[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Video of MOAB (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 3/11/2003 4:50:10 PM EDT
|
For as much as it was hyped up to be, the video is rather disappointing. Although, it's hard to judge because the distance from the blast is unknown. [url]http://www.msnbc.com/news/883752.asp?0cv=CB10[/url] |
| The bomb fell for a good 35 seconds before it hit. From the freefall equation, a=9.8m/sec squared, not reaching terminal velocity because it weighs 21,000 pounds, factoring in a little resistance, the bomb was moving about 11,500 meters per second, given a 35 second freefall. That would hurt if it fell on you. And those Muslims thought their rags would protect their heads. What is the next heaviest? I think it is the Daisycutter, weighing in at 16,000, which to me looks just as devastating. |
|
Quoted: The bomb fell for a good 35 seconds before it hit. From the freefall equation, a=9.8m/sec squared, not reaching terminal velocity because it weighs 21,000 pounds, factoring in a little resistance, the bomb was moving about 11,500 meters per second, given a 35 second freefall. That would hurt if it fell on you. And those Muslims thought their rags would protect their heads. What is the next heaviest? I think it is the Daisycutter, weighing in at 16,000, which to me looks just as devastating. You might need to redo your calculations. I doubt that the actual bomb weighs 21000 lbs. It may have the explosive equivalent to 21000 lbs of TNT, but as far as the actual weapon weighing in at 21000 lbs....ummm, probably not. |
|
Quoted: What happened to the kaboom? There's suppose to be an earth shattering kaboom. Seems that the video cut out before the sound reached the camera. That would have given us an estimate of the distance. Ah yes! Well as a limited number (just kidding) of you know, at room temperature, the speed of sound is 1130 feet per second. I counted 19 seconds after the blast, which means the blast a little over [b]4 MILES[/b] away [b]AT LEAST[/b]. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: The bomb fell for a good 35 seconds before it hit. From the freefall equation, a=9.8m/sec squared, not reaching terminal velocity because it weighs 21,000 pounds, factoring in a little resistance, the bomb was moving about 11,500 meters per second, given a 35 second freefall. That would hurt if it fell on you. And those Muslims thought their rags would protect their heads. What is the next heaviest? I think it is the Daisycutter, weighing in at 16,000, which to me looks just as devastating. You might need to redo your calculations. I doubt that the actual bomb weighs 21000 lbs. It may have the explosive equivalent to 21000 lbs of TNT, but as far as the actual weapon weighing in at 21000 lbs....ummm, probably not. Thank you for the correction. I thought I had read that it did somewhere, but unless the bomb was under 10,000 lbs, it would not reach terminal velocity at 11,000 meters per second. |
|
Quoted: The bomb fell for a good 35 seconds before it hit. From the freefall equation, a=9.8m/sec squared, not reaching terminal velocity because it weighs 21,000 pounds, factoring in a little resistance, the bomb was moving about 11,500 meters per second, given a 35 second freefall. . . Seems just a [i]little[/i] fast to me, IMHO |
|
There is 18,000 lbs of explosives in the bomb. It does weigh 21,000 lbs. Its a 9 kiloton explosion, about half Hiroshima. I doubt it was going 11,500 m/sec. That is 7.19 miles per second or 25,875 mph. At that velocity it could escape orbit. Uh uh. No way. MOAB, privately known in military circles as "the mother of all bombs," has been under development since late last year. The bomb carries 18,000 pounds of tritonal explosives, which have an indefinite shelf life. It replaces the Vietnam-era "Daisy Cutter," a 15,000-pound bomb with 12,600 pounds of the less-powerful GSX explosives. From CNN. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: The bomb fell for a good 35 seconds before it hit. From the freefall equation, a=9.8m/sec squared, not reaching terminal velocity because it weighs 21,000 pounds, factoring in a little resistance, the bomb was moving about 11,500 meters per second, given a 35 second freefall. . . Seems just a [i]little[/i] fast to me, IMHO You ever jumped out of a two story window? Me either. It's actually not that far, just that gravity is a bitch. The pull of gravity is exponential, so every second that you fall, you are moving 9.8 meters per second faster. A one second fall would yield ten meters per second impact velocity, (roughly 30 feet per second for us shooters), however a two second fall would yield 40 (120 feet per second)meters per second impact velocity. Three seconds, 88 meters per second, or 270 feet per second. Pretty fast. |
|
Quoted: There is 18,000 lbs of explosives in the bomb. It does weigh 21,000 lbs. Its a 9 kiloton explosion, about half Hiroshima. I doubt it was going 11,500 m/sec. That is 7.19 miles per second or 25,875 mph. At that velocity it could escape orbit. Uh uh. No way. MOAB, privately known in military circles as "the mother of all bombs," has been under development since late last year. The bomb carries 18,000 pounds of tritonal explosives, which have an indefinite shelf life. It replaces the Vietnam-era "Daisy Cutter," a 15,000-pound bomb with 12,600 pounds of the less-powerful GSX explosives. From CNN. 9 kiloton. 9 thousand tons. 9 tons. is what this has. So about 1/5000 of Hiroshima Or am I screwing this up. |
|
this thing might do 300 mph MAX. Air resistance is a bitch to overcome, and gravity can only do so much. Terminal velocity is not one number like the speed of light, it is in reverence to the object. The terminal velocity of me is much lower than that of an aerodynamic missle falling with no power. And the bomb is 21000 LBS of tnt, or 10 tons. Not 20 KILOTONS. This means that the original Japanese shake and bake was 2000 times more powerful than this bomb. And the 2nds shake and bake was 1000 times more powerful. Its a big bomb, but nowehere near even a artillery nuke. (5kton) TXL |
| Captain, I am discussing freefall. Free fall = vacuum. I am aware of an average human's terminal velocity, but to make it much simpler (but certainly not as accurate), I am discussing in the much simpler free fall equation. To calculate that speed, you need to know its dimensions, approximate height from where it was dropped, temperature surrounding the bomb at all stages of the fall, everything. And put that in to one big ass equation. |
|
Quoted: Captain, I am discussing freefall. Free fall = vacuum. I am aware of an average human's terminal velocity, but to make it much simpler (but certainly not as accurate), I am discussing in the much simpler free fall equation. To calculate that speed, you need to know its dimensions, approximate height from where it was dropped, temperature surrounding the bomb at all stages of the fall, everything. And put that in to one big ass equation. OK, Einstein, come back to Earth. Again, v=at Don't get too crazy. You're not even close. IMHO |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The bomb fell for a good 35 seconds before it hit. From the freefall equation, a=9.8m/sec squared, not reaching terminal velocity because it weighs 21,000 pounds, factoring in a little resistance, the bomb was moving about 11,500 meters per second, given a 35 second freefall. . . Seems just a [i]little[/i] fast to me, IMHO You ever jumped out of a two story window? Me either. It's actually not that far, just that gravity is a bitch. The pull of gravity is exponential, so every second that you fall, you are moving 9.8 meters per second faster. A one second fall would yield ten meters per second impact velocity, (roughly 30 feet per second for us shooters), however a two second fall would yield 40 (120 feet per second)meters per second impact velocity. Three seconds, 88 meters per second, or 270 feet per second. Pretty fast. OK, Now I understand what you've done. You've somehow taken an equation that determines the [i]position[/i] of the falling bomb relative to the altitude of the bomber (y=1/2at^2) and ruined it? One gets your numbers with this: v=at^2 Right? Or what it something about temperature?:) IMHO |
|
Quoted: this is the inert test, actual loaded with explosives test will go later this week. stay tuned to this web site, the video should make its' way here soon. TRW You ARE trolling, right? Of COURSE that was the live test! (WITH exlosives!) Didn't that big fireball and huge dust/smoke cloud give it away? That looked pretty freaking huge to me. I'd estimate that the fireball covered at least a hundred to two hundred yards in every direction. I think if one of these suckers went off within five miles of you, it'd be one of those experiences that you'd never be able to forget unless you were close enough for it to have a good chance of killing you, which is probably anywhere within a mile and a half of it. A mile, anyway. Drop a few of those and watch the enemy go crazy trying to find any white piece of cloth to wave as a surrender flag! CJ |
|
Quoted: I doubt if any freefalling body could exceed the speed of sound especially in the lower atmospher. Col. Kittinger jumped from 102,000 feet and never exceeded Mach1. WWll aircraft in full power dives rarely if ever did. I thought Colonel Kittinger did exceed the speed of sound on his third jump. If I'm wrong, it'll only be the 2nd time.... (in this thread). [;)] Edited to correct a mistake in Kittinger's rank |
|
Depends what version you read. I have heard he exceeded Mach 1 but I dont think he did. Two people are planning attempts to beat his record as we speak. Cheryl Stearns, former Golden Knight and some frenchman. He is expected to surrender though. Colonel Kittinger flies banners around Orlando now. He did reach over 600mph not in true freefall. He had a small drogue. A civilian, Nick Piantanda(sp?) died around the same time trying to beat him. |
|
Quoted: "WWll aircraft in full power dives rarely if ever did." Don't believe it ever happened. I do recall hearing of a KC135 that exceeded the sound barrier, but that's another story for another time. Oh, DO TELL!! My father flew the KC-135 for almost half his Air Force career, and he flew RC-135's for most of the rest of the time. In theory, the engines on a 135 have the power to pull the airframe past mach 1, but it's not supposed to be something that you can expect to do without causing the plane to break in a most serious manner. In short, DON'T DO IT. The fastest my father ever took a KC-135 up to was the same speed that an F-104 flies at when it's in full afterburner with a flamed out engine and the speed brakes deployed, all at once. This actually happened to a 104 that was in my father's ferry group, so an emergency, high speed refueling operation commenced. He nursed the 104 all the way down to final approach before disconnecting, and the 104 still ran out of gas before landing, but landed safely and didn't bust anything. The 104 pilot got a DFC (most deservedly!!!) and my father received a commendation as well. (Possibly an Air Medal. I'd have to confirm this.) Supposedly, this refuel/rescue mission occured at about .95 mach, which is significantly over the max allowed operating speed and well into the margin of safety. And it's WELL over the speed you'd normally conduct refueling operations at! Incidentally, a 104 on AB only burns fuel as fast as a KC-135 can pump it, almost exactly. That's a considerable transfer rate. I would LOVE to hear your story. CJ |
|
Quoted: The bomb fell for a good 35 seconds before it hit. From the freefall equation, a=9.8m/sec squared, not reaching terminal velocity because it weighs 21,000 pounds, factoring in a little resistance, the bomb was moving about 11,500 meters per second, given a 35 second freefall. That would hurt if it fell on you. And those Muslims thought their rags would protect their heads. What is the next heaviest? I think it is the Daisycutter, weighing in at 16,000, which to me looks just as devastating. You might want to rework that calculation. 11.5 km/s is like mach 30. It is similar to the velocity necessary to escape earth's orbit. Even if there were no explosives on that object, the energy would be on the order of GigaJoules. If you ignore air resistance (which you can't), you would get v = at = 9.8m/s^2 * 35s which is about 350 meters per second. And no, gravity is not "exponential." |
|
Quoted: So....How big was the (fire) blast radius?? I say 500 yards, everything in that circle...ash. If you were within 1000 yards of POI you are dead. Anybody else care to speculate? While I may be a little rusty with the equations: IMHO, v=at is correct, I was explaining the a part, which is acceleration, as 9.8m/sec/sec. Ok, I was wrong, no more argument. This explosion, if the blast was loud enough to reach the camera crew, was at least four miles away. Now if it was not loud enough to reach the crew (doubt it), then I have absolutely no idea how far away it was. By the size of that explosion from four miles, I would estimate the blast radius larger than 500 yards. Anyway, hope we see more videos. Videos of this bomb in action over Baghdad! Edited to add: Zonan, you are correct. I made the mistake of squaring the seconds in my calculation, giving me 9.8 * 1225. You are correct. |
|
1kt=the explosive force of 1000 tons, or 2 million lbs, of TNT. Now, I'm sure tritonal or whatever has much more explosive force per pound than TNT, but I doubt it's a factor of 10 or more. The MOAB carries 18,000 lbs of explosive. So even if tritonal is ten times more explosive than TNT, which I doubt, it's only a .1 kt bomb. The Davy Crockett nuclear bazooka had a dialable yield between .1 and 1 kt, and it only wieghed 51 lbs. Nuclear demolition devices have a .5 kt yield, and I think they only wiegh about a hunnert lbs. Or I could be completely full of shit. |
|
Time for some corrections: Col Kittenger reached Mach 1 (714 mph) on his third jump, Aug 16, 1960, from the Excelsior III. Remember that the speed of sound is variable with altitude. He jumped from 102,800 ft, was in free fall for 4 minutes and 36 seconds, travelling 16 miles in that time. (Source: [url]http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/afp/afp200.htm[/url]) Col Kittenger making this jump: [img]http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/eagles/kitt-3.jpg[/img] Hiroshima was a 13 kiloton (2,600,000 lbs of TNT) explosion. (Source: [url]http://www.atomicmuseum.com/tour/dd2.cfm[/url] Nagasaki was a 20 kt device (40,000,000 lbs of TNT). (source: see above) MOAB does NOT have TNT--TNT is actually a very inefficient explosive compared to more modern ones. I believe from another post that it is a powdered aluminum explosive, the same stuff that goes into the solid rocket shuttle boosters. Very potent. TXLewis: The parachute is a drogue chute used to pull it out of the MC130 carrying it, then the bomb separates and goes into freefall. Hope this helps the discussion! |
|
Quoted: Time for some corrections: Col Kittenger reached Mach 1 (714 mph) on his third jump, Aug 16, 1960, from the Excelsior III. Remember that the speed of sound is variable with altitude. He jumped from 102,800 ft, was in free fall for 4 minutes and 36 seconds, travelling 16 miles in that time. Damn! Strap an MOAB to him, drop him into Mecca or Bagdad and he'd make one hell of a suicide bomber. Kind of like Slim Pickens riding the [size=4] BIG [/size=4] one in "Dr. Strangelove". |
|
Ok, does anyone actually have a 'Metric Tons of TNT' explosive-equivalent rating for it??? It's not about how much it weighs, but how much TNT would be needed to make the same 'Ka-Boom'... It has also been mentioned that this is not a FAE device, just a really BIG regular bomb... |
|
TM 9-1300-214 Explosive manual said Tritonal is 80%TNT 20% Grained Aluminum, with a blast effect of 113% to 118% that of TNT. I just found a site about OKC Bombing that said 704lbs of Tritonal equals 830lbs of TNT (about 2,200lbs of ammonium nitrate/fuel oil, which was the point of the test) if my math is right that makes the MOAB equal to around 10.6 tons of TNT. That would make it about .01 kt. I think my math is roughly correct, let me know if it isn't. I also asked my brother, the explosives geek. |