FOBS (Fractional Orbital Bombardment System) - Revision history

Bmueller: /* China */

2022-01-06T18:06:36Z

China

Bmueller: /* Reentry Vehicle */

2021-11-24T14:11:34Z

Reentry Vehicle

Bmueller: Fix video proportions

2021-11-15T20:39:09Z

Fix video proportions

Bmueller: Update video with proper border

2021-11-15T12:01:35Z

Update video with proper border

Bmueller: Embed video, but frame doesn't seem to work

2021-11-15T06:11:45Z

Embed video, but frame doesn't seem to work

Bmueller: Update with comment about sim

2021-11-15T06:02:59Z

Update with comment about sim

Bmueller: /* Technical Details */

2021-11-03T16:07:15Z

Technical Details

Dummy: Add FOBS gif

2021-10-24T19:57:08Z

Add FOBS gif

Bmueller at 23:24, 20 October 2021

2021-10-20T23:24:00Z

Bmueller: Add section on reentry vehicles

2021-10-20T18:44:02Z

Add section on reentry vehicles

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 == China ==
 {{Main|Unnamed Chinese FOBS system}}
-[[todo]]: write a short summary here<ref>https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1213655/a-fractional-orbital-bombardment-system-with-a-hypersonic-glide-vehicle/</ref>
+China appears to have tested a FOBS-like system. However, the precise technical details are currently unknown: it could be a "proper" weapons system designed to carry warheads, or simply a long-term orbital vehicle similar to the US X37-B.<ref>https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1213655/a-fractional-orbital-bombardment-system-with-a-hypersonic-glide-vehicle/</ref>
 == Russia ==

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 === Reentry Vehicle ===
-FOBS doesn't really have hard-and-fast reentry vehicle requirements, as long as it can survive reentry. If you're trying for a faster strike, a "traditional" reentry vehicle might make sense, but you could also try for a lifting body similar to the Space Shuttle or a similar kind of glider. All up to you! <todo: list some different examples of each>
+FOBS doesn't really have hard-and-fast reentry vehicle requirements, as long as it can survive reentry. If you're trying for a faster strike, a "traditional" reentry vehicle might make sense, but you could also try for a lifting body [[Hypersonic Glide Vehicle|similar to the Space Shuttle or another kind of glider]]. All up to you! <todo: list some different examples of each>
 == China ==

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 So, why would you send your favorite energetic package via FOBS instead of, say, a more conventional ICBM? Perhaps you're a country like [[North Korea]], whose ballistic trajectory would pass over American missile defenses in Alaska and Canada. Since FOBS goes into orbit, you aren't limited to the shortest path (over the North Pole), and you can instead go the "long" way (say, over the South Pole where there are currently no missile defenses).
-[[File:Scott Lafory FOBS Model.mp4|482x482px|thumb|Hacky modeling does not come with warranty]]
+[[File:Scott Lafory FOBS Model.mp4|426x240px|thumb|Hacky modeling does not come with warranty]]
 FOBS requires a bigger missile to reach the high speeds necessary for orbit, and may require more advanced staging and control upon reentry (or in the case a reentry burn is required). However, there's some advantages to FOBS: for some trajectories, they may reach the target more quickly as they don't need as high a trajectory as ICBMs (in the case of the Soviets, up to 10 minutes quicker).<ref>https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1213580/glide-or-die/</ref><ref>https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/10/18/hypersonic-china-missile-nuclear-fobs/</ref> However, this would require an uncommonly high (lofted) trajectory for the conventional ICBM, as is shown in Scott LaFoy's hacky sim on the right.<ref>https://twitter.com/wslafoy/status/1450836014860316679?s=20</ref>

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 So, why would you send your favorite energetic package via FOBS instead of, say, a more conventional ICBM? Perhaps you're a country like [[North Korea]], whose ballistic trajectory would pass over American missile defenses in Alaska and Canada. Since FOBS goes into orbit, you aren't limited to the shortest path (over the North Pole), and you can instead go the "long" way (say, over the South Pole where there are currently no missile defenses).
-[[File:Scott Lafory FOBS Model.mp4|right|400px]]
+[[File:Scott Lafory FOBS Model.mp4|482x482px|thumb|Hacky modeling does not come with warranty]]
 FOBS requires a bigger missile to reach the high speeds necessary for orbit, and may require more advanced staging and control upon reentry (or in the case a reentry burn is required). However, there's some advantages to FOBS: for some trajectories, they may reach the target more quickly as they don't need as high a trajectory as ICBMs (in the case of the Soviets, up to 10 minutes quicker).<ref>https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1213580/glide-or-die/</ref><ref>https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/10/18/hypersonic-china-missile-nuclear-fobs/</ref> However, this would require an uncommonly high (lofted) trajectory for the conventional ICBM, as is shown in Scott LaFoy's hacky sim on the right.<ref>https://twitter.com/wslafoy/status/1450836014860316679?s=20</ref>

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 === Trajectory ===
 So, why would you send your favorite energetic package via FOBS instead of, say, a more conventional ICBM? Perhaps you're a country like [[North Korea]], whose ballistic trajectory would pass over American missile defenses in Alaska and Canada. Since FOBS goes into orbit, you aren't limited to the shortest path (over the North Pole), and you can instead go the "long" way (say, over the South Pole where there are currently no missile defenses).
 FOBS requires a bigger missile to reach the high speeds necessary for orbit, and may require more advanced staging and control upon reentry (or in the case a reentry burn is required). However, there's some advantages to FOBS: for some trajectories, they may reach the target more quickly as they don't need as high a trajectory as ICBMs (in the case of the Soviets, up to 10 minutes quicker).<ref>https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1213580/glide-or-die/</ref><ref>https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/10/18/hypersonic-china-missile-nuclear-fobs/</ref> However, this would require an uncommonly high (lofted) trajectory for the conventional ICBM, as is shown in Scott LaFoy's hacky sim on the right.<ref>https://twitter.com/wslafoy/status/1450836014860316679?s=20</ref>

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 [[File:Fooobs jeffrey.gif|thumb|128x128px|ASMR]]
 '''FOBS''' are a form of weapon delivery system which enters Earth orbit before de-orbiting and falling back into the atmosphere towards a target. You can think about it like an ICBM that takes the longer route in space instead of the shorter, direct "ballistic" route (where the missile simply goes up and down).
 == Technical Details ==
@@ Line 7: / Line 10: @@
 So, why would you send your favorite energetic package via FOBS instead of, say, a more conventional ICBM? Perhaps you're a country like [[North Korea]], whose ballistic trajectory would pass over American missile defenses in Alaska and Canada. Since FOBS goes into orbit, you aren't limited to the shortest path (over the North Pole), and you can instead go the "long" way (say, over the South Pole where there are currently no missile defenses).
-FOBS requires a bigger missile to reach the high speeds necessary for orbit, and may require more advanced staging and control upon reentry (or in the case a reentry burn is required). However, there's some advantages to FOBS: for some trajectories, they may reach the target more quickly as they don't need as high a trajectory as ICBMs (in the case of the Soviets, up to 10 minutes quicker).<ref>https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1213580/glide-or-die/</ref><ref>https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/10/18/hypersonic-china-missile-nuclear-fobs/</ref>
+FOBS requires a bigger missile to reach the high speeds necessary for orbit, and may require more advanced staging and control upon reentry (or in the case a reentry burn is required). However, there's some advantages to FOBS: for some trajectories, they may reach the target more quickly as they don't need as high a trajectory as ICBMs (in the case of the Soviets, up to 10 minutes quicker).<ref>https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1213580/glide-or-die/</ref><ref>https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/10/18/hypersonic-china-missile-nuclear-fobs/</ref> However, this would require an uncommonly high (lofted) trajectory for the conventional ICBM, as is shown in Scott LaFoy's hacky sim on the right.<ref>https://twitter.com/wslafoy/status/1450836014860316679?s=20</ref>
 === Reentry Vehicle ===

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:07, 3 November 2021
Line 8:		Line 8:

	FOBS requires a bigger missile to reach the high speeds necessary for orbit, and may require more advanced staging and control upon reentry (or in the case a reentry burn is required). However, there's some advantages to FOBS: for some trajectories, they may reach the target more quickly as they don't need as high a trajectory as ICBMs (in the case of the Soviets, up to 10 minutes quicker).<ref>https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1213580/glide-or-die/</ref><ref>https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/10/18/hypersonic-china-missile-nuclear-fobs/</ref>		FOBS requires a bigger missile to reach the high speeds necessary for orbit, and may require more advanced staging and control upon reentry (or in the case a reentry burn is required). However, there's some advantages to FOBS: for some trajectories, they may reach the target more quickly as they don't need as high a trajectory as ICBMs (in the case of the Soviets, up to 10 minutes quicker).<ref>https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1213580/glide-or-die/</ref><ref>https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/10/18/hypersonic-china-missile-nuclear-fobs/</ref>
		+
		+	[[todo]]: the above paragraph may not be accurate. There's been a couple tweet threads with some basic modeling showing that (at least nominally) FOBS would be slower. add a section on that, and why.

	=== Reentry Vehicle ===		=== Reentry Vehicle ===

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:57, 24 October 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	[[File:Fooobs jeffrey.gif\|thumb\|128x128px\|ASMR]]
	'''FOBS''' are a form of weapon delivery system which enters Earth orbit before de-orbiting and falling back into the atmosphere towards a target. You can think about it like an ICBM that takes the longer route in space instead of the shorter, direct "ballistic" route (where the missile simply goes up and down).		'''FOBS''' are a form of weapon delivery system which enters Earth orbit before de-orbiting and falling back into the atmosphere towards a target. You can think about it like an ICBM that takes the longer route in space instead of the shorter, direct "ballistic" route (where the missile simply goes up and down).