Have you ever saw Orion's trejactory? Skipping is NOT to gain range, but to reduce thermal load. US skip re-entry was an old controverse, be it Apollo or Orion, both capsules' peak altitude after first entry were far below the definition of atomeshere boundry (Karman line), that is shown by NASA's own document.
Chinese Hypersonic Developments (HGVs/HCMs)
- Thread starter A.Man
- Start date
Look at all your useless rhetoric. You don't need to perfectly model it to understand why the shape alone of a DF-21D vs DF-17 vs CHGV (again, not a real HGV based on shape alone) helps contribute significantly to defining the likely min and max of all the various performance characteristics, including maneuverability (and hence ability to hit a moving target). It's literally lift force and drag. If your job is to design, prototype, and test the HGV, you obviously need hypersonic wind tunnels and supercomputers. We are not doing that here so you can't hide behind the fact that you don't have access to either. We are just trying to teach you that basic principles of three dimensional shape define the upper and lower limits of maneuverability. Combine that with propellant choice, coating, and materials (from which you can roughly define the likely upper and lower limits of drag and total mass), and you have a really good idea of the likely performance characteristics without needing to model it down to perfect detail.
While the DF-17 is an HGV and U9 is a super car, you'd be hard pressed to argue to anyone with a higher IQ than you that a CHGV is an HGV or a Ford pickup truck is a super car. Just because someone takes something and gives it a label doesn't mean the labeled object is actually what it is being presented as. As far as it pertains to aerodynamics, form follows function.
Last edited:
I have read the detailed book written by designers that includes fomulars, calculation results, digrams and conclusions.
My problem with you are:
- Demanding others (me) to provide substance while yourself constantly argue based on "if I have to guess", "maybe" etc.
- Twisting (lying) others word to fit your defence, such as accusing me "blaming HTV2's failure on boosters" which I never said.
- Lying about what you just said, first suggesting "DF-17 is developed from DF-16" then claiming "never said modification of ballistic missile".
- Throwing in unsustained claim "skip reentry of LRHW". Fail to provide evidents after being repeatedly refuted and against fact presented.
Last edited:
If I were a mod, I'd have banned him already for trying to use pure rhetoric to argue why basic principles of math and physics are wrong. Truly a journalism or English major with a below average intelligence. Up is down and left is right.
The Lockheed Martin video I posted before. If you disagree with it having a skip, please provide another source on its trajectory.
The Karman line is an arbitrary metric. I don't know why you keep bringing it up. Apollo was considered not a true skip re-entry because it never raised its altitude. Obviously skipping for range doesn't make sense for civilian spacecraft, because range doesn't as much matter for spacecraft. It does, however matter for weapons.
I have never disputed that the gliding shape of the DF-17 is better. In fact, I have said it is better repeatedly in previous posts. My question now to you is whether or not you believe the LRHW has a glide phase. Yes or no?
Why not provide a link to your post if you posted it before? You have to provide evidence of your claim before demanding evidence of refutation. Isn't that the proper order of debate?
If you have no firm metric, how could you even make a claim of skip, skip above what? You did say "skip out of atomashere", didn't you? BTW, above Karman line the atomaspheric drag is considered to be ignorable for flying object, so it is not arbitrary for engineers.
Apparently you are making things up, Apollo-4 did raise its altitude, just not very much to qualify a skip. Another evidence that you persist to making up things. I will have to throw this on your face. This is from NASA document. It is unclear to me if this trajectory was ever used after Apollo-4.
Anther of your brainstorm?
Where did I denied that? Are you trying AGAIN to stuff words in others?
I have repeatedly said that any warhead that does not follow perfect ballistic trajectory has a "gliding phase", start with MaRV and including a pebble I throw. Did you not read or delibrately ignored the other words I said, this "glide" (CHGV) is not that glide (DF-17 or HTV2). What do you not understand? English?
Last edited:
I think the problem is probably that he only understands English and nothing else. Not basic math. Not basic physics. Nothing. So everything he engages with ends up being weaseled into a direction of pure rhetoric, he said she said, etc. He's a worm.
Conic design is a natural evolution of MaRV type, they work on much similar fashion. Wedged glider is a much larger step away. If MaRV is Homo Habilis, CHGB is Homo erectus, Wedged glider is Homo Sapien.
I don't know if China ever seriously studied conical "HGV". I speculate that considering China has gained lot experience from DF-21 that works very similar to CHGB type, China sees no reason to repeat something that doesn't add much value and the experience gained from DF-21 is enough to move to the next step.
Last edited:
That's what I was saying to begin with. That they don't have anything equal to the DF-21D or DF-26, so it makes sense for them to make something similar. Fill that capability gap. But these retards can't accept that and have to take at face value and put on airs that the CHGV is equivalent to the DF-17 when the aerodynamic profiles are obviously nothing alike. So pathetic. It's the equivalent of taking a minivan, calling it a super car, and implying it can match or beat a U9. And then when you call them out on that shit, they argue back "BUT THE SALESMAN SAID IT'S A SUPER CAR, SO YOU'RE WRONG." Monkeys.
I agree that war is not a measure of just individual units. The Pentagon is aiming for each of these to cost $50 million a pop though and I'd put my money on $150 million to $200 million instead, given their historical track record. On top of that, I would bet money they will not even come close to producing these in numbers competitive with China. They just don't do "fast" anymore. They only do slow and overpriced.
Last edited: