I am familiar with characterizing the FOBS type vehicle. FOBS (*Fractional
Orbital Bombardment System) *was a Soviet ICBM program in the 1960s that
after launch would go into a low Earth orbit and would then de-orbit for an
attack. It had no range limit and the orbital flight path would not reveal
]:Skunkworks Reveals SR-72
Daniel Rocha mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Why escape velocity? Just orbital is good enough. A powerful ion propulsion can
slowly add 4km/s to achieve that.
You are right. I got the two mixed up.
What would be the suborbital velocity for a trip halfway acro
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
> Back of the envelope, 18,000 mph.
Hmm. That can also get you into low earth orbit depending on trajectory.
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
> Back of the envelope, 18,000 mph.
Modern, self-propelled artillery can land three shells on the same
target 40 miles away by firing three at different ballistic solutions
in rapid succession. Aren't war toys wonderful?
We need some new enem
Back of the envelope, 18,000 mph.
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Daniel Rocha wrote:
>
>> Why escape velocity? Just orbital is good enough. A powerful ion
>> propulsion can slowly add 4km/s to achieve that.
>
>
> You are right. I got the two mixed up.
>
> What would be the
You have to love "speed is the new stealth."
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/high-speed-strike-weapon--hssw--.html
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=af217f963d28a50ef03f68c11f4e60a6&tab=core&_cview=1
Daniel Rocha wrote:
Why escape velocity? Just orbital is good enough. A powerful ion propulsion
> can slowly add 4km/s to achieve that.
>
You are right. I got the two mixed up.
What would be the suborbital velocity for a trip halfway across the world,
which I assume is about as far as anyone wa
Why escape velocity? Just orbital is good enough. A powerful ion propulsion
can slowly add 4km/s to achieve that.
2013/11/5 Jed Rothwell
> Terry Blanton wrote:
>
>
>> Did you say Mach 6?
>>
>
> You heard the man. Mach 6. That's 4,567.2423 mph says Mr. Google.
>
> Not escape velocity, which is
http://ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=Sorb
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Terry Blanton wrote:
>
>
>> Did you say Mach 6?
>>
>
> You heard the man. Mach 6. That's 4,567.2423 mph says Mr. Google.
>
> Not escape velocity, which is Mach 34. That's what I would aim for.
Terry Blanton wrote:
> Did you say Mach 6?
>
You heard the man. Mach 6. That's 4,567.2423 mph says Mr. Google.
Not escape velocity, which is Mach 34. That's what I would aim for. It
seems like it would more trouble than it is worth staying in the
atmosphere, with all that heat.
- Jed
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_11_01_2013_p0-632731.xml
"Ever since Lockheed’s unsurpassed SR-71 Blackbird was retired from
U.S. Air Force service almost two decades ago, the perennial question
has been: Will it ever be succeeded by a new-generation, higher-speed
airc
11 matches
Mail list logo
