SpaceX's Dragon capsule captured by ISS

[Joseph Chikva]

Line 4 of that old Arab proverb:

"He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool; shun him".

Joe ain't a student. You can't teach him. He is a fool. Shun him.

Yes, I am fool, Mr. Kiteman, because I did not believe you when you was going to create enrichment facility in several thousands dollars, I did not believe you when you duplicated so popular here in board nonsense about possibility of 10 kt TNT equivalent explosion. Is TOKAMAK a weapon of mass destruction?
I am fool because do not believe ladajo but believe Draper Lab, etc.
You are right, I am not student for a long tome, I am always open for learning. But you can teach me nothing. As for teaching you should know more. And knowing well manuals does not mean knowledge of theory.

[Robthebob]

ohhhh soap opera

[polyill]

Gimme' a brake... an "opera"! This is hardly a provincial vaudeville lasting too long to even smile at it. This thread supposed to be about SpaceX and stuff, yet it became another thread derailed by the Georgian expert.

ladajo, why do you even try!? Are you amused by it or you just can't behave yourself?

[Joseph Chikva]

Gimme' a brake... an "opera"! This is hardly a provincial vaudeville lasting too long to even smile at it. This thread supposed to be about SpaceX and stuff, yet it became another thread derailed by the Georgian expert.

ladajo, why do you even try!? Are you amused by it or you just can't behave yourself?

Very nice my Jewish Russian speaking friend. Am I wrong?
Please answer about real effectiveness of your newest Iron Dome defense system. Not some of Hezbollah rockets hitted your Northern cities/settlements?
ladago spoke about succesful SDI program. In what that was successful? Imagine that instead of Hezbollah you are under Iranian fire. Almost all ladajo's points here were wrong.
1. "We more accurate missiles and after launching of SDI program we achieved decaying of SU". I see more dangerous competitor for USA today. That is China. Why not decaying? Or SDI was only against USSR?
But by my "Georgian expert estimation" there is not any effective anti-ballistic missile defense system. Regardless to long text how many warheads carries US Submarine. Russian submarines also carry may be not 200+ warheads but enough for massive punch.

2. "We are champions in CEP for ICBM". Where and when championship was conducted?

3. "Shuttle can something that other systems can not" "What" "This is a secret" If secret why does high rank military man speak? There is not any secret as program cancelled by US Government I am sure on base of real experts conclusions.

Should I go on?

[hanelyp]

I recall being told that even now INS is never used alone, there's always something part way through to check how it's doing, otherwise you have limits on how accurate you can be, no matter how good your INS is.

Which suggests that comprehensive missile defense need not stop at intercepting the missile, but may include means to obstruct those supplemental navigation inputs. A warhead with compromised guidance can't be counted on to take out a hardened target.

If a first strike can't take out the enemy's means to retaliate, starting a nuclear exchange is flat suicidal.

[ladajo]

Gimme' a brake... an "opera"! This is hardly a provincial vaudeville lasting too long to even smile at it. This thread supposed to be about SpaceX and stuff, yet it became another thread derailed by the Georgian expert.

ladajo, why do you even try!? Are you amused by it or you just can't behave yourself?

My altruistic nature? I really don't know anymore. Maybe I just have a hard time accepting without comment glaring stupendous errors.

Joseph, I well know that direct blunt comments escape you. But, I will try one more time.

I am saying that a missile defense system does not need to be 100% effective or even close to it to have significant effectiveness. This point entirely escapes you.

But it would seem that war planning in its entirety escapes you as well.

Another point; Do you really think that Draper is going to post Special Access Program or Sensitive Technology Information on the internet? Come on Joseph, you are smarter than that.

There are many ways to navigate Joseph, and you seem to think that Inertial is the only thing going. Even if you try and expand your reality a smidge and accept that Updated Inertial could be updated by many means, you could discover a whole new reality by accident.
Or you can continue to insist that you can find on the internet, everything you need to know about US strategic systems.
Yes it is true, on the internet you can find many references talking about how missiles can be/are guided by INS, and INS with Astronomical Update. Maybe you should wonder exactly how good this method can be, and, if there are other ways to do it, either separately or in concert. But that would require critical thinking on your part. Something you seem to lack.

But, what do I know?
One thing I know for sure is that you do not know what you are talking about on this topic. Have you ever even been to Draper? I have. It is near one of my favorite places, Lincoln Labs. And I love going to Lincoln. You know what else is not far, Endicott House. Fantastic place to stay, or have dinner. The Gun Room is fantastic. But I am guessing you have no idea about what I am talking about with this either. Google away Joseph.

[Joseph Chikva]

I am saying that a missile defense system does not need to be 100% effective or even close to it to have significant effectiveness. This point entirely escapes you.

At least program could not refuse the Mutual Destruction Concept. On base of what you state about its success? As from internet I can read the following: "The ambitious initiative was widely criticized as being unrealistic, even unscientific" Irrespective to the fact was you ever in Draper Lab or was not.
I am quoting this the second time. As on answer on the first quote you began speaking how accurate are US missiles. While there many extremely inaccurate weapons in the world that being massively used are very effective. 3000 warheads or near this number can attack you simultaneously! Need not 100% effectivness? You need not nuke war and not SDI. Only this is true.
And very dubious statement that 30 years old US missiles are still more accurate than Russian newest which are deploying today. Why are you sure that Russian do not know how to make accurate ones? Especially if taking into account dramatic progress in inertial sensors in recent years. Even if Draper do not publish all their achievements. Do you think that Russians have Draper's analog?
And again, even with 1km CEP missile with nuke warhead can destroy any city.

[KitemanSA]

Another point; Do you really think that Draper is going to post Special Access Program or Sensitive Technology Information on the internet? Come on Joseph, you are smarter than that.

Is he? I've seen little indication of that.

[polyill]

Am I wrong?

You mostly are...

Please answer about real effectiveness of your newest Iron Dome defense system. Not some of Hezbollah rockets hitted your Northern cities/settlements?

dafuq, Joseph? There is no connection between Iron Dome and Northern Israel or Iron Dome and Hizballah. Educate yourself a little:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Le ... _on_Israel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome

As for "real effectiveness", I could answer you, if I were an IDF expert, but then again, I would not be able to answer, since IDF experts do not comment on tactical properties of deployed systems... of course, to piss you off, Joseph. Not for any other reason.

So my answer is - it's really effective :p

...

Should I go on?

God forbid, no!

[Joseph Chikva]

As for "real effectiveness", I could answer you, if I were an IDF expert, but then again, I would not be able to answer, since IDF experts do not comment on tactical properties of deployed systems... of course, to piss you off, Joseph. Not for any other reason.

You need not be an expert for knowing that some rockets made in bicycle repear shops hit your cities. You could see that from the news. So, not 100% hit/kill probability. Recall that most of rockets were missed due to their extremely bad accuracy. And if those rockets are Grad rockets copies those carry 18.4 kg warhead with about 6 kg of high explosive. Only because of it damage was low.
Now ladajo says that the strategic defensive initiative is capable to change power balance even if that won't shoot down 100 % of Russian Ballistic Missiles. Russian missiles are accurate enough for hitting USA cities. If anybody doubts in it let he read this link: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/722291.pdf This is English translation of Russian book of ballistic missile guidance.
And let he also compare 6 kg HE with 50-1000 kt and may be more) TNT equivalent (10000-200000 more powerful. Would that not cause the catastrophic aftereffect? Even if only 10% of 3000 Russian warhead will meet their targets. And reality is that today or in the foreseeable future even 10% can not be intercepted. Because there is not technology allowing this. And so once again:

The ambitious initiative was widely criticized as being unrealistic, even unscientific

[ladajo]

Joseph,
You really do not have any understanding how nuclear (or any weapon type) strike planning is done. Give it up.
You are stuck in this idea that one hit is victory. You really do need to expand your conceptual perspective to think on a larger scale. In a nuclear exchange, what are the objectives? What type of exchange is being analyzed? What are the capabilities and objectives of the "other guys"? etc, and so on...

I have shown you in simple terms how any type of defensive system changes the strike planning balance. Regardless of its effectiveness, it gives thought and pause to those who would shoot. That is its point at the core. If there is no defensive system, they will not think about it.
Any system that demonstrates any level of effectiveness, be it 1%, 5%, 10%, 50%, etc will enter the thought pattern of the attacker. On small scale engagements, (like lobbing homemade gas cylinder based mortars and bicycle shop rockets into Israel) cause less thought to the attackers. But I guarantee that they give it some.
For larger scale, even global scale engagements, the thought process and planning is much more complex, and the economies scale much faster and larger. This is where even small defensive capability provides for some large returns in what the attacker must expend to seek the most success in his attack. This is also a complexity that can even reach a point where the attacker is assured failure in some cases but will still try, as getting something through is better than nothing as he seeks to meet his objectives.
Joseph, you are not a critical thinker, and you are very narrow minded and stubborn. I guess it is cultural to some degree. Although, maybe you are just not capable to understand the wider concepts I have attempted to discuss with you. Or maybe I just have not been clear enough.

At any rate, I have continued as to some degree, I am hoping it is/has been a measure of educational for others following this thread. It really has not been about you for me. No offense intended.

You still do not know what you are talking about.

[Joseph Chikva]

You are stuck in this idea that one hit is victory.

No, I am stating that on base of today's technology and even taking into account technology gap between Russia or China or any other huge nuclear capability country from one side and USA from another it is impossible for USA to avoid total destructin. And mutual destructin is not victory but that is drawn game when both players are daed.
Russians will not shoot at your silos because they know well that silos will be empty before striking. Also they know well that you have Trident carrier submarines. So, they will shoot directly at your sities.

Also I am not agree that stratgic defence iniciative gave victory on SU. SU decaied indepedently on base of internal contradictions while the initiative weakened the USA in face of China gathering economic power. You are trusting that know about what you speak but actually you are only repeating popular in the West myth.

[ladajo]

Joseph,
If you wish to discuss a "full exchange", then you must understand about which you speak.
You toss out wild assumptions that you have gathered from Hollywood and popular fiction. You really do not know what you are talking about.

Again, I repeat, the objective is the first concern.

What is your objective for a "Full Exchange"?

If it is pre-emptive, then you plan accordingly. If it is deterence, then you plan accordingly and differently, etc., and so on. You must also consider who your opponent is, what they seek for objectives, and what they are capable of. And so on.

In your "Hollywood" scenario, yes, "Mutually Assured Destruction" is the premice. However, if I was going to prosecute, or think the other guy was going to prosecute a "Full Strike", I certainly would start down the road of pre-emptive plans to not only reduce his strike capability, but if I am good, and capable, to remove it. The drama here for you Joseph, is that you really do not know what you are talking about. You really do not know much at all about "First Strike" capabilities, and defensive measures for anyone, as well as the differences in capabilities. And this is where CEP really matters. You also do not understand that planning and executing an exchange with China is different than doing so with Russia.

Being from a very small country, you may also not fully appreciate the difference in being from a very large country, where there is a significant difference from being hit by 200, 100 or 50 weapons. You also have not real idea about weapons effects, and the after. You have a clearly stated Hollywood perspective and understanding.

Once again Joseph, I will state for you clearly that no other nation enjooys the substantial advantage the US has in the ability to conduct a first strike, or retaliatory and follow on packages.

You do not know what you are talking about.

[Joseph Chikva]

You really do not know much at all about "First Strike" capabilities, and defensive measures for anyone, as well as the differences in capabilities. And this is where CEP really matters.

I do not know many things. And my post has been lost and I too leazyness to repeat it again. Difference in capabilities: I said in my previous lost post that I believe that you have access to USA secret but I do not believe that you also aware with Russian secrets. And so I do not believe that you know real CEP of their newest TOPOL. IF you state that CEP does matter.
Also I doubt in big differece of mutual destruction capabilities as Russia and USA signed several agreements on Nuke weapon limits. And I very doubt that Russian would agree on anything braking parity. Also I heard Putin's statement that augmentation of their missile "triade" (his words) is an "assimetric and cheap response" on USA's superiority in conventional weapon's systems. Your domination in this branch is only in your virtual reality and you really do not know what you are talking about.

[ladajo]

Yes, in my reality, I have almost no stress over the non-existant large russian inventory of highly accurate stealthy air/ship/submarine launched cruise missiles, and the non-existant unchallenged submarine launched ballistic missile capability, and...etc, so on.

The only chance russia has at any sort of pre-emptive strike would be submarine launch. That is assuming that they have enough submarines (at all) underway with fully functional missiles, close enough to the US, not being followed by US SSNs, with sufficiently accurate (CEP) missiles, in sufficient numbers to hit US land based missiles, and bomber bases, as well as Russian submarines actively trailing the US ballistic missile submarines, etc, and so on.

In my reality, the russians fall far short as noted above. While the US on the other hand is not far short. And in fact, far in the front. So that said, it would be instant suicide for russian to try the shot. Where-as the US might actually be able to put a pretty good dent into the russian capabilities.
Would the US do this? I think not. Simply based on the 1st Question Rule: Why? And the answer being, there is no useful objective at this time to be achieved by doing so.

Note that I did not include China is this discussion. As they are several magnitudes less capable than Russia, and not worth discussing at all really. In my opinion, the US could pre-emptive China, and pretty much get away with it. The Chinese would be lucky if they even noticed it coming at all. But again, the 1st Question Rule applies once more: Why? And again, there is currently no objective to be achieved by doing so.

To sum it up Joseph: If the US and Russia had a full exchange imminent. In my opinion, it would not surprise me if the US went pre-emptive, and by doing so greatly reduced the russian response capability. And, in the said-and-done, if Russia chooses to attempt a counter-strike with what is left, the US would take some hits, and suffer, but after the russian's counter-strike, the US counter-counter-strike would completely annihilate anything even remotely looking like russia. And then the US would still have a significant reserve arsenal.

You want to try and argue the russian road mobile systems are unfindable, blah blah blah. I want you to look up "Reverse Synthetic Aperture Radar" and also "JSTARS" and related technology. Then ask yourself, if the US has had this type of kit for as long as it has, as well and "Ground Moving Target Indicator" technology. Do you think that those "invisible" road mobile systems are that "invisible" if we want them to be?

You still do not know what you are talking about.