it may be. Finally, if the feature does not affect performance, but makes the missile cheaper or easier to build or use; then it is probably worthwhile.
Your checkbook is not needed. Wrong kind of cost analysis.
Why would you even bring that up anyway? Didn't Honor teach you anything about costs vs life? Besides, do you have ANY IDEA at all what the enormous bottom line of Apollo and its subsystems are? (I don't either, the bills are still rolling in.)
Which is totally irrelevant against the mortality rate of an entire Star system. You disagree with Honor as well? … White Haven, is that you?
penny wrote:Also, why simply separate the stage containing the reactor. It should immediately self destruct. It might mess with enemy sensors. IOW, if the reactor blows after separating, it might have an ECM like effect.
tlb wrote: I wondered who would take Lord Skimper's place.
Poor Skimper.
Although I hardly think Skimper would confuse cost analysis for the rating of a bank of capacitors for the monetary cost of the missile.
tlb wrote:But let's assume that the wedge is dropped minutes before the warhead explosion. During that time the missile is just coasting, so what does it matter how much it weighs when there is no acceleration in any direction?
The wedge is dropped within a single second before the warhead detonates. Not minutes. Timing is important.
The tactic is not concerned with weight, although a smaller volume might help it achieve a higher acceleration and an added benefit of making the missile quicker, and more nimble. The project is concerned with volume. A smaller footprint should be more difficult to target. Please follow the discussion.
tlb wrote:If the reactor were to separate and immediately explode, then the missile might be hit by shrapnel.
Not a problem. After the reactor separates, the firing sequence follows quickly on its heels. Any shrapnel from missile will also fall on deaf ears. Again, it is like a phaser beam fired inside the transporter beam after it is well into the sequence. All about timing. Everything happens inside of a single second.
tlb wrote:No, I simply do not understand what you have gained during those microseconds that is worth the cost of all the things added to achieve the "ejection".
It cannot be maneuverability, because with the wedge down the main motive system is gone.
It cannot be spin rate, because spin is unimportant when the wedge is down.
What, please, do you think that you have gained? It seems to me that the missile is coasting, which it would do no matter what the weight.
I guestimate up to a third of the missiles has been shed up to this point after two stages or drives have been used up in a redesigned missile. If I am also correct that a different drive setting can be preselected since the volume compensated has changed enroute, then the missile might enjoy more acceleration and maneuverability.
tlb wrote:What, please, do you think that you have gained? It seems to me that the missile is coasting, which it would do no matter what the weight.
Coasting is not a problem a second before detonation. If the missile has already shed a third of its volume enroute to this point, it might already be much nimbler. Quicker.
Jonathan_S wrote:Okay - if you really want to you could build a missile that could separate the warhead much earlier that they do now. Of course without a wedge that won't give you the improved final acceleration you where hunting for a few posts back.
Yes you'd now have a much smaller / lighter missile body. But one without any drive; meaning it can only continue balletically along the course it had when it separated from the rest of the missile. And without a wedge of its own it can't get very far away from the missile body. Oh, also, without an active wedge the warhead wouldn't have any particle/rad shielding; and so would be vulnerable to proximity kills. If the other warheads going off didn't fry it your idea of blowing up the missile's reactor certainly would!
Up to this point, a third of the missile has been shed along the way after two drives or stages have been spent. That allowed a higher drive setting and higher acceleration along the way.
Rad shielding is not a problem after dropping wedge. Detonation will follow fractions of a second after. Range from separated missile body containing the reactor that will soon detonate is also not a problem. Timing. Like shooting a phaser in a transporter beam well into its sequence.
“Houston,” (crackle on the channel) “say again. Is it “cost” prohibitive? Over.”
Quick Review
penny wrote:About those multistage missiles. Why aren't they currently designed to separate when a stage is spent like our very own booster rockets? Since missiles are no longer used as kinetic weapons.
The result could be more acceleration, and there certainly would be a much smaller target at the end.
Jonathan_S wrote:However given how missile wedges work (in particular their built in compensation capability) it's unclear if physical staging would actually provide performance advantage.
penny wrote:Even if it doesn't result in a performance boost, it might result in a survivability boost by being a smaller target at the end of its run if redesigned.
penny wrote:
Where is the microfusion reactor in the missile located again? And what volume of the missile does it occupy?
Thinksmarkedly wrote:The reactor is somewhere that can't and won't be separated, because that would leave the missile without power, which is pointless.
The enormous power requirement of the ECM has been met. At this point, the missile only needs to detonate. Without a reactor, a power supply will need to be added. I think a specialized bank of smartly packed high density instant discharge capacitors can be substituted.
The capacitors only need to power the detonation for several microseconds.[/quote]
Is the power requirement of the missile at this point too cost prohibitive for a small bank of capacitors?
cost prohibitive = capacitor powered detonation
We do not know if the entire bulk of the previous capacitor banks were needed to power the detonation sequence for only several microseconds.
Thinksmarkedly wrote:The reactor must travel with the missile to the end and detonation.
Does it? Are you certain the reactor is needed for microseconds of detonation? Is the entire previous bank of capacitors needed for only several microseconds of detonation!?
Thus weekend Iowa played Washington in college football. Iowa has a running back named Kaleb Johnson. He was told that he could not be a running back because he was too slow. But he is quick. He changes direction very quickly, and has become one of the best running backs in college football today. Quickness is important. He changes direction faster than anyone else. The importance of quickness. That translates to reaction time for a missile.
“Houston. Be advised. Cost prohibitive is the only thing that can kill the project. Your stated objections are not “cost” prohibitive. We do not have a problem. I say again Houston, we do NOT have a problem. Check calculations again. Over.”
A spacer arguing with HOUSTON. Only an Alpha, right?
If you were stranded in space in Sandra Bullock's place, would you still be stranded now?