undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjjk1661y ago0 comments

> Like the parent says, you already know where it is.

The parent is incorrect. You know approximately where it is. If your approximation is off by some amount, you miss. How good of an approximation you have is determined by your detection equipment. How good of an approximation you need is determined by the speed. For the same detection equipment, hitting the faster moving thing is harder.

> I'm struggling to understand the case where you are further from the destination than the x37B, with an orbit 60,000km from earth.

Well yeah, that's because the x37B interception scenario is the second case, where you are much closer to the destination but going much slower.

0 comments

s1artibartfast1y ago

I thought the fundamental hypothesis under discussion here was that the x37 has the orbit to move quickly and avoid interception. It being the second case seems to rule against that hypothesis being true

jjk166OP1y ago

That is the hypothesis here, and the second case in no way rules against it.

Again to clarify, no one here is arguing that to intercept a target you have to be moving faster than the target. The argument is you have to be moving faster than the minimum speed required to hit a slower target.

In math terms, you have two targets with velocites V1 and V2. To intercept there is some minimum velocity for each, v1 and v2. This is the best case scenario, you are perfectly in position, you can launch at the earliest possible time. v1 < V1 and v2 < V2 are both true. But since V1 < V2, v1 < v2 is also true. An interceptor that can achieve v1 doesn't necessarily have the capability to achieve v2.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse