News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
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?
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).

Re:Deliberately optimizing for harm by R0b0t1 on Sunday March 20, 2022 @05:08AM (#30741219)
Yeah, I got confused. Those are harder to reduce cost on. I had this conversation previously about javelins, etc.