US captured V-1 missile tests 1949 - 1951

Rick Jones wrote:

Pat Flannery wrote:
The four nozzles are attached to the domed bottom of the propellant
casing, and there's a gap between them and the flat bottom of the
propellant grain, so the gas exits them all equally from that plenum
area. Both the Mercury and Apollo LES motors used a similar
single-grain-multiple-nozzle arrangement.

Fair enough - what then should I make of this:

http://www.vectorsite.net/Ywpol_1m.jpg
http://www.vectorsite.net/Ywpol_1b.jpg

(sorry for the length) which is captioned at:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...a%3DN%26um%3D1

As "Polaris first stage solid rocket motor, ATK rocket park, Utah / 2008" ?

Make of it what you will, they're wrong.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Dr J R Stockton wrote:

In sci.space.history message ,
Mon, 14 Sep 2009 03:18:12, Derek Lyons posted:
Dr J R Stockton wrote:

For a solid, assuming that the case bursts, rather than the propellant
actually detonating, the initial bang may be no more than a warship
should be designed to accept from enemy munitions.

You have utterly no fecking clue what you are talking about - that
'initial bang' [that a warship is capable of enduring] is equivalent
of a solid motor roughly big enough to toss a potato the length of a
football pitch... I.E. insignificiant.

Evidently you have only served in shoddy ships. The HMS Vanguard which
I have been on was much more solidly built.

I exaggerate some, but the essence of there - no ship can (or ever
had) been able to take the internal detonation of any but the smallest
range of militarily useful solid rocket motors. Once you get above
1klb equivalent, which isn't a big motor, you're talking ship killers.

And don't bring up battleship shells - their explosive content was
small in relation to their total weight. They killed by shrapnel, not
by explosive force.

AISB : when does the following take effect? :

Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

That was temperate.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Dr J R Stockton wrote:
Evidently you have only served in shoddy ships. The HMS Vanguard which
I have been on was much more solidly built.


The destroyer HMS Sheffield on the other hand was destroyed by the
remaining solid fuel of the Exocet missile that hit it, whose warhead
didn't even detonate.
But the surface warships of the past (like HMS Vanguard) were built a
lot more toughly than today's vessels, and could probably survive quite
a good sized accidental missile blast, although what condition they
would be in to fight immediately afterwards is a very good question.
We did have the accidental turret cordite fire in the battleship USS
Iowa in 1989, and it rode that out well overall...and that was probably
the closest thing to a solid-fueled motor on a missile igniting inside
of a warship that has occurred fairly recently.
Derek Lyons on the other hand served on a missile sub and igniting an
equivalent amount of solid propellant inside of a submerged submarine
would almost certainly be instantly fatal if it ruptured the missile
launch tube.
On the Soviet Yankee-class missile sub K-219, the ignition of the
hypergolic liquid fuel in one of its missiles did result in the launch
tube rupturing and the submarine being fatally damaged and later sinking:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_K-219
I hadn't thought of this until just tonight, but the design of the
Typhoon* class missile sub puts the missiles in two side-by-side rows
that are located between twin small diameter pressure hulls and only
attached to them via a single inspection hatch on each tube.
During submerged operations the missile tubes are surrounded by water in
a free-flooding section of the sub's interior.
This could well have been due to the realization that a missile
explosion inside of the main pressure hull ("hulls" in the case of
Typhoon, there are four separate pressure hulls inside of the exterior
hull connected by hatches) could doom the whole sub.

* Which the Russians call a "Akula" class...which is the name NATO gave
to a entirely different type of Russian _attack_ sub... :-)

Pat

Rick Jones wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:
The four nozzles are attached to the domed bottom of the propellant
casing, and there's a gap between them and the flat bottom of the
propellant grain, so the gas exits them all equally from that plenum
area. Both the Mercury and Apollo LES motors used a similar
single-grain-multiple-nozzle arrangement.

Fair enough - what then should I make of this:

http://www.vectorsite.net/Ywpol_1m.jpg
http://www.vectorsite.net/Ywpol_1b.jpg

(sorry for the length) which is captioned at:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...a%3DN%26um%3D1

As "Polaris first stage solid rocket motor, ATK rocket park, Utah / 2008" ?

The thing shown is a Castor A or B strap-on solid rocket motor, as were
used on the early Delta rockets...there's a photo of one with the Castor
strap-ons attached he http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/delta41.jpg
It would be very odd to find anything Polaris-related in the
Morton-Thiokol rocket park, as the Polaris motors were built by Aerojet
General, not Thiokol.
Thiokol didn't get into the SLBM business till Poseidon came along, and
was busy working on Minuteman's first stage when Polaris was being
developed.

Pat

Derek Lyons wrote:
Make of it what you will, they're wrong.

I've also since gotten a reply from a museum in the UK who were kind
enough to send along a cut-away drawing of a Polaris showing how it
was one large chunk of propellant with the separate nozzles. If I am
reading the drawing correctly, it says there were four holes in the
propellant at the bottom, perhaps aligned with the nozzles, and the
star pattern was in the top portion of the propellant. I've asked
their permission to redistribute the diagram and will do so when I get
their permission if folks would like.

rick jones
--
firebug n, the idiot who tosses a lit cigarette out his car window
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

Rick Jones wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:
Make of it what you will, they're wrong.

I've also since gotten a reply from a museum in the UK who were kind
enough to send along a cut-away drawing of a Polaris showing how it
was one large chunk of propellant with the separate nozzles. If I am
reading the drawing correctly, it says there were four holes in the
propellant at the bottom, perhaps aligned with the nozzles, and the
star pattern was in the top portion of the propellant. I've asked
their permission to redistribute the diagram and will do so when I get
their permission if folks would like.

I'd be very interested in seeing it.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Pat Flannery wrote:

on a missile sub and igniting an
equivalent amount of solid propellant inside of a submerged submarine
would almost certainly be instantly fatal if it ruptured the missile
launch tube.

It would almost certainly have ruptured the tube and probably the
pressure hull. We took considerable measures to prevent fire in the
missile compartment because of this.

The missile compartment was the only compartment that had a required
standard time to get a hose on a fire - 1 minute from sounding the
alarm, and two hoses (one from each end) within 90 seconds.

On the Soviet Yankee-class missile sub K-219, the ignition of the
hypergolic liquid fuel in one of its missiles did result in the launch
tube rupturing and the submarine being fatally damaged and later sinking:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_K-219

When we saw the pictures (and I'm not certain they've ever been
declassified) the general opinion was that the crew was damm lucky the
K-219 surfaced at all. For a couple of years afterwards, we kept the
unclassified pictures posted on the doors of the DC gear lockers as a
reminder.

I hadn't thought of this until just tonight, but the design of the
Typhoon* class missile sub puts the missiles in two side-by-side rows
that are located between twin small diameter pressure hulls and only
attached to them via a single inspection hatch on each tube.
During submerged operations the missile tubes are surrounded by water in
a free-flooding section of the sub's interior.
This could well have been due to the realization that a missile
explosion inside of the main pressure hull ("hulls" in the case of
Typhoon, there are four separate pressure hulls inside of the exterior
hull connected by hatches) could doom the whole sub.

This was probably mostly to keep the weight of the missiles on/near
the centerline and to minimize the effects of the rapid weight shifts
was the missile was ejected and the tube subsequently backflooded from
the sea. Had they been located on the centerline of the pressure
hulls, they would have had a much longer lever arm and consequently
induced higher loadings and motions.

I doubt there position would have made much difference in the event of
accidental ignition and the subsequent explosion.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

In sci.space.history message ,
Tue, 15 Sep 2009 04:38:24, Derek Lyons posted:
Dr J R Stockton wrote:

In sci.space.history message ,
Mon, 14 Sep 2009 03:18:12, Derek Lyons posted:
Dr J R Stockton wrote:

For a solid, assuming that the case bursts, rather than the propellant
actually detonating, the initial bang may be no more than a warship
should be designed to accept from enemy munitions.

You have utterly no fecking clue what you are talking about - that
'initial bang' [that a warship is capable of enduring] is equivalent
of a solid motor roughly big enough to toss a potato the length of a
football pitch... I.E. insignificiant.

Evidently you have only served in shoddy ships. The HMS Vanguard which
I have been on was much more solidly built.

Note that HMS Victorious took three successive kamikaze hits, and was
launching planes within the hour. A certain other Navy was less robust.



I exaggerate some, but the essence of there - no ship can (or ever
had) been able to take the internal detonation of any but the smallest
range of militarily useful solid rocket motors.

It was with that possibility in mind that I wrote, as you quoted,
"assuming that the case bursts, rather than the propellant actually
detonating".


Once you get above
1klb equivalent, which isn't a big motor, you're talking ship killers.


--
(c) John Stockton, near London.
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Correct = 4-line sig. separator as above, a line precisely "-- " (SoRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with "" or " " (SoRFC1036)

Derek Lyons wrote:
When we saw the pictures (and I'm not certain they've ever been
declassified) the general opinion was that the crew was damm lucky the
K-219 surfaced at all. For a couple of years afterwards, we kept the
unclassified pictures posted on the doors of the DC gear lockers as a
reminder.

The ones of the sub on the surface with the launch hatches blown off?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...-87-07261.JPEG
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...rine/k-219.jpg





I hadn't thought of this until just tonight, but the design of the
Typhoon* class missile sub puts the missiles in two side-by-side rows
that are located between twin small diameter pressure hulls and only
attached to them via a single inspection hatch on each tube.
During submerged operations the missile tubes are surrounded by water in
a free-flooding section of the sub's interior.
This could well have been due to the realization that a missile
explosion inside of the main pressure hull ("hulls" in the case of
Typhoon, there are four separate pressure hulls inside of the exterior
hull connected by hatches) could doom the whole sub.

This was probably mostly to keep the weight of the missiles on/near
the centerline and to minimize the effects of the rapid weight shifts
was the missile was ejected and the tube subsequently backflooded from
the sea. Had they been located on the centerline of the pressure
hulls, they would have had a much longer lever arm and consequently
induced higher loadings and motions.

I doubt there position would have made much difference in the event of
accidental ignition and the subsequent explosion.

I'm wondering if the area around the tubes in the forward outer hull is
free-flood or filled with stainless steel buoyancy balls like we us in
similar areas outside the pressure hull in ours.
I assumed it was free-flooding, but there don't seem to be any limber
holes visible above water when surfaced to let the air out on diving,
unless it comes out of the hinge end of the missile doors. There is a
_lot_ of void area in the missile tube section of the sub, which may
account for how high the sub rides in the water when surfaced.
The thing's ballast tanks must be huge to let it rise that far out of
the water when surfaced, even given the space between the multiple inner
pressure hulls which presumably does free-flood during diving.
I presume the huge reserve buoyancy is to let it break through the
arctic icecap prior to missile launch by applying great pressure from
under it when it blows ballast.

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:
Derek Lyons wrote:
When we saw the pictures (and I'm not certain they've ever been
declassified) the general opinion was that the crew was damm lucky the
K-219 surfaced at all. For a couple of years afterwards, we kept the
unclassified pictures posted on the doors of the DC gear lockers as a
reminder.

The ones of the sub on the surface with the launch hatches blown off?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...-87-07261.JPEG
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...rine/k-219.jpg

Is it "normal" for the planes on the sail to be like that?

rick jones
--
I don't interest myself in "why." I think more often in terms of
"when," sometimes "where;" always "how much." - Joubert
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...