A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"Big" Missile Launched from C-17



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old October 2nd 05, 04:21 AM
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Damon Hill" wrote in message
1...
Andrew Gray wrote in
:

On 2005-09-30, Ed Kyle wrote:

I don't normally read those groups, but I did review
some of Allen's posts and was surprised to find that
the hull of this SBX U.S. Navy vessel was built in -
and I can hardly believe this - Russia(!)


The Navy does this sort of thing just to confuse you, you know ;-)

If memory serves, it was built in Russia for some Norwegians, who
eventually sold it to the US. There is a second one being built in
Russia; it'll be interesting to see if it goes via a middleman again.


Somewhere in Russia, someone is likely having another
policy snit-fit:

"Comrades, we've practically given them our best
rocket technology!" (Aerojet bought outright the N-1's
propulsion technology, lock stock and barrel, and Pratt
and Whitney/Lockheed are all over the RD-180, learning
how it ticks.)

Oh, that was Soviet-era, wasn't it? The New Capitalism
has taken over the Communist world, and Marx/Lenin et al
are likely spinning in their graves.


That's ok, they've wrapped them in copper wire, put some magnets around the
grave and are using them to power the spot lights used at night to light up
the Kremlin.

Gotta get something useful out of them.



--Damon



  #42  
Old October 2nd 05, 09:31 AM
Andrew Bunting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Allen Thomson wrote:
Oops. Make that "nope." I was reading lbs as kgs. Mea culpa.


The LRALT uses two MM II second stages, not one 1st and one 2nd stage.


BTW, the document says in Figure 2-3 that the C-17 is a "Military cargo
aircraft with capability to extract 42,000 lb."


The document is a little ambiguous. The illustration is of
a C-17 but the requirements are generic.

A C-130H can drop 42k lbs inflight ( 38k for low delivery ) so
that's the upper limit for SRALT.

A C-17 can drop 60k lbs in a single load or 110k lbs divided.
I suppose the single-load limit is due to the moment arm of the
load on the ramp.

--
Andrew Bunting

  #43  
Old October 4th 05, 04:18 AM
Mike Chan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Pat Flannery wrote:

What it would be great for is a quick-response ASAT or reconsat
launcher, as the C-17 can fly to the desired bearing and position over
the ocean, and have the spent stages fall into the sea. You do a
direct-ascent ASAT attack with a soft-kill capability and you can nail a
enemy satellite while it's outside their tracking coverage and get
plausible deniability in regards to its destruction.


Shades of the F15/MHV ASAT. I don't recall seeing any references of
its capability to launch in the southern hemisphere below the
groundtrack of the Soviet early warning sats in Molniya orbits and nail
them coming around perigee.

  #44  
Old October 4th 05, 07:54 AM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Mike Chan wrote:

Shades of the F15/MHV ASAT. I don't recall seeing any references of
its capability to launch in the southern hemisphere below the
groundtrack of the Soviet early warning sats in Molniya orbits and nail
them coming around perigee.




You stick a small, non-nuclear EMP warhead on it (we have these for
cruise missiles) get it within a mile or so of the target satellite on a
direct ascent trajectory, and set it off; for all your opponent knows
his satellite just suffered a electrical malfunction.
The debris from the interceptor missile falls back down into the sea.
Those ones in Molniya orbits would make very tempting targets at their
perigees.
The Navy Space Cruiser project was apparently designed with
quick-response covert satellite destruction in less than one orbit as
part of its mission: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/spauiser.htm
http://www.up-ship.com/apr/extras/scruiser1.htm

Pat
  #45  
Old October 4th 05, 03:09 PM
Ed Kyle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Pat Flannery wrote:
Mike Chan wrote:

Shades of the F15/MHV ASAT. I don't recall seeing any references of
its capability to launch in the southern hemisphere below the
groundtrack of the Soviet early warning sats in Molniya orbits and nail
them coming around perigee.




You stick a small, non-nuclear EMP warhead on it (we have these for
cruise missiles) get it within a mile or so of the target satellite on a
direct ascent trajectory, and set it off; for all your opponent knows
his satellite just suffered a electrical malfunction.
The debris from the interceptor missile falls back down into the sea.
Those ones in Molniya orbits would make very tempting targets at their
perigees.
The Navy Space Cruiser project was apparently designed with
quick-response covert satellite destruction in less than one orbit as
part of its mission: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/spauiser.htm
http://www.up-ship.com/apr/extras/scruiser1.htm

Pat


"Recovery of a payload from space using the N-wing parafoil was
demonstrated in classified tests."

Is there any info about this test?

- Ed Kyle

  #46  
Old October 4th 05, 06:28 PM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Ed Kyle wrote:

"Recovery of a payload from space using the N-wing parafoil was
demonstrated in classified tests."

Is there any info about this test?



None I've ever read; but I can think of something that could have
carried it and was recovered:
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/space_flight/sf0b.htm
There's also this thing, which bears a passing resemblence to the Space
Cruiser:
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/boohicle.htm
And this program: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/hgv.htm

Pat

Pat
  #47  
Old October 5th 05, 05:58 AM
Mike Chan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Pat Flannery wrote:

You stick a small, non-nuclear EMP warhead on it (we have these for
cruise missiles) get it within a mile or so of the target satellite on a
direct ascent trajectory, and set it off; for all your opponent knows
his satellite just suffered a electrical malfunction.


That is assuming said opponent's satellite does not employ design
techniques validated by opponent's equivalent of "Huron King" --

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Nts.html

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Second Double Star satellite successfully launched (Forwarded) Andrew Yee Astronomy Misc 0 July 26th 04 03:07 PM
Missile Launch Photos Brian Webb Space Shuttle 0 February 8th 04 05:37 AM
Missile Launch Photos Brian Webb Science 0 February 8th 04 05:36 AM
Missile Launch Photos Brian Webb Policy 0 February 8th 04 05:35 AM
USAF announces Space, Missile Pioneer Award winners (Forwarded) Andrew Yee History 0 August 26th 03 02:28 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.