Re:Deliberately optimizing for harm
by R0b0t1 on Wednesday March 16, 2022 @11:54PM
(#30707488)
A solid rocket engine. It's not hard. Did you mean missiles or drones?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Deliberately optimizing for harm
by openasocket on Thursday March 17, 2022 @02:22PM
(#30714308)
You're going to have serious troubles implementing a cruise missile with a range in the hundreds of miles with a solid rocket engine. While most cruise missiles use a solid booster to launch the missile and get it up to the proper speed and altitude, you need an engine to sustain flight. You also need a propulsion mechanism that allows you to control thrust, which a solid engine wouldn't. To my knowledge there is no cruise missile in existence that uses just a solid rocket engine. In theory you could get into the hundreds of miles with just a booster if you use it to get up to a significant altitude and glide the rest of the way. But that largely defeats the purpose of a cruise missile: traveling at low altitude to avoid enemy radar.
Of course, you can definitely make a BALLISTIC missile with a couple hundred mile range using a solid rocket engine, and probably for fairly cheap (especially if you don't particularly care about accuracy)
Re:Deliberately optimizing for harm
by stickfigure on Thursday March 17, 2022 @11:00PM
(#30718336)
> BALLISTIC missile
Also: Scud missiles are comparable, made outside western cost inflation, and still ~$1M each. So I'm guessing you can't get a ballistic missile anywhere near $10k (at least, not one that isn't more likely to kill its owner).