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

Neat Spartan ABM photo



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 9th 08, 08:16 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default Neat Spartan ABM photo

I know a lot of the people around here are big sci-fi movie fans, so
thought you might appreciate this shot of a underground test of a
Spartan ABM 5-megaton nuclear warhead as it's lowered into the test
hole: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/sy...1-cannikin.jpg
Yes, we've seen this before, haven't we?
Last time it was down in Tanganyika as part of Operation Inner Space,
and things didn't go at all as expected:
http://www.wtf-film.com/ARTICLES/AUG...CK_WORLD.shtml
Rocket pointing at sky - good.
Rocket pointing at Earth's core - bad.

Pat
  #2  
Old December 9th 08, 09:32 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
Rick Jones[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 587
Default Neat Spartan ABM photo

In sci.space.history Pat Flannery wrote:
I know a lot of the people around here are big sci-fi movie fans, so
thought you might appreciate this shot of a underground test of a
Spartan ABM 5-megaton nuclear warhead as it's lowered into the test
hole:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/sy...1-cannikin.jpg


Didn't have much budget for rust mitigation did they

rick jones
--
oxymoron n, Hummer H2 with California Save Our Coasts and Oceans plates
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...
  #3  
Old December 10th 08, 07:53 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
M
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 110
Default Neat Spartan ABM photo

On Dec 9, 2:16*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
I know a lot of the people around here are big sci-fi movie fans, so
thought you might appreciate this shot of a underground test of a
Spartan ABM 5-megaton nuclear warhead as it's lowered into the test
hole:http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/sy...1-cannikin.jpg
Yes, we've seen this before, haven't we?
Last time it was down in Tanganyika as part of Operation Inner Space,
and things didn't go at all as expected:http://www.wtf-film.com/ARTICLES/AUG...CK_WORLD.shtml
Rocket pointing at sky - good.
Rocket pointing at Earth's core - bad.

Pat


I have seen films of the Spartan test flights when I was in the Air
Force. That missile was no slowpoke, it blasted out of the silo at
very high velocity. Thus the sleek conical airframe.
  #4  
Old December 10th 08, 07:07 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default Neat Spartan ABM photo



Rick Jones wrote:

Didn't have much budget for rust mitigation did they


It would be fascinating to know how big of a underground cavity a 5
megaton detonation excavated.
Probably made a pretty nifty little earthquake when it went off also.
It's interesting that they detonated it with the whole upper stage and
nosecone still attached - they must have thought that that could somehow
modify the yield or in which directions the radiation was emitted from it.

Pat
  #5  
Old December 10th 08, 07:17 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default Neat Spartan ABM photo



M wrote:
I have seen films of the Spartan test flights when I was in the Air
Force. That missile was no slowpoke, it blasted out of the silo at
very high velocity. Thus the sleek conical airframe.


Although Spartan went uphill fast, I think that you are referring to the
smaller Sprint ABM which came out of the silo like it was being shot out
of a cannon.
Spartan was designed to destroy the warheads outside of the atmosphere;
Sprint was to intercept any that got past Spartan while the warheads
were inside the atmosphere.

Pat
  #6  
Old December 12th 08, 03:59 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default Neat Spartan ABM photo

On Dec 9, 12:16 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
Rocket pointing at sky - good.
Rocket pointing at Earth's core - bad.


I remember there were protests about this Amchitka thing back when I
was a lad. It was going to set off earthquakes or something? Or it was
going to prove to our nice democratic friends in Russia that we were
out to get them?

And now Russia's democracy - which it achieved after Communism
collapsed - has itself collapsed and it's engaged in attacks on a
democracy under a deceptive pretext for some sort of tit-for-tat for
America's defense of the Kosovars. Presumably, its next step will be
to limit America's ability to respond to terrorism. This is very sad.

John Savard

  #7  
Old December 12th 08, 04:27 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 52
Default Neat Spartan ABM photo

On Dec 10, 1:17*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
M wrote:
I have seen films of the Spartan test flights when I was in the Air
Force. That missile was no slowpoke, it blasted out of the silo at
very high velocity. Thus the sleek conical airframe.


Although Spartan went uphill fast, I think that you are referring to the
smaller Sprint ABM which came out of the silo like it was being shot out
of a cannon.
Spartan was designed to destroy the warheads outside of the atmosphere;
Sprint was to intercept any that got past Spartan while the warheads
were inside the atmosphere.

Pat


You are correct. The Sprint was a very fast last ditch interceptor,
shaped like a cone.
It flew very fast. Too bad it was all dismantled in 1977.
  #8  
Old December 13th 08, 03:46 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default Neat Spartan ABM photo



Quadibloc wrote:

I remember there were protests about this Amchitka thing back when I
was a lad. It was going to set off earthquakes or something? Or it was
going to prove to our nice democratic friends in Russia that we were
out to get them?


I've been reading up on the test...the island it was done on is volcanic
and seismically unstable:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amchitka
....which sounds even more like "Crack In The World". :-D
The test did indeed cause some pretty good shaking, as can be seen in
this video of the ground heaving it caused:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp6aZIhHiRE

pat
  #9  
Old December 13th 08, 10:38 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default Neat Spartan ABM photo



wrote:
You are correct. The Sprint was a very fast last ditch interceptor,
shaped like a cone.
It flew very fast. Too bad it was all dismantled in 1977.

I live in North Dakota, where the system was based.
MIRVed missiles made the ABM inviable from a economic point of view, as
every time the US or the Soviets added a MIRVed ICBM or SLBM to their
arsenal, their opponent would have to add at least one new ABM for each
warhead the missile was carrying (in fact, with the Safeguard system,
you would probably want to add one Spartan and one Sprint for each new
warhead if you wanted to be fairly certain of intercepting it before
detonation.)
So one new Soviet SS-9 "Scarp" Mod 4 with three warheads meant the US
would have to build three Spartans and three Sprints minimum to defend
itself against the incoming warheads of the single missile...and those
six ABMs would cost a lot more than a single Scarp.
By this means either side could have bankrupted the other if the other
side had tried to defend its whole country via ABMs.
So both sides agreed to just deploy one system of 100 missiles maximum
to defend either their capital or some of their ICBM silos. The Soviets
decided to defend Moscow; we decided to defend North Dakota's Minuteman
silos so we would have a second-strike capability in case of a surprise
Soviet attack.
But only a few months after Safeguard went fully operational, we shut it
down as a budget move. (the Soviets kept theirs operational for some time).
Another problem was that the 5 megaton warheads of the Spartan missiles
detonating outside the atmosphere would have generated terrific
electromagnetic pulses; if even a single Spartan had intercepted the
incoming warhead at its maximum altitude capability of 350 miles, the
EMP effect would have blanketed the whole continental US and Canada
based on the map in the congressional "Military Space Forces" report
from 1989.
The MIRV problem still exists today; if you can't intercept the
warheads while they are still attached to the warhead bus, or almost
immediately after they detach from it, they are going to be too
separated for even the MKV to be able to get all of them with its
multiple interceptor vehicles by the time they are drawing near to their
target.
So MKV will be usable against a single warhead and decoys, but far less
effective against a MIRVed warhead unless you can sea or space base it
to get the missile right after it completes its powered ascent.
The nice thing about MAD was that is was pretty cheap when it came right
down to it.
Minuteman III missiles only cost $7 million each, so a lot of them could
be fielded - enough to swamp any ABM system, since each carried three
warheads. We topped out with 1,000 Minuteman II's and III's emplaced,
with the majority being the MIRVed Minuteman III's.
The one that really caused the Soviets headaches as far as number of
ABMs needed to defend against it was the Poseidon SLBM, with its 10-14
warheads. Since each submarine could carry sixteen missiles, that meant
that even one sub's worth of warheads could defeat the Galosh and
Gazelle ABM system around Moscow by simple weight of numbers of incoming
warheads that needed to be destroyed.
And we had 31 subs carrying those operational at peak deployment level,
so assuming that about 50% were at sea at any given time...that meant
the Soviets had around 2,250 50 kiloton warheads potentially coming
their way in case there was a war.


Pat
  #10  
Old December 14th 08, 12:23 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Neat Spartan ABM photo

Pat Flannery wrote:
:
:MIRVed missiles made the ABM inviable from a economic point of view, as
:every time the US or the Soviets added a MIRVed ICBM or SLBM to their
:arsenal, their opponent would have to add at least one new ABM for each
:warhead the missile was carrying (in fact, with the Safeguard system,
:you would probably want to add one Spartan and one Sprint for each new
:warhead if you wanted to be fairly certain of intercepting it before
:detonation.)
:So one new Soviet SS-9 "Scarp" Mod 4 with three warheads meant the US
:would have to build three Spartans and three Sprints minimum to defend
:itself against the incoming warheads of the single missile...and those
:six ABMs would cost a lot more than a single Scarp.
:

Cite for relative costs, including economy adjustments?

I agree with your basic premise, but I don't think mere triplet
warheads are the real breakover point.

:
:But only a few months after Safeguard went fully operational, we shut it
:down as a budget move.
:

More like 24 hours and it wasn't really a 'budget move'. It was
pretty much all political.

:
the Soviets kept theirs operational for some time).
:

Where "some time" extends from initial deployment to now, since it's
still active, having undergone several upgrades in the meantime.

:
:The MIRV problem still exists today; if you can't intercept the
:warheads while they are still attached to the warhead bus, or almost
:immediately after they detach from it, they are going to be too
:separated for even the MKV to be able to get all of them with its
:multiple interceptor vehicles by the time they are drawing near to their
:target.
:So MKV will be usable against a single warhead and decoys, but far less
:effective against a MIRVed warhead unless you can sea or space base it
:to get the missile right after it completes its powered ascent.
:The nice thing about MAD was that is was pretty cheap when it came right
:down to it.
:

You're making the mistake of thinking that US ABM efforts are aimed at
'mature' nuclear powers. They aren't. They're aimed at loonies like
North Korea, which can only put up a handful of missiles in the worst
case.

Other than that, you might want to look at where MKV is intended to
engage inbounds and consider just what the launch vehicle is.

Hint: It's intended to be both land- and sea-based and intended to
attack at trajectory peak. How effective it would be after debuss
rather depends on its crossrange capability.

:
:Minuteman III missiles only cost $7 million each, so a lot of them could
:be fielded - enough to swamp any ABM system, since each carried three
:warheads. We topped out with 1,000 Minuteman II's and III's emplaced,
:with the majority being the MIRVed Minuteman III's.
:

You're ignoring the cost of the warheads, the basing, etc.


--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney
 




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
Neat Io photo Pat Flannery Policy 0 March 2nd 07 03:10 PM
Neat Io photo Pat Flannery History 0 March 2nd 07 03:10 PM
Neat Zond photo Pat Flannery History 2 February 24th 05 12:11 AM
A rather neat photo Andrew Gray History 11 October 4th 04 08:42 PM
A REALLY NEAT CLOSE-UP OF COMET NEAT FROM KITT PEAK OBSERVATORY (STScI-NN040617) INBOX ASTRONOMY: NEWS ALERT Amateur Astronomy 30 June 19th 04 07:41 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:43 AM.


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.