Welcome to Thunderdome

So just something ive been contemplating.

I've heard it said that it you had a simple, heavy, metal rod, and drop it out of orbit onto a target, the kinetic energy alone from hitting a target from orbital speed (24k mph-ish) would make it as destructive as a nuke due to the basic energy transfer from projectile to Target.

But I was thinking... The rod can't have more energy coming down than the potential energy it was given while.going up, unless it.took some energy in some sort of.slingshot action from another body in space.

That being said, wouldn't the destructive power of a kinetic energy weapon be only as much as the amount of rocket fuel it took to put it in orbit in the first place? A Falcon Heavy blowing up in downtown Manhattan would.take.out a few blocks in a radius,.but I wouldn't equate that to the power of a nuke.

Thoughts?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment

In the case of the system mentioned in the 2003 Air Force report above, a 6.1 m × 0.3 m tungsten cylinder impacting at Mach 10 has a kinetic energy equivalent to approximately 11.5 tons of TNT (or 7.2 tons of dynamite).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Croc ... _device%29

...one of the smallest nuclear weapon systems ever built, with a yield between 10 and 20 tons TNT equivalent.

Extrapolating, does that mean the the Falcon Heavy, if fully fueled and it exploded (rapid unplanned disassembly), would have the equivalent energy equivalent?

https://www.quora.com/How-large-of-an-e ... launch-pad

By rough estimate, the jet-A stored in the wings of a typical medium haul jetliner contains about as much energy as that released by a small tactical atom bomb. A key difference, of course, is that the atom bomb released it's energy in a tiny fraction of a second, while the jet liner--even in a crash--can only release the energy as fast as oxygen can reach and combine with the fuel. The hydrogen, RP1, and liquid oxygen on the Saturn rocket could have gone boom much faster, but not nearly as fast as an a-bomb. As a result, the principle damage would have been from prolonged exposure to heat.

Of course we all know fire can't melt steel.

So... yes.

My speculations were dead-on balls accurate.

See you in a future short story.

Sure...but our good buddy the MOAB also has a yield of ~11 tons of TNT, and some very large conventional bombs (~10tons) were also used in WWII and Vietnam. These would probably be more similar to a rocket fuel explosion than a tactical nuke would be.

And keep in mind, the "little boy" Hiroshima nuke yield was 15 KILOtons...so, like 1000x what we're talking about above.

Mostly my train of speculation was that it couldn't come down and deliver more energy than it took to get it up there in the first place.

Well duh

Seemingly related

GORDON wrote: Mostly my train of speculation was that it couldn't come down and deliver more energy than it took to get it up there in the first place.

Well, it could if it were fired back at Earth, instead of just dropping.

But yes, you're really just measuring potential energy.

I like the idea of spinning it around, say, the moon... taking some of the moon's energy.... and dropping that fucker on.... bad guys.

GORDON wrote: I like the idea of spinning it around, say, the moon... taking some of the moon's energy.... and dropping that fucker on.... bad guys.

Hmmm. I wonder how that would work with the moon. There just isn't that much mass there to help on a gravity assist.

I dunno. Slow the moon down, speed the weapon up, kaboom.