They only used Baikonur because launching from high latitudes really limits your options in terms what orbits you can launch into, if they're just planning to drop Soyuz's onto Kyiv then it doesn't really matter.
>but what if he's right
the Russians could drop a couple dozen barrel bombs on Kyiv from Kazakhstan which...why are we just assuming Kazakhstan allows this?
Well they say they have 7 minutes from a phone call between the current and prior bosses of roskosmos, talking about the direction from which to attack kyiv and how much explosives they can stuff into the rocket.
translating the test below the pic because i think its funny >Soyuz-Rocket takes off in the direction of the ISS in 2018. According to Bild information crazy russians want to turn one of these rocket into a mega-weapon to use against ukraine
Soyuz is a stretched R7 ICBM. It's a terrible missile because it has a response time measured in hours, but if you did insist on putting a bomb on top it could lob 30 tons or so? You'd need a reentry vehicle too.
>You'd need a reentry vehicle too.
just don't fill the fuel tanks all the way so it never goes into space, surely they could just calculate the arc needed and fire it like a ballistic missile
Isnt Soyuz an incredibly slow missile because of its mass? It was never designed to reach high speeds in atmosphere and the only way its an effective missile for ground targets is yeeting it groundwards at hypersonic speeds and hoping you hit the general area.
>Isnt Soyuz an incredibly slow missile because of its mass?
It ends up at 7.8km/s which is plenty fast, it has to obviously to reach orbital velocity. If it's possible to optimize it for ballistic dunno, but the raw delta-v is there. >It was never designed to reach high speeds in atmosphere
What do you mean by "in atmosphere"? Like above 100k feet air resistance already getting pretty minimal as far as aerodynamic pressure. Max-Q is way lower. If it's flying an arc I don't think that'd be the limit. >and the only way its an effective missile for ground targets is yeeting it groundwards at hypersonic speeds and hoping you hit the general area.
FWIW just out of curiosity, but a quick search showed me that Apollo capsules executed splashdown with misses of as little as 1800 feet. SpaceX seems to be under a half mile. So maybe it's possible to bring a modified payload down from orbit without slowing down within a small enough CEP to hit a city.
Militarily it'd be useless, but if Russia just wants a propaganda/terror weapon maybe it'd work. I mean, it'd be absolutely fucking retarded for a hundred reasons anons have already covered, but hard to take much comfort in "that's so retarded surely Russia would never do it!" at this point.
From what Ive understood these space travel missiles are simply unoptimized for adjustments in a thicker atmosphere. Basically it lacks any ability to maneuver while traveling to the target without getting blown up and it will likely be far worse than SpaceX as Russia is having gps issues too. It would just be a really expensive conventional strike that would send NORAD into a tizzy as it in concept would actually be terrifying if it had a nuke.
>From what Ive understood these space travel missiles are simply unoptimized for adjustments in a thicker atmosphere. Basically it lacks any ability to maneuver while traveling to the target without getting blown up and it will likely be far worse than SpaceX as Russia is having gps issues too.
What I was imagining was it as a kind of ghetto orbital strike, basically replacing the Soyuz module with a reentry vehicle that doesn't decelerate, packed with explosive. >It would just be a really expensive conventional strike
Yeah absolutely, it's really, really retarded. 7 tons of explosive would certainly be a big boom by conventional standards but nothing THAT impressive, and for $100+ million or whatever one of their launches costs now. It's so fucking dumb and makes me feel fucking dumb for even trying to take it a little seriously and also hate that I can't entirely dismiss it because Russia has been so fucking dumb.
The sooner they are reduced to iron age the better. Though >that would send NORAD into a tizzy as it in concept would actually be terrifying if it had a nuke.
Eh, not really. Seriously. It's militarily useless even with a nuke onboard, ICBMs and SLBMs do way, way better. A single nuke somewhere in the US would suck but at the same time it's not an existential threat the way thousands would be, and doesn't threaten second strike capability in even the tiniest way.
Lol do you guys understand what this means? russia doesn't even have any ICBM left to even hit Kyiv just with a conventional warhead.
They have to salvage a soyuz rocket and turn it back into an ICBM because they have nothing else. Their entire ICBM stockpile is non-existent
As much as I hate to say it nah, this has nothing to do with that anon even in the unlikely event that it's true. Liquid fueled orbital rocket launch looks nothing like an ICBM launch in trajectory. And that would be the only conceivable reason to do it that way, specifically to NOT make everyone think they were launching an ICBM.
>Likely Drunk Russians going "You know what if we use like, the Rocket, the one we go into space to bomb the Ukienazis!!!" >Jihad Julian "ITS HAPPENING ITS HAPPENING!!!!! ITS OGRE UKRAINE IS FINISHED!!!!!!"
Remember Zelensky himself said a lot of stupid shit last year about attacking Russia in private and nothing happened.
>Remember Zelensky himself said a lot of stupid shit last year about attacking Russia in private
Olena, you have better things to do than post on PrepHole
He was absolutely right though. Attacking Russia and taking Belgorod would’ve been a smart move. The Wagner mutiny and the loss of Belgorod would’ve been the end of Putin.
A Soyuz launch costs anywhere from 50 to 225 million dollars per launch, somehow doubt Russia can afford to use them as regular military delivery systems
Even if you abandon that consideration, the fact is that Russia is dependent of Kazakstan for launch access and with Kazakstan’s pivot to China away from Russia, this would be the perfect excuse for Kazakstan to fulfill their promise to lock Roscosmos out of Baikonur like they were threatening to do around the time Russia decided to play space pirate with that British satellite.
As someone who works in the industry, I did see this article and it did catch my eye, but seeing that it's a German tabloid doesn't give me a huge amount of confidence.
On the flip side of that, Rogozin is verifiably insane, so anything with his name attached to it has to be taken slightly seriously.
On a technical level, it's possible to do yes, but retarded for all of the aforementioned reasons that anons have pointed out. Soyuz fairings, like most fairings, aren't designed for descent heating, they're designed for at most ascent heating which will peak and then curve off rapidly. You'd need a dedicated, steerable reentry vehicle. The anons talking about SpaceX and Apollo capsule landings discount that those vehicles had offset centers of mass that allowed a lift vector to form. Engineering something like that for Soyuz is technically possible, but the effort would be better spent, say, modifying a Satan re-entry vehicle for conventional explosives and lobbing that instead. Or engineering better guided missiles. Or engineering a way out of the retarded war you got yourself into.
does Rogozin not actually know what an ICBM is
the history of the Soyuz rocket?
As another anon said only point of this retarded idea even in theory would exclusively be to pull off such a thing without actually launching an ICBM and setting off a response. They could do an orbit that didn't even pass over the US at all on its single pass. It'd be a huge waste but fuck I dunno maybe in demented Tsar Monke's rotting mind it'd be some sort of ebin propaganda victory.
In total seriousness I have no idea what the geopolitical response would be. In one respect it'd represent a real line, the use of regular non-military orbital class rockets as a weapon delivery system, and clearly as a terror weapon on top. At the same time it wouldn't be a nuke, and precisely BECAUSE it's so fucking retarded it might not be escalatory, like, there's no way they could scale it to anything serious. It'd never present any strategic threat to America or Europe at all, as a military weapon it'd be trash. So perhaps it wouldn't do a lot beyond prompt more patriots in response or something, actually wonder if anything US has already given them could intercept the reentry vehicle.
Kinda hard to see anyone not already sanctioning Russia being moved by it, the bugs and poos aren't going to clamp down over anything short of a nuke. Maybe it'd juice Western support again a little.
No it's not you fucking retard. Please understand that "ICBM" isn't just a cool random assortment of letters it's an acronym, it actually means something. ICBMs do not orbit.
Turning every Russian satellite into a valid target
wb debris?
>Bild
TOTAL MEDIA DESTRUCTION
Tacit admission that there will no longer be a Russian space program I guess.
*RATGEBER*
>Gesundheir
Sounds like a good excuse to shoot down anything these backwards motherfuckers try to get off the ground. Russians don't deserve the power of flight.
Where would they even launch these from? I though they lost access to the launch site in Kazakhstan that they were previously using.
They only used Baikonur because launching from high latitudes really limits your options in terms what orbits you can launch into, if they're just planning to drop Soyuz's onto Kyiv then it doesn't really matter.
They launch from there but have to pay a bribe regularly
they didn't pay the bribe recently and the Khazaks shut them out
>have to pay a bribe regularly
Interesting way to say "rent"
any reason you cropped the author?
>jihadi julian
Every. Fucking. Time.
>Julian Röped
the thread should've ended here it might as well be a Kim Dotcom article
Julian is a sperg, but what if he's right.
This scheme is stupid enough for the russians to atleast try.
>but what if he's right
the Russians could drop a couple dozen barrel bombs on Kyiv from Kazakhstan which...why are we just assuming Kazakhstan allows this?
There is an actual recording, cope: https://files.catbox.moe/opzly7.MP4
inb4 not knowing russian on /k/
>inb4 not knowing russian on /k/
Why do you expect me to know savage tongues?
Yeah it's basic russophobic curriculum
>he hasn't been learning Russian all year
Atleast post the full article, you retard.
Dumping, someone not as lazy as me better translate.
Well they say they have 7 minutes from a phone call between the current and prior bosses of roskosmos, talking about the direction from which to attack kyiv and how much explosives they can stuff into the rocket.
translating the test below the pic because i think its funny
>Soyuz-Rocket takes off in the direction of the ISS in 2018. According to Bild information crazy russians want to turn one of these rocket into a mega-weapon to use against ukraine
Is it worth totalling your nation's already unsteady space capabilities?
How much does a explosive-laden Soyuz cost compared to a purpose built ICBM?
Soyuz is a stretched R7 ICBM. It's a terrible missile because it has a response time measured in hours, but if you did insist on putting a bomb on top it could lob 30 tons or so? You'd need a reentry vehicle too.
>You'd need a reentry vehicle too.
just don't fill the fuel tanks all the way so it never goes into space, surely they could just calculate the arc needed and fire it like a ballistic missile
>What if missile but bigger?
Hitler would be proud
Isnt Soyuz an incredibly slow missile because of its mass? It was never designed to reach high speeds in atmosphere and the only way its an effective missile for ground targets is yeeting it groundwards at hypersonic speeds and hoping you hit the general area.
>Isnt Soyuz an incredibly slow missile because of its mass?
It ends up at 7.8km/s which is plenty fast, it has to obviously to reach orbital velocity. If it's possible to optimize it for ballistic dunno, but the raw delta-v is there.
>It was never designed to reach high speeds in atmosphere
What do you mean by "in atmosphere"? Like above 100k feet air resistance already getting pretty minimal as far as aerodynamic pressure. Max-Q is way lower. If it's flying an arc I don't think that'd be the limit.
>and the only way its an effective missile for ground targets is yeeting it groundwards at hypersonic speeds and hoping you hit the general area.
FWIW just out of curiosity, but a quick search showed me that Apollo capsules executed splashdown with misses of as little as 1800 feet. SpaceX seems to be under a half mile. So maybe it's possible to bring a modified payload down from orbit without slowing down within a small enough CEP to hit a city.
Militarily it'd be useless, but if Russia just wants a propaganda/terror weapon maybe it'd work. I mean, it'd be absolutely fucking retarded for a hundred reasons anons have already covered, but hard to take much comfort in "that's so retarded surely Russia would never do it!" at this point.
From what Ive understood these space travel missiles are simply unoptimized for adjustments in a thicker atmosphere. Basically it lacks any ability to maneuver while traveling to the target without getting blown up and it will likely be far worse than SpaceX as Russia is having gps issues too. It would just be a really expensive conventional strike that would send NORAD into a tizzy as it in concept would actually be terrifying if it had a nuke.
>From what Ive understood these space travel missiles are simply unoptimized for adjustments in a thicker atmosphere. Basically it lacks any ability to maneuver while traveling to the target without getting blown up and it will likely be far worse than SpaceX as Russia is having gps issues too.
What I was imagining was it as a kind of ghetto orbital strike, basically replacing the Soyuz module with a reentry vehicle that doesn't decelerate, packed with explosive.
>It would just be a really expensive conventional strike
Yeah absolutely, it's really, really retarded. 7 tons of explosive would certainly be a big boom by conventional standards but nothing THAT impressive, and for $100+ million or whatever one of their launches costs now. It's so fucking dumb and makes me feel fucking dumb for even trying to take it a little seriously and also hate that I can't entirely dismiss it because Russia has been so fucking dumb.
The sooner they are reduced to iron age the better. Though
>that would send NORAD into a tizzy as it in concept would actually be terrifying if it had a nuke.
Eh, not really. Seriously. It's militarily useless even with a nuke onboard, ICBMs and SLBMs do way, way better. A single nuke somewhere in the US would suck but at the same time it's not an existential threat the way thousands would be, and doesn't threaten second strike capability in even the tiniest way.
if it even somehow gets to its destination without being shot down
Is there a single undamaged building in Kiev left?
99% of them?
>Source: Das Tägliche Mail
Die.
The R-7 that the launcher is based on was originally designed as an ICBM.
This is totally stupid though I doubt they would do this.
Lol do you guys understand what this means? russia doesn't even have any ICBM left to even hit Kyiv just with a conventional warhead.
They have to salvage a soyuz rocket and turn it back into an ICBM because they have nothing else. Their entire ICBM stockpile is non-existent
As much as I hate to say it nah, this has nothing to do with that anon even in the unlikely event that it's true. Liquid fueled orbital rocket launch looks nothing like an ICBM launch in trajectory. And that would be the only conceivable reason to do it that way, specifically to NOT make everyone think they were launching an ICBM.
>Likely Drunk Russians going "You know what if we use like, the Rocket, the one we go into space to bomb the Ukienazis!!!"
>Jihad Julian "ITS HAPPENING ITS HAPPENING!!!!! ITS OGRE UKRAINE IS FINISHED!!!!!!"
Remember Zelensky himself said a lot of stupid shit last year about attacking Russia in private and nothing happened.
>Remember Zelensky himself said a lot of stupid shit last year about attacking Russia in private
Olena, you have better things to do than post on PrepHole
He was absolutely right though. Attacking Russia and taking Belgorod would’ve been a smart move. The Wagner mutiny and the loss of Belgorod would’ve been the end of Putin.
>Mega-Angriff
Kek. German is such a beautiful language.
SEXOOOO~
gigajihad
Gigagay
don't they have, you know....actual MRBMs and IMRBs for that job?
A Soyuz launch costs anywhere from 50 to 225 million dollars per launch, somehow doubt Russia can afford to use them as regular military delivery systems
yeah if there was any discussion about this they would be drunken hypotheticals. it isn't a cost effective weapon
Even if you abandon that consideration, the fact is that Russia is dependent of Kazakstan for launch access and with Kazakstan’s pivot to China away from Russia, this would be the perfect excuse for Kazakstan to fulfill their promise to lock Roscosmos out of Baikonur like they were threatening to do around the time Russia decided to play space pirate with that British satellite.
It would absolutely lose them access to space.
>It would absolutely lose them access to space.
Not if they load a T-72 with even more explosives before it gets hit.
Read as
>Russian Strategic Rocket Forces so depleted that they have to consider resorting to 1960s ICBMs
cover for putin's looming departure for the one place not corrupted by capitalism
As someone who works in the industry, I did see this article and it did catch my eye, but seeing that it's a German tabloid doesn't give me a huge amount of confidence.
On the flip side of that, Rogozin is verifiably insane, so anything with his name attached to it has to be taken slightly seriously.
On a technical level, it's possible to do yes, but retarded for all of the aforementioned reasons that anons have pointed out. Soyuz fairings, like most fairings, aren't designed for descent heating, they're designed for at most ascent heating which will peak and then curve off rapidly. You'd need a dedicated, steerable reentry vehicle. The anons talking about SpaceX and Apollo capsule landings discount that those vehicles had offset centers of mass that allowed a lift vector to form. Engineering something like that for Soyuz is technically possible, but the effort would be better spent, say, modifying a Satan re-entry vehicle for conventional explosives and lobbing that instead. Or engineering better guided missiles. Or engineering a way out of the retarded war you got yourself into.
As another anon said only point of this retarded idea even in theory would exclusively be to pull off such a thing without actually launching an ICBM and setting off a response. They could do an orbit that didn't even pass over the US at all on its single pass. It'd be a huge waste but fuck I dunno maybe in demented Tsar Monke's rotting mind it'd be some sort of ebin propaganda victory.
In total seriousness I have no idea what the geopolitical response would be. In one respect it'd represent a real line, the use of regular non-military orbital class rockets as a weapon delivery system, and clearly as a terror weapon on top. At the same time it wouldn't be a nuke, and precisely BECAUSE it's so fucking retarded it might not be escalatory, like, there's no way they could scale it to anything serious. It'd never present any strategic threat to America or Europe at all, as a military weapon it'd be trash. So perhaps it wouldn't do a lot beyond prompt more patriots in response or something, actually wonder if anything US has already given them could intercept the reentry vehicle.
Kinda hard to see anyone not already sanctioning Russia being moved by it, the bugs and poos aren't going to clamp down over anything short of a nuke. Maybe it'd juice Western support again a little.
it's an ICBM though
No it's not you fucking retard. Please understand that "ICBM" isn't just a cool random assortment of letters it's an acronym, it actually means something. ICBMs do not orbit.
using the modern Soyuz to launch explosives at Kiev would not be an orbit either
and plenty of modern and historic ICBMs are orbit-capable
does Rogozin not actually know what an ICBM is
the history of the Soyuz rocket?
>Mega-Angriff
Why do Germans sound like 90s teenagers trying to be cool?
It's just Bild catering to the intellectual underclass.
Omg the moon crash was just a testrun
Putin is 10 steps ahead