Received BY SCHISM RENT ASUNDER

On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 19:13:28 GMT, an orbiting mind-control laser made
Brian McDonald <Brian_knowspam.McDonald.TakeThisOut@shaw.ca> write:

>if you look at the incredible bank shots we routinely do with probes
>today i don't think there is anything at all remarkable about being
>able to hit rather precise bits of a planetary surface from an
>asteroid field a few AU away.

Without correcting burns, I'd find pin-point kinetic strikes from
several AU out to be hard to swallow.


Put your launcher on Langhorne, and I would probably buy it,
though.


-JPB
 >> Stay informed about: Received BY SCHISM RENT ASUNDER 

On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 19:13:28 GMT, Brian McDonald
<Brian_knowspam.McDonald DeleteThis @shaw.ca> wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 21:48:05 GMT, scott DeleteThis @slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>wrote:
>
>
>>>>The sensors need to be in orbit. The bombardment system itself can
>>>>be positioned on a moon or in an asteroid belt, if either exist,
>>>>with the ability to self-manufacture additional kinetic projectiles.
>>>
>>>Moon, maybe. Asteroid? That's incredible accuracy!
>>
>>
>>Nothing says you can't put some rudimentary thrusters and a
>>star-tracker on the projectile.
>>
>>scott
>
>if you look at the incredible bank shots we routinely do with probes
>today i don't think there is anything at all remarkable about being
>able to hit rather precise bits of a planetary surface from an
>asteroid field a few AU away.

If you put some sophisticated guidance on them. I don't really think
that's an option for projectiles that are going to be used en-masse.
There's also the problem that they aren't going to want guidance
emissions.
 >> Stay informed about: Received BY SCHISM RENT ASUNDER 

On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 08:24:20 -0700, Loren Pechtel
<lorenpechtel.RemoveThis@hotmail.invalid.com> wrote:


>>if you look at the incredible bank shots we routinely do with probes
>>today i don't think there is anything at all remarkable about being
>>able to hit rather precise bits of a planetary surface from an
>>asteroid field a few AU away.
>
>If you put some sophisticated guidance on them. I don't really think
>that's an option for projectiles that are going to be used en-masse.
>There's also the problem that they aren't going to want guidance
>emissions.


the circuitry in a 2 dollar throwaway wristwatch is overkill for the
math involved so i really doubt expense is a factor.

given the tech edge they have on us i have no problem believing they
can literally pick the house they want to hit from 5 au out. take a
look at the multistop probes we've pulled off with our rather
primitive space tech and the extremely limited fuel supplies for
corrective burns involved. phenomenal accuracy is the norm now and
then imagine a few hundred years advancement on that.
--
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't
 >> Stay informed about: Received BY SCHISM RENT ASUNDER 

On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 17:54:16 GMT, Brian McDonald
<Brian_knowspam.McDonald RemoveThis @shaw.ca> wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 08:24:20 -0700, Loren Pechtel
><lorenpechtel RemoveThis @hotmail.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>if you look at the incredible bank shots we routinely do with probes
>>>today i don't think there is anything at all remarkable about being
>>>able to hit rather precise bits of a planetary surface from an
>>>asteroid field a few AU away.
>>
>>If you put some sophisticated guidance on them. I don't really think
>>that's an option for projectiles that are going to be used en-masse.
>>There's also the problem that they aren't going to want guidance
>>emissions.
>
>
>the circuitry in a 2 dollar throwaway wristwatch is overkill for the
>math involved so i really doubt expense is a factor.

Huh? You're going to need terminal visual guidance and a *GOOD*
optical sensor to get the sort of precision needed. Remember, we are
talking about an impact accuracy measured in feet. (Remember, lines
of craters.)

>given the tech edge they have on us i have no problem believing they
>can literally pick the house they want to hit from 5 au out. take a
>look at the multistop probes we've pulled off with our rather
>primitive space tech and the extremely limited fuel supplies for
>corrective burns involved. phenomenal accuracy is the norm now and
>then imagine a few hundred years advancement on that.

Remember, though, no active emissions. That puts a big crimp in
things.
 >> Stay informed about: Received BY SCHISM RENT ASUNDER 

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 09:58:34 -0700, Loren Pechtel
<lorenpechtel.DeleteThis@hotmail.invalid.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 17:54:16 GMT, Brian McDonald
><Brian_knowspam.McDonald.DeleteThis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 08:24:20 -0700, Loren Pechtel
>><lorenpechtel.DeleteThis@hotmail.invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>if you look at the incredible bank shots we routinely do with probes
>>>>today i don't think there is anything at all remarkable about being
>>>>able to hit rather precise bits of a planetary surface from an
>>>>asteroid field a few AU away.
>>>
>>>If you put some sophisticated guidance on them. I don't really think
>>>that's an option for projectiles that are going to be used en-masse.
>>>There's also the problem that they aren't going to want guidance
>>>emissions.
>>
>>
>>the circuitry in a 2 dollar throwaway wristwatch is overkill for the
>>math involved so i really doubt expense is a factor.
>
>Huh? You're going to need terminal visual guidance and a *GOOD*
>optical sensor to get the sort of precision needed. Remember, we are
>talking about an impact accuracy measured in feet. (Remember, lines
>of craters.)
>
>>given the tech edge they have on us i have no problem believing they
>>can literally pick the house they want to hit from 5 au out. take a
>>look at the multistop probes we've pulled off with our rather
>>primitive space tech and the extremely limited fuel supplies for
>>corrective burns involved. phenomenal accuracy is the norm now and
>>then imagine a few hundred years advancement on that.
>
>Remember, though, no active emissions. That puts a big crimp in
>things.


i don't think you will need much more than a rather precise pinpoint
to launch from and another one to impact on coupled with inertial
guidance to score that kind of accuracy. the first two are dead easy
and even today we can put pretty good inertial trackers into a small
multifunction walkie talkies for under 200 bucks i think.
 >> Stay informed about: Received BY SCHISM RENT ASUNDER 

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 00:33:23 GMT, Brian McDonald
<Brian_knowspam.McDonald.RemoveThis@shaw.ca> wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 09:58:34 -0700, Loren Pechtel
><lorenpechtel.RemoveThis@hotmail.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>>given the tech edge they have on us i have no problem believing they
>>>can literally pick the house they want to hit from 5 au out. take a
>>>look at the multistop probes we've pulled off with our rather
>>>primitive space tech and the extremely limited fuel supplies for
>>>corrective burns involved. phenomenal accuracy is the norm now and
>>>then imagine a few hundred years advancement on that.
>>
>>Remember, though, no active emissions. That puts a big crimp in
>>things.
>
>
>i don't think you will need much more than a rather precise pinpoint
>to launch from and another one to impact on coupled with inertial
>guidance to score that kind of accuracy. the first two are dead easy
>and even today we can put pretty good inertial trackers into a small
>multifunction walkie talkies for under 200 bucks i think.

Inertial trackers will drift off target over interplanetary distances.
Besides, the issue isn't the shots drifting in atmosphere, it's purely
a matter of the accuracy of the launch (which could be corrected with
a deflector a bit after the launcher) and gravitic disturbances in
flight (which can't be detected by an inertial tracker, period.)
 >> Stay informed about: Received BY SCHISM RENT ASUNDER 

Brian McDonald wrote:
> and even today we can put pretty good inertial trackers into a small
> multifunction walkie talkies for under 200 bucks i think.

That's GPS, not inertial.
 >> Stay informed about: Received BY SCHISM RENT ASUNDER 

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 06:15:23 -0800, Offbreed
<offbreed_106 DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:

>Brian McDonald wrote:
>> and even today we can put pretty good inertial trackers into a small
>> multifunction walkie talkies for under 200 bucks i think.
>
>That's GPS, not inertial.

mostly yes but i have seen some hand units for mapping your travels
that work off inertial. t
 >> Stay informed about: Received BY SCHISM RENT ASUNDER 

Brian McDonald wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 06:15:23 -0800, Offbreed
> <offbreed_106.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Brian McDonald wrote:
>>> and even today we can put pretty good inertial trackers into a small
>>> multifunction walkie talkies for under 200 bucks i think.
>> That's GPS, not inertial.
>
> mostly yes but i have seen some hand units for mapping your travels
> that work off inertial. t

For less than $200? I'd need to see one offered.
 >> Stay informed about: Received BY SCHISM RENT ASUNDER