JFK's greatest achievements/Apollo (Was: Deep Apologies to everyone....)

Derek Lyons wrote:
It would be a bit long to explain his work on the Soviet
submarine-launched "Shaddock" cruise missile series, but the overall
concept and operational details of the system went past the U.S. Navy's
Regulus I/II system of the 1950's like it was something out of WW II.



Apples and oranges - Shaddock and Regulus operated in different
enviroments against different sets of targets. It's not clear they
can be usefully compared.


There was a inertially-guided land attack version of Shaddock that would
have performed the same function as the Regulus 1 and 2.
Chelomei's big breakthrough was in how to store the missiles on the sub.
With the US concept, the missile was either carried folded in a hanger
on deck, or in a internal hanger.
In either case, the missile had to be moved out onto a deck launcher
for liftoff, and the crew in the case of the internal hanger was
expected to check out and do maintenance on the missiles during the cruise.
Chelomei came to the conclusion that the crew messing around with the
missiles could cause more harm than good, and after a Whiskey class sub
carrying a Shaddock in a deck hanger had the hanger flood and the sub
capsize, that there had to be a better way to do this.
His solution was to incorporate sealed launch tubes into the secondary
hull of the sub. These were inaccessible to the crew in normal
operations, and their interiors were both humidity and temperature
controlled to keep the missiles in pristine condition.
No internal hanger in the sub cleared up a lot of space for other uses,
and prevented possible flooding when the missiles were being brought out
to the deck launcher in rough seas... a very real concern on the the US
subs that used the internal hangers.
Rather than having to deploy the missiles to the launchers, you could
simply elevate the launch tubes and let the missiles fly.
The other big innovation was in how the missiles were guided... when the
target was only thirty or forty miles away, the radar in the missile's
nose scanned the sea ahead of it and transmitted the image back to the
sub, where a targeting officer aboard the sub chose which of the targets
on the screen (the aircraft carrier) to attack, and commanded the
missile to lock onto it.
At longer ranges where the missile passed under the horizon from the
sub's viewpoint guidance could be linked to the sub (or directly taken
over) by either a Bear bomber or Hormone helicopter positioned between
the launch point and the target.
There were three different missiles referred to as "Shaddock" BTW,
here's info on them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-5_Pyatyorka
Here's a Echo II class sub launching a P-6 missile:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ec...ile_Launch.jpg
It carries three pairs of these; one pair ahead of the sail and two
astern of it. Either this is a inertially guided version, or the big
guidance antenna mounted in the front of the sail isn't rotated into
position until after launch to prevent it being damaged by the missile's
backblast on liftoff:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ages/pl659.jpg
(part of that one's antenna has been removed, but it does give you a
idea of the thing's size and how of the front of the sail rotates 180
degrees to expose it.)

Pat

In article ,
says...
Mark Borgerson wrote:

:In article ,
says...
: Dave Michelson wrote:
: :
: :The real question: How much of the anti-Apollo-Saturn feeling within the
: :Nixon administration was due to Nixon and his dislike for Kennedy and
: :how much was just Republican ideology (space = military + LEO) that
: :would continue into the Reagan years?
: :
:
: How much of it was due to LBJ handing Nixon an economy that was in
: shambles, with no spare money for ANYTHING?
:
:Umm, sort of like the economy GWB handed to President Obama?
:

Umm, no, not like it at all, and it wasn't a political statement,
Confused.

I guess you are. Who said it was a political statement?

The economy that LBJ handed over was essentially superheated due to
enacting the Great Society and trying to run the Vietnam War while not
putting the economy on a 'war' footing, hence allowed little room for
further deficits (which would heat it further). Thus cutting spending
on space (and anywhere else he could come up with) made good sense for
Nixon at the time.

A large expenditure on space (or anything else) in the present
economy, on the other hand, is probably a good thing.

I agree. But I think I'd prefer spending on the power transmission
and transportation infrastructure.

:
:Seems like handing over either a good or bad economy is something
:that crosses party lines.
:

No doubt, but we're talking about the cancellation (or failure to
restart) the Saturn V lines and killing missions that could have used
existing flyable hardware (two complete Saturn V boosters were left to
rot).

Were they? I thought they ended up in museums. At least there
they have some educational value.

I'm pretty sure that Obama isn't going to have anything to do with
that.

With what? The Saturn V lines?

Mark Borgerson

Jack Linthicum wrote:
I don't think you are aware that the bandwidth remains the same no
matter how long the transmission is. You are really talking about time
and volume of the traffic which you seem to think should be minimum.
May I recommend your little box in which you and many others seem to
feel the need to demonstrate all of your inabilities. Remember, if you
answer you are just using more traffic volume.


You just wait... "Jack Linthicum Non Grata" will be posting shortly. :-)

Pat

Derek Lyons wrote:

Sure they were appalled. The US made a fetish/religion out of
accuracy.


It does let you greatly decrease warhead size though; the Soviets just
made up for poor accuracy by putting walloping huge warheads on their
missiles. Even a one kiloton warhead would knock out a ICBM silo if you
could drop it straight unto the silo door.

Pat

In article ,
says...
Pat Flannery wrote:

Jack Linthicum wrote:

I mentioned the accuracy of Soviet missiles to the people at North
American and Boeing in 1967. They were appalled.


Sure they were appalled. The US made a fetish/religion out of
accuracy.

And the early 70's, they were probably appalled, in a different way, at
the range and accuracy of the SS-N-8 sub-launched missiles. I was an
uninvited observer at some of these tests, and if the center of the
formation of SMRIS (Russian tracking ships) was the target, CEP was
well under a kilometer.

Mark Borgerson

Pat Flannery wrote:
:
erek Lyons wrote:
: It would be a bit long to explain his work on the Soviet
: submarine-launched "Shaddock" cruise missile series, but the overall
: concept and operational details of the system went past the U.S. Navy's
: Regulus I/II system of the 1950's like it was something out of WW II.
:
:
: Apples and oranges - Shaddock and Regulus operated in different
: enviroments against different sets of targets. It's not clear they
: can be usefully compared.
:
:
:There was a inertially-guided land attack version of Shaddock that would
:have performed the same function as the Regulus 1 and 2.
:

Still a bit of "apples and oranges", Pat, despite your apparent
admiration for all things Soviet. You see, Shaddock was designed
later and was just entering service when Regulus procurement was
finished and it was on the way out (replaced by Polaris).

Yes, things get better as time goes on. Later stuff is typically
better than earlier stuff.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Mark Borgerson wrote:

:In article ,
says...
: Mark Borgerson wrote:
:
: :In article ,
: says...
: : Dave Michelson wrote:
: : :
: : :The real question: How much of the anti-Apollo-Saturn feeling within the
: : :Nixon administration was due to Nixon and his dislike for Kennedy and
: : :how much was just Republican ideology (space = military + LEO) that
: : :would continue into the Reagan years?
: : :
: :
: : How much of it was due to LBJ handing Nixon an economy that was in
: : shambles, with no spare money for ANYTHING?
: :
: :Umm, sort of like the economy GWB handed to President Obama?
: :
:
: Umm, no, not like it at all, and it wasn't a political statement,
: Confused.
:
:I guess you are. Who said it was a political statement?
:

Your reaction about how it was 'party independent' handing off a bad
economy, which you've 'cleverly' snipped, did.

You've now passed 'confused' and into 'liar'.

:
: The economy that LBJ handed over was essentially superheated due to
: enacting the Great Society and trying to run the Vietnam War while not
: putting the economy on a 'war' footing, hence allowed little room for
: further deficits (which would heat it further). Thus cutting spending
: on space (and anywhere else he could come up with) made good sense for
: Nixon at the time.
:
: A large expenditure on space (or anything else) in the present
: economy, on the other hand, is probably a good thing.
:
:I agree. But I think I'd prefer spending on the power transmission
:and transportation infrastructure.
:

Irrelevant to the point, which is that the economy that LBJ handed
Nixon and the economy that Bush handed Obama are two *VERY* different
things.

:
: :
: :Seems like handing over either a good or bad economy is something
: :that crosses party lines.
: :
:
: No doubt, but we're talking about the cancellation (or failure to
: restart) the Saturn V lines and killing missions that could have used
: existing flyable hardware (two complete Saturn V boosters were left to
: rot).
:
:Were they? I thought they ended up in museums. At least there
:they have some educational value.
:

No, they were essentially left to rot. They then were picked up and
tens of millions of dollars spent to renovate them so that they could
be put in museums.

:
: I'm pretty sure that Obama isn't going to have anything to do with
: that.
:
:With what? The Saturn V lines?
:

That is what everyone but you seems to be discussing, Confused.

:Mark Borgerson


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Pat Flannery wrote:

Here's a Echo II class sub launching a P-6 missile:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ec...ile_Launch.jpg
It carries three pairs of these; one pair ahead of the sail and two
astern of it.

Four pairs. Echo I carries three pairs, and the conventionally powered
Juliet class two pairs.
You can find Juliet class submarines in the most unexpected places:
http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/12/save-a-sunken-s.html

Pat

Mark Borgerson wrote:
And the early 70's, they were probably appalled, in a different way, at
the range and accuracy of the SS-N-8 sub-launched missiles. I was an
uninvited observer at some of these tests, and if the center of the
formation of SMRIS (Russian tracking ships) was the target, CEP was
well under a kilometer.


I'll have to check - that may have been the first one where the missile
used a stellar navigation update during flight to make up for any
inaccuracy in the sub's estimated versus real position at launch.
Our Poseidon C-3 missile could put down each of its 14 MIRVs with a CEP
of around 1/2 km.

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:


Derek Lyons wrote:

Sure they were appalled. The US made a fetish/religion out of
accuracy.


It does let you greatly decrease warhead size though; the Soviets just
made up for poor accuracy by putting walloping huge warheads on their
missiles. Even a one kiloton warhead would knock out a ICBM silo if you
could drop it straight unto the silo door.

Pat

What about a 20 megaton that certain American ICBMs carried. that was a
single war head. Atlas f, E ..Polaris, Titan etc.