Talk:Fractional Orbital Bombardment System

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jayjohnson540.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fractional Orbital Bombardment System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091130012922/http://www.astronautix.com/craft/ogch.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/craft/ogch.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Article overhaul
I've just completed what amounts to an overhaul for the article. The lead section should probably be adapted a bit as I haven't touched it other than removing a source that was breaking one of my references for some reason. Sources could be added to the lead unless you think otherwise; everything mentioned in the lead is sourced in the body of the article anyway.

Future editors should find more substantial academic/primary sources. These could be useful in the development history section especially. I have a feeling that most of the relevant sources for this article will be written entirely in Russian (and or aren't easily available in an online format). Certainly address any inconsistencies you find in my edits if you locate a good source like this.Rime7 (talk) 04:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's a serious improvement here. I look forward to reading it, and its sources, in full detail. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The source for the line ("Theoretically, the FOBS was capable of staying in orbit indefinitely...") in the reasons for development section can be found in two places. It's most directly stated in [McCall, Gene H.; Darrah, John H. (2014). "Space Situational Awareness: Difficult, Expensive-and Necessary" (PDF). Air & Space Power Journal. Vol. 28 no. 6.] on page 8. It's also alluded to in [Goedhuis, D. 1968. «An Evaluation of the Leading Principles of the Treaty on Outer Space of 27th January 1967». Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Internationaal Recht 15 (1): 17–41. doi:10.1017/S0165070X00022920.] on page 37. I could add these in (the McCall one is actually already there, it just needs a page number), but I'm not sure how to insert sources as you've been doing and don't want to mess up the format you have in mind. Rime7 (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it's only alluded to  in both (I've read the McCall & Darrah paper). It's reasonable to claim that the system could be developed to do that, but that's far from the system as deployed being able to do so. There are several problems: could it circularise the orbit well enough to be a stable orbit? (that usually requires a further stage motor, with either throttling or more usually precise control of burn time) Could that orbit be controlled over time? That needs some degree of low-impulse thrust to adjust the orbit track and if it's a long-term orbit then it needs to be boosted intermittently too (There was much talk at the time of indefinitely orbiting deathstars, despite this being unworkable by the tech of the day.) Also these are pretty low orbits, so drag is high.   Then, how's it powered?   Batteries wouldn't last long enough. The deployed system didn't have any sort of structure for solar panels, nor a nuke RTG (it was the Soviets, after all).  The orbital management problem is tricky here, as the track matters more than it does for most satellites. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Check out the Assif A. Siddiqi source as well, specifically page 28 under the Outer Space Treaty quote:
 * "Clearly, most of the FOBS payloads did reach orbital velocity sufficient to have the OGCh capsules remain in orbit. That they did not complete a single orbit ultimately did not alter the fact that they would have remained in orbit had it not been for the retrofire burn."


 * Feel free to just remove the "indefinitely" sentence in the reasons for development section. As you've pointed out, the sources I've used are only clear on the notion that the R-36O, as it was deployed, could complete at least one full orbit and don't explicitly say more than this. I only added it because the McCall source says (on pg. 8) that the Soviet FOBS "launcher and guidance system" could put a nuclear weapon in permanent orbit (despite that not being the intention of the technology). Rime7 (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

"Parking orbit" reversion
I've just reverted a large unsourced addition:.

The problem is (as well as being unsourced) is that this is not a FOBS profile.

FOBS is well explained by the masthead image (right). It's a way of delivering a warhead rapidly, and covertly, by avoiding the high trajectory of a conventional ballistic approach. Note that this is a fractional orbit, not a complete or repeated orbit.

There have also been descriptions, in fiction at least, of "parking orbit" systems - as described in the reverted addition. However these are not supported by any real-world sources. There is no indication, outside fiction, that any such weapon systems were developed, let alone depoloyed. The R-36 / SS-9 Scarp certainly couldn't do it: it had no ability to accurately circularise an established orbit and it had no long-term power system to keep it viable in orbit (if the parking orbit can't be sustained for a long period, there's little point to doing it). Secondly, such a system might well have been developed and deployed (Putin just never returns my calls), but it would no longer be "FOBS" and shouldn't be described here as being the same thing. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

China version
To be included in the article? China is testing hypersonic missilles based on the FOBS consept. --Znuddel (talk) 09:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Cold War Science
— Assignment last updated by Ward0402 (talk) 09:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)