Could Kinetic Energy Weapons Revolutionize Modern Warfare and Space Missions?

AI Thread Summary
Kinetic energy weapons, such as those theorized in Tom Clancy's works, could potentially revolutionize modern warfare and space missions by utilizing massive steel rods dropped from high altitudes. The Ares 5 rocket could theoretically deliver a payload of 188,000 kg, resulting in an energy release equivalent to 381 tonnes of TNT upon impact, which is comparable to small nuclear weapons. While the concept is intriguing, the assumptions made about free-fall and drag are unrealistic, and the practicality of such weapons remains questionable. Kinetic energy weapons are not new, as seen in armor-piercing rounds that effectively use kinetic energy to penetrate armor. Overall, while they have specific applications, they may not be the most efficient solution for demolishing structures.
xXIHAYDOIXx
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
A while back, I read a Tom Clancy book in which they theorized about a weapon based on kinetic energy. In short, they would drop huge steel rods that were controlable in order to eliminate buildings and the like. These weapons were protrayed as extremely powerful.

So, on to my questions:

1. Would weapons like these work and be efficient if brought up on board the http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/ares/aresV/index.html" ?

2. If so, how much energy would be released by the resulting concusion and what are the implications for destructive magnitude?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, the Ares 5 can take a 188,000 kg payload to LEO, which is an altitude of 180 km - 2000 km. So let's say that the entire payload is a single 188 tonne "rod" which is dropped from 1000 km to free-fall to the target and let's further assume that the air doesn't slow it down on re-entry. Then, that 188 tonne rod will have an energy equivalent to 381 tonnes of TNT.

Conventional bunker busters go as high as 44 tonnes of TNT, and tactical nukes go as low as 300 tonnes of TNT. So it would be more like a very small nuke than a very large conventional explosive in terms of energy.

Of course, the assumptions are pretty unrealistic, but a fun "what if" anyway.
 
Where would I find the formulas to calculate the differing forces at different weights from different heights while taking into account drag?
 
I don't know, I neglected drag.
 
And then, just imagine if you rocket-accelerated it towards the ground target!
 
A thrown rock is a "kinetic energy weapon".

It might sound impressive, but it's neither new nor necessarily the most efficient way to go about things...especially in taking out buildings.

Although they still work well in certain applications. A form of armor piercing round is a "kinetic energy weapon". It utilizes a sabot (which breaks away) to transfer as much energy as possible into a small/ dense projectile made of tungsten carbide or depleted uranium. It punches a hole through armor simply by means of kinetic energy.
 

Thread 'Derivation of Hamilton's Principle: Questions'

I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
View full post »

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top