Seems there is a disconnect with physics about these.
Any object that just "falls" from height takes just as much energy to get up there as it releases. And that is in a vacuum with no friction on either path.
Unfueled rods would take more energy to put in orbit than they would deliver - so what is the benefit? Just the non-explosive destructive power?
The math just doesn't make sense.
Patriot, unless you already have something in Space carrying them as weapons. And we have Space Force.
If they are up there, then the military and politicians haven't found anyone that understands basic physics - which is entirely possible.
The math proves that these weapons are inefficient. That usually doesn't stop things from happening though - so while these are a waste of energy and money, they are probably in the works.
Because people are retarded, there are lots of inefficient things already being created - electric cars for one LOL
Patriot, we saw how well electric cars worked with power outages and forest fires in California.
Bunker busting kenetic penetrator.
Only real advantage over conventional weapons.
If there is enough energy to get it into space, there is enough energy to deliver the same (or more) energy from the rocket itself.
If a projectile dropped from space releases 25kton of energy, it takes at least 25kton of energy to get it into place.
Using the rocket on the target delivers the exact same energy (probably a lot more due to friction both up and down).
The math doesn't make sense.
Sure it does. Rate of energy delivery matters. Those rockets, which can get stuff into orbit, cannot accelerate it to the same velocity inside our thick atmosphere. Use the same rocket and it's going to dump its energy into the atmosphere instead of the target. Use a tungsten telephone pole and it's going to go through the target and barely notice the air because it got most of its acceleration where the air is thin.
(post is archived)