Title text:
It does come at the cost of some launchpad expansions and increased fuel requirements, but that all comes out of the facility's budget.
Transcript:
Transcript will show once it’s been added to explainxkcd.com
Source: https://xkcd.com/3291/
They are saying a missile that went faster than, and tracked a target at orbital speed and velocity, can't be reached.... Obviously it can, or they'd miss everytime. Yet they shot it down using a rocket deploying a payload 41 years ago. Same shit, different payload.
thats not what i was saying at all. hitting an orbital object with a projectile is obviously possible. what im saying is that the velocity required to get a projectile in the right place at the right time is at least an order of magnitude less than the velocity required for it to be an orbital projectile.
It's 1 moment to land am object that can land relative location with a small amount of fuel to readjust course. Like most other projectiles we shoot. On a scale of 1/10. If landing a shuttle on a landing pad is a 8/10 that's. 3/10
ok so because you dont seem to be understanding the astronomical difference in velocity between a plane, a missile, and a satellite ill go through the comparison. in the most favorable possible terms. choosing the AIM-54 phoenix missile because its the fastest missile i was able to find with a quick search.
F15 maximum speed: 738 m/s
AIM-54 Phoenix maximum speed: 1700 m/s
Low earth orbit velocity: 8700 m/s
so adding the plane and the missile together we get 2438 m/s, which means the missile would need to gain 6262 m/s of additional velocity to reach orbital velocity. this corresponds to an 11.7 times increase in kinetic energy.
so the F15 flies up, works as hard as it possibly can to get to maximum speed, then shoots its AIM-54 phoenix missile which uses all of its fuel to get to its maximum possible speed, a tiny nudge for maneuvering is going to add 11.7 times more kinetic energy and nearly quadruple its speed... yeah that missile could hit a satellite, but it will never become a satellite itself.
all of this completely ignores the delta-v losses to gravity, steering, and drag required for an orbital insertion trajectory, so things get much much worse from here. if you're actually interested in this i suggest you look up some youtube videos on orbital launch vehicles. or just believe whatever you want. the tyranny of the rocket equation is such that it doesnt really care what you think.
So let's just say we had missiles that can go 9000 meters per second. (Russia, China and the the U.S. already do). You believe those are impossible as well? The term impossible is my problem with your statement.
Just because no one has shown a tool designed to do it yet doesn't make it impossible. Your math showed it was possible.
The issues come down to weight and fuel sources used. Once you have the payload going in the speed/tragedy needed, yes it would need to be able to correct itself. When we launch 20+ satellites, they all have similar instruments in them, they aren't all just dropped into 1 orbit
not that you could put on a plane lol, let alone an F15. look up the mass of one of those missiles and compare to the mass of an F15. you're like mainlining copium right now its crazy.
Copium? What a nut job.
"Cars could never exist"
Have fun in life