Launching a satellite, from underground

http://englishrussia.com/?p=5101

Highly detailed sequence of an ex-Soviet ICBM being used
to launch a satellite.

Note how the initial booster package used to pop the rocket
out of the silo then fires a motor to shove itself out of the
way while the entire rocket appears to hang in mid-air.

--Damon

Damon Hill wrote:
http://englishrussia.com/?p=5101

Highly detailed sequence of an ex-Soviet ICBM being used
to launch a satellite.

Note how the initial booster package used to pop the rocket
out of the silo then fires a motor to shove itself out of the
way while the entire rocket appears to hang in mid-air.

"Cold-launch" or not, the rocket seems to get its back end toasted
pretty well on leaving the silo.

Pat

On Sep 13, 9:02*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
Damon Hill wrote:
http://englishrussia.com/?p=5101

Highly detailed sequence of an ex-Soviet ICBM being used
to launch a satellite.

Note how the initial booster package used to pop the rocket
out of the silo then fires a motor to shove itself out of the
way while the entire rocket appears to hang in mid-air.

"Cold-launch" or not, the rocket seems to get its back end toasted
pretty well on leaving the silo.

Pat

impressive. Can the silo be re-used?

I believe Soviet ones could be, in theory.

Though in actual practice, that might involve removing the rubble from the
first 2-3 American nuclear strikes trying to take it out. :-)



"Katie Ohara" wrote in message
...

impressive. Can the silo be re-used?



--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

Katie Ohara wrote:
On Sep 13, 9:02 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
Damon Hill wrote:
http://englishrussia.com/?p=5101
Highly detailed sequence of an ex-Soviet ICBM being used
to launch a satellite.
Note how the initial booster package used to pop the rocket
out of the silo then fires a motor to shove itself out of the
way while the entire rocket appears to hang in mid-air.
"Cold-launch" or not, the rocket seems to get its back end toasted
pretty well on leaving the silo.

Pat

impressive. Can the silo be re-used?

That was the intention of the Cold-Launch system; you were basically
turning the silo into a land-based equivalent of the launch tube on a
ballistic missile submarine.
I don't know how much refurbishment time was needed between one launch
and loading a new missile into the silo though.
And one has to wonder what chance you were going to have to reload the
missile in the middle of WW III.

Pat

Pat Flannery writes:
And one has to wonder what chance you were going to have to reload the missile
in the middle of WW III.

A simple mail order to Acme Missile of Hong Kong.

;-)

Dave

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
I believe Soviet ones could be, in theory.

Though in actual practice, that might involve removing the rubble from the
first 2-3 American nuclear strikes trying to take it out. :-)

And that may explain why the Soviets did it.
If we assumed that they would launch on warning during an American first
strike, or launch a first strike of their own, then it would be
pointless to target their silos with our ICBMs, as they would be empty
when the warheads arrived.
By making them reloadable, it meant that the US _had_ to target them, as
not doing so meant they could still be used to launch a second wave of
missiles. Therefore, more US warheads would be soaked up by silo
attacks, leaving fewer to go after other targets.

Pat

David Spain wrote:
Pat Flannery writes:
And one has to wonder what chance you were going to have to reload the missile
in the middle of WW III.

A simple mail order to Acme Missile of Hong Kong.


Acme? Better order some of these also then:
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-42.html
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-163.html

Pat

In article ,
OM wrote:

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:32:59 -0400, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:

I believe Soviet ones could be, in theory.

...As I pointed out. Sub-based silos for both sides were reusable,
although at least with the Polaris ISTR there needed to be some minor
refurbishing prior to sticking another missile in the tube. Wonder if
P.N. Guinn received those kits with his pre-atomic ballistic missile
submarine he bought surplus from the Navy back in 1966?

Though in actual practice, that might involve removing the rubble from the
first 2-3 American nuclear strikes trying to take it out. :-)

...That's kind of my thinking, in that based on how accurate each
side's intelligence was on what and where the nukes were siloed, it
might have been the same case as lightning never being able to really
strike the same place twice, simply because after the first time said
place was no longer there :-P

I am sure that both sides had their adversary's sites mapped out in
great detail. That is why the Soviets deployed railroad-launched SS-25s
back in the 1980s. They were attempting to keep at least some of their
missiles available for a second strike. Our own mobile missiles were
Trident C-4s and, later, D-5s, which could hit just about any target in
the world, and from any ocean. We also proposed, but did not develop, a
"mobile Peacekeeper," to counter the SS-25 concept.

I am not sure how the solid propellants in the RR-mobile missiles would
stand up to the constant vibration and shocks associated with RR travel,
and how the propellant grains would have fared while lying on their
sides for months, and years, being erected and then expected to work.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...
Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
I believe Soviet ones could be, in theory.

Though in actual practice, that might involve removing the rubble from the
first 2-3 American nuclear strikes trying to take it out. :-)

And that may explain why the Soviets did it.
If we assumed that they would launch on warning during an American first
strike, or launch a first strike of their own, then it would be pointless to
target their silos with our ICBMs, as they would be empty when the warheads
arrived.
By making them reloadable, it meant that the US _had_ to target them, as not
doing so meant they could still be used to launch a second wave of missiles.
Therefore, more US warheads would be soaked up by silo attacks, leaving fewer
to go after other targets.


As if anyone is going to be reloading anything after the first
wave of a ...thousand or so nukes finish exploding. Somehow
I doubt those 'loyal' soviet conscripts will be braving
25 million rads per second to reload some silo.

As I recall with the first nuclear war, the Japanese, which
at the time was perhaps the most war-hardened military ever.
A regime which defines cruelty to their enemy, and callousness
towards their own mass civilian deaths, stopped 'reloading'
after just ...two...went off.

If perhaps the most ruthless and powerful military dictatorship
the planet has ever seen, after suffering just two puny little a-bombs
TOTALLY SURRENDERS THE ****ING NEXT DAY!

What might it be like the 'Day After' in America, or Russia after
hundreds of highly accurate bombs, in a well-planned and sickeningly
thorough volley, steadily marching from the very top of the country, to
the very bottom, finish exploding?

Do ya think anyone is going to spend a minute thinking about
firing more of them? Will they still have the equipment they need
to work with? Will they have the supply line they need to refurbish
rearm, refuel, target and launch more highly sophisticated weapons?
Will they have the command structure left to pull all that off?
Will they have enough people?

The answers are a glaringly obvious nyet nyet nyet nyet!

There is no Day Two in a massive nuclear war.
After Day One nothing matters at all anymore.


s














war-hardened, bloo
Doesn't anyone live in the real world?






Pat