When is a bomb not a bomb?

[Model Man]

(original post: 26 Nov 2007 04:26 pm)

Way back when, folk referred to anything nuclear as 'THE Bomb' (even when it was actually a missile, as in 'Inter-Continental Ballistic'...). Consequently, in the mid-sixties mindset, the film referred to these as orbiting 'bombs' and not 'weapons platforms', 'killer satellites' or any other words we would more correctly use in these more enlightened days.

The general definition of bomb is a munition which is dropped from a delivery platform. The Enola Gay dropped a nuclear bomb on Japan. The Russians have nuclear-tipped missiles aimed at America. (The missiles themselves not being nuclear, but their payloads being so.)

Look at the designs of each orbiter with our modern definitions and you will likely call these weapon platforms. The military likely has a more exacting and nondescript nomenclature for it these days.

And while the script does indeed call these 'bombs', that does not mean the script/wording is accurate. (The first draft of the script calls the monolith a cube 15' on a side, for example.) Were they genuine 'bombs' they would not be shaped as they are. They would disintigrate the moment they hit atmo and would have no control whatsoever. On this alone, i am sure the SK, ACC and the consultants they consulted agreed ont hsi point.

In defense of the platform notion I am putting forth, I would note that each 'bomb' has some form of command module consisting of various antennae and they all would seem to house multiple missiles each consisting of multiple warheads, and each seems to have launchers on one side or another. These are missile launchers we're dealing with.

And let's face it, there would be no 'bomb' in orbit. Unless it was actually a mine, in which case, it's not a bomb, but a mine. These orbiting platforms fire nuclear tipped, multi-warhead missiles.

In the case of the US platform, look close (using some imaging tricks) and those seem to be missile tips sitting in the 3 slots of the front housing. Given that, and the platform's apparent size, it could likely hold 12 missiles across and 2 deep for a total of 24 missiles. The mid area could be additonal storage or C&C workings, and the aft are would be propulsion.

The only one I can't figure out is the chinese. That just looks like a funky tube of toothpaste to me with a fan on the front. Of course, the fan is likely heat radiators, solar collectors or blast screens of some sort perhaps.

[Steven Pietrobon]

(original post: 27 Nov 2007 12:19 am)

The early script describes the Russian and US satellite as THOUSAND MEGATON NUCLEAR BOMB. You can infer what you like from the photos. I'm going with what the script says, although I agree that a satellite carrying nuclear armed missiles makes more sense. As to being non-aerodynamic, what you could be seeing is an outer shell, which is shed when the bomb is deployed.

I've never heard of ICBM's referred to as "orbiting bombs". Do you have a reference? I think the most common phrase is "nuclear missile".

Clarke's book only cryptically mentions the orbiting bombs at the end "A thousand miles below, he became aware that a slumbering cargo of death had awoken, and was stirring sluggishly in its orbit. The feeble energies it contained were no possible menace to him; but he preferred a cleaner sky. He put forth his will, and the circling megatons flowered in a silent detonation that brought a brief, false dawn to half the sleeping globe."

[Model Man]

(original post: 27 Nov 2007 04:35 am)

I guess a shell could make sense in the case of the german and chinese weapons, but not for the other two plus the russian design.

I mentioned 'orbiting mines', but not 'orbiting ICBM's'. But by my poor grammar, I now see that could indeed be inferred. That 2nd sentence in the 1st paragraph should have been parenthesized (as an aside) instead of it's own sentence methinks. I will do so now.

Sounds like quoting the bible! Mus tbe Clarke's wording that lends itself to that.

[McTodd]

(original post: 27 Nov 2007 03:00 pm)

Apr 24, 2008 19:44:09 GMT -6 Model Man said:

In the case of the US platform, look close (using some imaging tricks) and those seem to be missile tips sitting in the 3 slots of the front housing...

I've always felt they made more sense as orbital missile platforms; in fact, the pointy end of the US Bomb/Platform always rather reminded me of the bow of a submarine with its recessed torpedo tube caps.

Apr 24, 2008 12:50:25 GMT -6 Steven Pietrobon said:

The early script describes the Russian and US satellite as THOUSAND MEGATON NUCLEAR BOMB. You can infer what you like from the photos. I'm going with what the script says, although I agree that a satellite carrying nuclear armed missiles makes more sense. As to being non-aerodynamic, what you could be seeing is an outer shell, which is shed when the bomb is deployed.

On the other hand (just to be tediously evenhanded), if they are gigaton weapons, need they even be dropped on an enemy? A gigaton bomb going off in orbit might fry a country. Perhaps, if they are singular gigaton bombs, they need only move into a lower orbit for detonation? Such large bombs are, I suspect, rather impractical if detonated on, or near, the ground, as the curvature of the earth dissipates much of the blast and flash radius. I'm reminded of the Orion Project orbital superbomb (the 'Horrible weapon'), a theoretical bomb in orbit that could irradiate half the globe...

[Steven Pietrobon]

(original post: 27 Nov 2007 06:05 pm)

The electromagnetic pulse alone would do a lot of damage.

[Model Man]

(original post: 01 Dec 2007 04:26 am)

As Jim Layfield pointed out over at AC, the Chinese 'bomb' looks like a laser weapon rather than a bomb, or a nuke.

I'm beginning to think that they are all high energy weapons.

Consider: SK and ACC said 1kmt bombs in orbit. The concept deisgner thinks to himself 'Nuke's are so primitive! This is supposed to be nearly 40 years from now... What kind of weapons will they have then? Lasers and Death Rays! I'll design my death ray canons and tell Stan that they are bombs!'

'Are my nuke's done, designer guy?' Why yes, Stanley, they are. What do you think? Good. Send them over to the modelers so they can start building!'. 'Mwu-hahahahaha' laughs the concept artist to himself!

[SimonBP]

There are two directions it could go:

1) It could, in fact, be a bomb designed to detonate in space. There were several tests of high-altitude (nearly orbital) nuclear weapons in the 1950s, mostly with the purpose of knocking out enemy satellites and in-flight warheads with a pulse of particle radiation, which gets trapped in the earth's magnetic field, creating a death-belt that could survive for days or weeks before raining down on the poles. The EMP was just an unexpected bonus. Three or so properly placed bombs could knock out most of the world's space infrastructure (except for rad-hard military sats).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Argus

2) Or, they could be bombs to be dropped. There were quite a few proposals, ranging from the Orion battleships (positioned far from Earth and driving in to rain nuclear destruction) to the much more plausible North American space bomber (see below). Unfortunately, as plausible as it was, it still was far more expensive than an ICBM, without much greater utility (it's easier to shoot down a space bomber than hit a missile silo).

www.astronautix.com/craft/naahicle.htm

Simon

[Model Man]

Some interesting links there, Simon!
You should also paste them w/ a basic description over in the Websites Topic for easy reference.

As bombs to be dropped, disbursed structures don't survive re-entry too well, but other than that, those are most of my ideas.

For my own interpretation of the world, I'm going with beam-capable, missile platforms. I think the overall observed tech level warrants such equivalent military tech. The designs happen to work well that way if you want them to.

I'll always call them nukes, but I really mean beam-capable, missile platforms.

ps. And now that I think of it, they likely have great ECM, EECM, optical, infrared, thermographic, micromillimeter and more in the optics dept, neverminding the command and control abilities of such apparently monstrous structures. And if they're controlled by 9000 series-level computers? Dammmm, yo!

[evapodman]

Just to let everyone know I have started a thread in the "All the rest forum" that I call "What if".

Basically it arose over questions I had about the chinese and french satellites that Adam Johnson has created (with more on the way!). How big were they, how were they boosted into orbit and what kind of orbits did they have?

Adam with his insider info of the aerospace industry will post stuff and there is already a picture of how using modern technology one satellite could have been deployed.

With enough input this thread could create a whole forum supporting severeal threads of thought.

[jim]

My late 2c worth-as was pointed out I mentioned on Atomic city that the Chinese Platform looked like an energy weapon,and the instructions on the French kit refer to 1 part as a 'laser emitter' at the nose of the satellite.However,in the book version of 2010 Clarke rewrites the starchild's detonation of 1 weapon and clearly describes imploding explsive lenses ie a nuke.Maybe these were explosive-pumped directed energy weapons like Edward Teller's Super Excalibur project.Then again,theres the scale question-Stargazers Orion with deploying bomb makes the American device 5 metres or less in length,and it doesnt have the cluster of engines seen on the others.Maybe the US 'chose' a constellation of one-shot small devices like the Brilliant Pebbles concept,but the others are all much bigger 'battle stations'-when I first saw the film.I assumed some were manned as they seemed to have a common design feature of a cabin mounted on the side of a much larger structure.

[scotpens]

Apr 23, 2008 18:49:09 GMT -6 Model Man said:

(original post: 26 Nov 2007 04:26 pm)

Way back when, folk referred to anything nuclear as 'THE Bomb' (even when it was actually a missile, as in 'Inter-Continental Ballistic'...). Consequently, in the mid-sixties mindset, the film referred to these as orbiting 'bombs' and not 'weapons platforms', 'killer satellites' or any other words we would more correctly use in these more enlightened days.

Early drafts of the 2001 script, as well as Arthur Clarke's novelization, may have referred to the orbiting weapon platforms as "bombs," but the final version of the film did not. In the movie, the leader of the ape-man group throws a bone in the air, which famously jump-cuts to a satellite in low Earth orbit, followed by shots of three more satellites. There are no references to the purpose of these devices, either visually or in the dialogue. Seeing the movie for the first time, most of the audience (myself included) probably assumed the satellites were for the usual purposes (communications, weather observation, space research, espionage). Unless you were a tech geek or employed in the defense or aerospace industries, it's unlikely you would have known they were meant to be nuclear weapons.

[lunadude]

Feb 27, 2009 22:57:34 GMT -6 scotpens said:

(original post: 26 Nov 2007 04:26 pm)
...Unless you were a tech geek or employed in the defense or aerospace industries, it's unlikely you would have known they were meant to be nuclear weapons.

Yep, I'm a tech geek and work in the aerospace industry. You've pegged my demographic.

Welcome aboard, scotpens.

[evapodman]

While it is true that the satellites seen in the movie were never specified as orbiting nuclear platforms, (I know I never thought that when I first saw the movie), that was Kubricks intention.

The reason this was never pointed out in the movie was that Kubrick thought people would relate too much to his previous work, Dr. Strangelove.

It was his premise that the world in 2001 would exist in a balance of terror much like it did in the 60's only with more technology to aid it. Many people seriously thought that orbiting nuclear platforms were the next logical step in the arms race. ( See Asssignment:Earth from ST:TOS).

But there are other parts in the movie that were never spelled out that have become canon. The space shuttle and lunar shuttle were never named in the movie but now we have accepted the Orion shuttle and Aires IB as proper names for them. The only spacecraft named is the Discovery, which was officially listed as XD-1 (X-ray Delta one) in one of the scenes.

While the purpose of the satellites was never spelled out in the movie we do know from other sources their purpose. So it is perfectly legit to speculate on how they were built and how they were planned to be used.