It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Need info on Space Cruiser

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Russian
Ok lets get serious.

I found one space cruiser and its a nuclear cruiser.

Ideas for using nuclear-fuel-powered interplanetary spacecraft have stirred the imaginations of designers outside of NASA. Perhaps the most ambitious plan has been offered by Fred Roth. A Florida resident, Roth has spent five years attempting to interest the Pentagon in building his massive Nuclear Space Cruiser, to protect the planet from errant asteroids and unforeseen threats.

Roth's cruiser (design plans shown at right) would resemble a flattened child's top. Assembled in space, it would stand 650 ft. tall and have a 9000-ft. circumference. The massive interior is needed, he says, to house a nuclear reactor and a system of ducts that function as 700 particle accelerators. "The proton beams emerging out of the ship's 30-mile cyclotron accelerator system give the ship tremendous lift, direction and great velocity," he says. The reactor would also energize banks of lasers.

Roth has provided the Pentagon with detailed plans, but so far there has been no official interest.










Out,
Russian

Im not understanding it, wut does it look like? thats only a sketch of the inside and its parameters.



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
Umm Lamp, if that was a ball cone laser turret, how where would the pilot go? i mean from the stats that the site gave, it is too small to HAVE an Engine, weaponry, and all those wireing and electronics, and still have space for the cockpit INSIDE the ship and with all THOSE electronics. Besides it does not seem logical, a cruiser class ship cannot be a fighter, it has to be a large assault ship like the NAVAL cruisers.

Maybe space interceptor makes more sense for a name and plus it is way too small to be manned and have and engine that size and be coned shaped. The stats does not match the drawing.


Good point, but I from what I've read I've gathered it is a capsule-type affair, and they were probably being overly optimistic with laser miniaturisation - although it doesn't take much to knock out a satellite. My reasoning for a laser is as follows: there is a ball set into the side of the cone. It's obviously meant to have a fairly wide field of rotation, to prevent the pilot having to jockey the craft too much into a firing position. I see no evidence of a barrel or missile hardpoints or launch ports. In addition, given the clandestine nature of the launch and mission, the Navy would want to:

1. Avoid leaving tell-tale bullets, dud missiles and shrapnel around the areas of the dead satellites - with trajectories that could eventually be backtracked and fitted to an orbit launched from a certain area.
2. Be able to destroy target satellites at ranges of 1000+km in as short a time as possible.
3. In a pinch, be able to target ICBMs in flight (unlikely but I think the possibility was considered).

As for the "cruiser" designation, I agree, it's nowhere near the tonneage for surface warships of that class. However, it sounds Navy-ish and when compared against the relative sizes of most satellites, this is quite big.



new topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join