Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wired)   Even physics say Donnie's new 'super-duper' Space Force missile is as legit as his 'height,' and 'weight,' and "complexion,' and 'hairline'   (wired.com) divider line
    More: Facepalm, Mass, Escape velocity, duper missile, Ballistic missile, lowest estimates, General relativity, Gravitational constant, Energy  
•       •       •

893 clicks; posted to Geek » on 27 May 2020 at 12:07 PM (10 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



24 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-05-27 10:39:21 AM  
Can't we just design some toys to put onto his desk, let him request an appropriation, and then use that money for something useful? It's not like he's ever going to know that Congress used the money to beef up voter security or feed the hungry.
 
2020-05-27 12:16:04 PM  
Fat Man was a nuclear bomb.
 
2020-05-27 12:45:54 PM  

hubiestubert: Congress used the money to beef up voter security


"Oh wait, you're serious, let me laugh harder."
i.imgflip.comView Full Size
 
2020-05-27 12:49:34 PM  
Better question... what's the point of a faster ICBM?  30 or so minutes is fast enough to start or end WWIII and if we're getting into a fight with another nuclear power that's exactly what we're talking about.

The terminal speed of even the earliest ICBM or SLBM still deployed by a world power far exceeds any missile defense system in the world.

Make them more reliable or more accurate, sure, that's great, cheaper would be even better... but making them faster?  Is half an hour too much time to give Beijing, Moscow or Washington to know that their cities are going to start disappearing and there's nothing they can do about it?

/That's if they spot them at launch and get that info all the way to the top instantaneously...
//The speed that matters most with ICBM's is how fast you can prep them for launch.
///once they're safely out of the silo there isn't much you can do about them except getting up wind of the suspected targets.
IV, we've got 14 boomers.  Nobody is going to find them all in time and every single one of them can take out a nation.
 
2020-05-27 12:56:00 PM  
Just like the invisible F-35.
 
2020-05-27 1:00:31 PM  

electricjebus: Better question... what's the point of a faster ICBM?


There is almost certainly not a faster ICBM in the works. Trump was probably referring to hypersonic missiles, which are game-changers because maneuvering and coming in at low-altitude at that speed leaves so little opportunity for defense.
 
2020-05-27 1:04:32 PM  
Let's make the big leap, and assume Trump is repeating something accurate he read somewhere.

Take your time.  I realize it's a huge leap to make.  Think of how you deconstructed your view of reality to understand quantum mechanics the first time.  You'll need to do that again.  Ok, ready?  Now let's talk about what he said.

When he says "17 times faster than the ones we have today", the thing he's referencing is not likely saying it's 17x faster than the fastest delivery vehicle we have today, just 17x faster than some standard delivery vehicle we use today.  Of course, when you add in the hyperbole, the exaggeration, and the self-aggrandizing, what he probably read (heard) is that there's a new generation of missile that's designed to be 7x faster than some previously common platform used for a specific purpose.  Which is optimistic, but not insane.
 
2020-05-27 1:05:43 PM  
im4.ezgif.comView Full Size
 
2020-05-27 1:06:30 PM  
ArmyTechnology.com - What is Trump's 'super-duper' missile? - "Responding to a request for clarification on the comments, Department of Defence (DOD) spokesman US Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Robert N. Carver told Army Technology: "We will not discuss capabilities of any systems we may or may not have under development. Hypersonics is a characteristic of flight defined generally as flight at speeds over Mach 5.'

' "Fielding hypersonic weapons is a top technical research and engineering priority, and the United States has a robust programme for the development of hypersonic weapon systems." '
 
2020-05-27 1:11:16 PM  

Khellendros: what he probably read (heard) is that there's a new generation of missile that's designed to be 7x faster than some previously common platform used for a specific purpose. Which is optimistic, but not insane.


That sounds about right.

Tomahawk cruise missile - 600 mph

17 * 600 mph = 10,200 mph = mach 14
 
2020-05-27 1:22:26 PM  

jaytkay: There is almost certainly not a faster ICBM in the works. Trump was probably referring to hypersonic missiles, which are game-changers because maneuvering and coming in at low-altitude at that speed leaves so little opportunity for defense.


A mach 24 terminal phase also leaves little opportunity for defense and is provided by our cold war relics.  If he's not talking about nuclear warheads... god we don't need any more missiles that cost more than the targets we're shooting them at do.

I could duct tape a knife to a cheap drone and go around stabbing people.  It would be a slightly more modern way of killing people, but I'm not sure that it would work any better than the traditional methods.
 
2020-05-27 1:56:58 PM  

electricjebus: jaytkay: There is almost certainly not a faster ICBM in the works. Trump was probably referring to hypersonic missiles, which are game-changers because maneuvering and coming in at low-altitude at that speed leaves so little opportunity for defense.

A mach 24 terminal phase also leaves little opportunity for defense and is provided by our cold war relics.  If he's not talking about nuclear warheads... god we don't need any more missiles that cost more than the targets we're shooting them at do.

I could duct tape a knife to a cheap drone and go around stabbing people.  It would be a slightly more modern way of killing people, but I'm not sure that it would work any better than the traditional methods.


It's an unavoidable problem.
You want something that works better than a thing anyone else has becuse it's meant to protect you and your troops. You want the exclusive ownership of this equipment which means only small lots will be produced by a single source. You need it made in the US by highly paid defense contractors working in specific political districts so you can get the votes in Congress.
So you pay more. A lot more.

Some random villager with an old ak can cause a lot of mayhem for practically nothing, but you need to spend a hundred thousand dollars to blow them up in a reliable manner.
You could hire your own villagers with ak's to act as a counter, but that ends up going so badly almost every time you true that everyone would rather you just use a proper military.
Which means you're back to buying the expensive weapons.

What you could do is mass produce cheap and still relatively high tech weapons, affordable enough that any peasant can own or operate them. But I suspect you don't actually want to do that.
 
2020-05-27 2:01:42 PM  

way south: electricjebus: jaytkay: There is almost certainly not a faster ICBM in the works. Trump was probably referring to hypersonic missiles, which are game-changers because maneuvering and coming in at low-altitude at that speed leaves so little opportunity for defense.

A mach 24 terminal phase also leaves little opportunity for defense and is provided by our cold war relics.  If he's not talking about nuclear warheads... god we don't need any more missiles that cost more than the targets we're shooting them at do.

I could duct tape a knife to a cheap drone and go around stabbing people.  It would be a slightly more modern way of killing people, but I'm not sure that it would work any better than the traditional methods.

It's an unavoidable problem.
You want something that works better than a thing anyone else has becuse it's meant to protect you and your troops. You want the exclusive ownership of this equipment which means only small lots will be produced by a single source. You need it made in the US by highly paid defense contractors working in specific political districts so you can get the votes in Congress.
So you pay more. A lot more.

Some random villager with an old ak can cause a lot of mayhem for practically nothing, but you need to spend a hundred thousand dollars to blow them up in a reliable manner.
You could hire your own villagers with ak's to act as a counter, but that ends up going so badly almost every time you true that everyone would rather you just use a proper military.
Which means you're back to buying the expensive weapons.

What you could do is mass produce cheap and still relatively high tech weapons, affordable enough that any peasant can own or operate them. But I suspect you don't actually want to do that.


The tried and true solution is to do just that, then give them to the peasants you prefer, then point them at the peasants you DON'T prefer, then leave.

After that, nothing could ever go wrong.
 
2020-05-27 2:04:32 PM  

PoweredByIrony: nothing could ever go wrong.


A month later at the CIA...

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-05-27 2:21:12 PM  
He was probably told the new missile was 17% better and his "brain" translated that to 17 time faster.
 
2020-05-27 3:03:26 PM  
It's all just dissembling.  Just like every other statement.  Enough hyperbole to energize the audience and enough ambiguity to blunt the crtiticism.
 
2020-05-27 3:20:42 PM  

Khellendros: When he says "17 times faster than the ones we have today", the thing he's referencing is not likely saying it's 17x faster than the fastest delivery vehicle we have today, just 17x faster than some standard delivery vehicle we use today.


Or else it's this:

sprott.physics.wisc.eduView Full Size


Probably this.
 
2020-05-27 3:50:02 PM  

Ambitwistor: Khellendros: When he says "17 times faster than the ones we have today", the thing he's referencing is not likely saying it's 17x faster than the fastest delivery vehicle we have today, just 17x faster than some standard delivery vehicle we use today.

Or else it's this:

[sprott.physics.wisc.edu image 371x282]

Probably this.


That's why I said it's likely 7x instead of 17x.  At least an order of magnitude.... and the level of self-aggrandizing BS he pumps will take the claim to insane levels.
 
2020-05-27 7:24:45 PM  
After the election, no one, Trump included, will care about Space Force. It was never anything more than a psychological antidote to the border wall. Closing borders, implying the end of expansive, imperial USA, needs a balance, which these days means space, the final frontier.
 
2020-05-27 8:46:43 PM  

Dear Jerk: After the election, no one, Trump included, will care about Space Force. It was never anything more than a psychological antidote to the border wall. Closing borders, implying the end of expansive, imperial USA, needs a balance, which these days means space, the final frontier.


I'll put money on the table that says you're wrong.
Space is being militarized by other nations. Regardless of whether Trump wins or loses, that fact won't change. There's an increasing need for a wholistic military solution that isn't split across a dozen agencies with no one in charge of it all.
If a future president disbands that solution then they'll open themselves or their successor up for terrible embarrassment.  If Trump wins then he will damn well brag about creating space force to his last day.

Trump didn't invent space force so much as break a stalemate in what it was supposed to be.
The proposal was to make a space-corps that was subsidiary to the Air Force, but that wouldn't have gone anywhere just as space command didn't.  The Air Force didn't want to invest in this because it wants more F-35's.
Trump comes along and says space force will be independent (taking its budget with it). Air Force then settles for having space force as a subsidiary while its future independence becomes the long term question.

Space force is now taking ownership of equipment, bases, and personnel from multiple agencies. It's already workin with nasa and flying missions. Anyone who disrupts that is going to set the nations defense capabilities back.  Then when something happens people will ask how they could have been so blind to the future risks.

I'll wager that isn't something a politician wants, even if their goal is stigginit to Trump.
 
2020-05-27 8:48:39 PM  
The actual documentation is classified; the markings say "TOP SECRET - ALPHA MALES ONLY - NO DEMMACRATS ALOUD", but I can tell you that it's the next episode of the "Independence Day - President's Cut Edition" video that President Trump declassified a few weeks ago.  His missile is Yuge. And Fast.
 
2020-05-27 9:11:50 PM  
way south:  
Space force is now taking ownership of equipment, bases, and personnel from multiple agencies. It's already workin with nasa and flying missions. Anyone who disrupts that is going to set the nations defense capabilities back.  Then when something happens people will ask how they could have been so blind to the future risks.
I'll wager that isn't something a politician wants, even if their goal is stigginit to Trump.


The US has previously been part of treaties against the militarization of space, but as with other treaties Trump has unilaterally pulled out of, at least three of which have been effectively reducing nuclear weapons proliferation, when something happens people will ask how we could have been so blind to future risks as to have allowed him to do that.

Between silo-based, submarine-based, and cruise missiles, we have plenty of capacity to destroy the world many times over, reliably even on a second-strike, and unless Congress and the military are willing to let the President put nuclear weapons in orbit with a hair-trigger no-humans-in-the-loop downward shot at Russian and Chinese missile launching sites, they're not going to be able to shoot down enough of the enemy's ICBMs and SLBMs to prevent the top hundred US cities getting nuked. (And as anybody who's done nuclear game theory can tell you, that pressures the enemy to shoot first, not to wait to see if it was really a false alarm on radar.)

There are uses for a fast missile that don't violate the laws of physics or immediately fly into orbit; shooting down aircraft better is a primary one (but you're not comparing to a slow stealthy Tomahawk there, you're comparing to fast small SAMs or fighter-aircraft missiles.)  Given the inability of the Star Wars Strategic Defense Initiative to do much more than shoot down an occasional strapped chicken, I'd be surprised if they had a 17x better anti-ICBM-missile, but it might change the number of shots you could put against your target if it worked.
(Again, that pressures the enemy to attack first, but if your threat model isn't Russia, but Al Qaeda or Iran, your 17x missile isn't faster than a truck-bomb that left last month and a spare thousand ICBMs are a better deterrent.)
 
2020-05-27 10:14:52 PM  

billstewart: There are uses for a fast missile that don't violate the laws of physics or immediately fly into orbit; shooting down aircraft better is a primary one


That isn't the topic. The super duper missile refers to offensive hypersonic cruise missiles and we've known about work on them for a while.

It isn't really news (unless you're Trump, who is surprised by pretty much everything that isn't on Fox & Friends).
 
2020-05-27 11:12:36 PM  

billstewart: The US has previously been part of treaties against the militarization of space, but as with other treaties Trump has unilaterally pulled out of, at least three of which have been effectively reducing nuclear weapons proliferation, when something happens people will ask how we could have been so blind to future risks as to have allowed him to do that.


The Russians had been ignoring those treaties in regards to not intercepting US satellites. The olymp-k incident was in 2015, and one of several that took place before Trump took office.
Russia had already been deploying long range land based cruise missiles in violation of treaty (did they ever stop?). The overflight treaty gave them access to sensitive US airspace while we got nothing in return. A lot of these treaties look good on paper but there's a question of we were getting any practical value from them.

Regardless, in space both Russia and China have advanced to playing the 'I'm not touching you" game with a lot of vital US hardware.

If we ignore that for too long then the satellites that hold up our internet and navigation systems will be ripe for harassment the moment someone finds a reason to be dissatisfied with us.
Just developing the technology to have a response is a decades long effort. Space force should have happened decades ago.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
Displayed 24 of 24 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.