Rods from God (miniaturized)

[nightsight971]

The terrifying "Rods from God" weapon concept of dropping telephone pole sized tungsten rods from space and destroying targets using gravity alone is a much desired weapon system. The main problem of course being treaties, the size and weight of the rods, and getting them in orbit on a launcher satellite. The war in Ukraine and their use of tiny drones dropping small bombs and grenades on targets has made me think.

Imagine a Rods from God weapon system in space, but its ammo is 10 pound (adjust weight if needed) tungsten slugs instead of 30 foot telephone poles. These weapons could be satellites similar to Starlink sats, small, maneuverable, extremely accurate, and very difficult to destroy or defend against. This weapon could snipe targets from space with destruction ranging from a grenade to a MOAB.

What do you guys think, has this smaller Rods from God concept been considered or talked about already? Are countries really abiding by treaties and not weaponizing space?

This would be a terrifying space weapon system.

 

[Todjaeger]

The terrifying "Rods from God" weapon concept of dropping telephone pole sized tungsten rods from space and destroying targets using gravity alone is a much desired weapon system. The main problem of course being treaties, the size and weight of the rods, and getting them in orbit on a launcher satellite. The war in Ukraine and their use of tiny drones dropping small bombs and grenades on targets has made me think.

Imagine a Rods from God weapon system in space, but its ammo is 10 pound (adjust weight if needed) tungsten slugs instead of 30 foot telephone poles. These weapons could be satellites similar to Starlink sats, small, maneuverable, extremely accurate, and very difficult to destroy or defend against. This weapon could snipe targets from space with destruction ranging from a grenade to a MOAB.

What do you guys think, has this smaller Rods from God concept been considered or talked about already? Are countries really abiding by treaties and not weaponizing space?

This would be a terrifying space weapon system.

There are a bunch of things which really need to considered if one were to contemplate variations of the original idea. Firstly is that it was the KE the tungsten rod built up as it accelerated towards the surface of the earth due to the pull of gravity, not gravity itself, which would cause damage. Gravity was just what would accelerate the rod instead of a rocket motor, chemical reaction, or some other method. Secondly, such a weapon would be anything but precise, as well as being a WMD due to the sheer amount of KE a rod that size would likely have built up and retained falling from orbit. Touching on that, despite such a rod being essentially tungsten telephone with both density and thermal properties able to handle extreme heat, it is quite likely that a good portion of a tungsten rod that size would burn up during re-entry due to atmospheric friction.

Now it is possible to theorize about the potential for using a smaller sized, lighter weight tungsten rod, but that in and of itself could cause problems. Having a smaller, lighter rod would lead to less KE being built up at the time of impact, which might be insufficient for the CEP. It is also possible that rods below a certain mass (relative to their shape as that would impact atmospheric friction) would be ineffective since they would burn up during re-entry before impacting the surface.

A final thought; current costs are ~USD$10k/lb to get an object into orbit. If a military is going to develop a weapon capability, it needs to be both capable and at least reasonably cost effective. Using the 1992 Peekskill NY meteor strike which had a ~27.7 lb meteor strike and total a parked car as a starting point, a falling rod or object like that would have cost ~USD$280,000 just to get into orbit. The costs associated with the producing the rod itself, any launching orbital platforms, or anything else which would have to be involved in a weapons development and procurement programme would naturally cost even more. With that in mind, does it really make sense to try and throw a space rock at a soft-skinned vehicle at a cost of several hundred thousand dollars, when existing, conventional ordnance like a 40 mm grenade could be accurately used to total such a vehicle at a per round cost of perhaps USD$60...

 

[ngatimozart]

It doesn't have to be tungsten at all. It could be an iron rod with a stainless steel sheath for example. All the stainless steel has to do is to prevent the iron from dissipating in the atmosphere during re-entry because of the increased thermal energy. Space X's Starship and Super Heavy Boosters use stainless steel and the thickness of the stainless steel sheeting used is probably 5mm. Lifting stuff into orbit is also becoming cheaper and the Space X Starship will lift 100 tonne into orbit. They've installed upgraded Raptor engines on it and the Super Heavy Booster so the payload tonnage could increase to possible 150 tonnes per launch.

The greater the velocity of any body hitting the surface from orbit the greater the damage because of its potential energy. So you will what to give a quick, long, and high acceleration to begin with. So it as to have a rocket capable of producing increasingly higher thrust with a long burn time fitted. If you can get enough thrust you could end up hitting +Mach15 and greater.