Hitting a target is straightforward. Every satellite already had to calculate its orbit (or de-orbit). The tradeoffs are:
1) Kinetic bombardment is relatively expensive due to the cost of putting tungsten rods the size of telephone poles into orbit. Conventional weapons are cheaper.
2) Kinetic bombardment would excel against static, compressible targets like bunkers or buildings because once launched it can't be stopped and laughs at depth or hardening.
3) Kinetic bombardment weapons can readily be dodged by any mobile target.
4) Their theoretical area of effect is probably pretty small. Good for sniping bunkers, hot garbage for taking out ships that can dodge or infantry that can disperse.
No one (that we know of) has built them because they're such a costly, niche weapon.
Thanks,
4- I would guess that it could be drop the rod vertical for penetration and flat for "splash damage".
Interesting considerations I wouldn't have thought up.
Whenever I hear an article "the military developed...." I just assume that they are being deployed for potential use at least somewhere.
Pretty much. It's like hitting a sand castle vertically with a mallet to collapse it vs at an angle to throw sand everywhere...just at 22,000mph rather than 22mph.
The only reason it never made it off the drawing board is high cost, niche use.
If you want a well known example from fiction, read Heinlein's "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress". It was improvised in that case, but the principle was essentially the same.
(post is archived)