winning the cold war with a Saturn V?

[edkyle98]

"Only today are the Russians taking the step of replacing their liquid fuel rockets with the solid fueled Topol ICBM." <br /><br />They are in the process, but the process is going to take another decade or so. The original solid-fuel Topol entered service in the 1980s. The more recent, all-Russian Topol-M is only now entering service. Meanwhile, the biggest-ever-ICBM monster R-36-series "Satan" missiles remain on duty, hundreds of them with multiple city-pulverizing warheads, fueled and ready to go. I read once that my town, Chicago, had at least 10 such megaton-ish warheads aimed at it. If it comes to it, they just want to be sure Chicago is really dead. (If you survive the first flash, don't assume its over).<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[qso1]

willpittenger:<br />Er, that would have to be DURING propellant loading.<br /><br />Me:<br />Correct, thanks for pointing it out. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

newsartist:<br />There was also an Atlas version that was silo based...<br /><br />Me:<br />Yes, I recall that now that you mention it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

That is odd. We have plenty of titanium. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

Which would provide observers with plenty of notice of a launch. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

The Russians, and before them, the Soviets, never consider anything obsolete unless forced to. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[pathfinder_01]

"The Russians, and before them, the Soviets, never consider anything obsolete unless forced to.”<br /><br />Which is what I admire about them. NASA has used Redstone, Atlas, Titan II, Saturn I/Saturn V, and the Shuttle. That is a heck of a lot of money spent reinventing the wheel due to each systems limitations. <br /><br />It is rather funny that the Saturn V probably would not have existed at all if it were not for the Russian’s advantage in bigger boosters. By challenging them to the moon Kennedy forced the USSR to try to create a new rocket from scratch quickly.<br /><br />

 

[qso1]

pathfinder01:<br />Which is what I admire about them. NASA has used Redstone, Atlas, Titan II, Saturn I/Saturn V, and the Shuttle. That is a heck of a lot of money spent reinventing the wheel due to each systems limitations.<br /><br />Me:<br />If you take a closer look, were not all that far from the Russians in the continual modification and use of vehicles for spaceflight. Even you named our equivalents to Russian workhorses.<br /><br />Atlas was first launched in 1957 and has evolved as requirements have into the Atlas V series.<br /><br />Titan II first flew in 1963 IIRC and evolved, becoming the core stage for the Titan-IV which has only recently been retired.<br /><br />NASA used Redstone, Atlas, and Titan...all three DOD missiles for their specifically designed purposes. NASA could have built their own version of Atlas, modified it to launch Gemini and so on but didn't because it was less expensive to go off the shelf...just like the Russians do.<br /><br />Saturn was developed for something DOD had no use for and NASA needed it for Apollo/Skylab.<br /><br />The Saturn series had no mission after Apollo and Skylab. One would think according to all the NASA criticism here that NASA would have made an excuse to keep these flying but they didn't.<br /><br />The Saturn series was not exactly invented from scratch until it was absolutely necessary. The first of the series, Saturn I was called "Clusters last stand" and for good reason. Stage I was comprised of tried and true Redstone tanks that were lengthened per Saturn I requirements.<br /><br />You could only say the wheel was reinvented if Atlas, Titan, etc. gave way to some brand new LV every decade. The only new vehicle we developed after the 1960s was shuttle, and once again. At the time, NASA was looking for a less expensive replacement for the Atlas etc. The shuttle simply turned out not to be economically practical. The Russians built their version despite their supposed frugality because they too, believed their rockets <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[PistolPete]

Truth be told, while the EELVs are considered evolutionary (hince <i>Evolved</i> Expendable Launch Vehicle) by most, if you actually look beyond the name and at the nuts and bolts that make it up and compare them to the origional Atlases and Deltas, there is little to nothing in common between the origional and the end product. Expecially the Delta IV, there was a complete and total change to the propellant in the first stage, the first stage core diamater and the first stage main engine. Most people would consider such changes as a totally new LV. The most that the Delta IV has in common with the Delta series is it has the same second stage as the Delta III. The Delta III only flew twice, one was a failure. And the only thing that connects the Atlas V to the origional Atlas is that they use the same first stage fuel. And while this has occured the Soyuz still uses the same first stage and strapons as the origional R-7 ballistic missile. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Thats true and all that reflects is that the requirements outgrew the original designs by far. I do consider Delta IV and Atlas V to be virtually new vehicles. But I would have thought by now we would have had a second generation shuttle and done away with all but a few expendables.<br /><br />The Soyuz lifts nowhere near as much as say, a Delta IV. The heaviest Soyuz payload capability is somewhere around 20,000 lbs to LEO while Delta heavy is well over 50,000 lbs to LEO.<br /><br />When the Russians needed more lift capability, they departed the venerable Soyuz and built the Proton. They apparently have no need of a Delta IV class launcher.<br /><br />The gold plating Buck Rogers myth can be traced back to the days well before the EELV program ever came to be. I recall a Gregg Easterbrook article in Time or Newsweek in 1987 or 88 entitled "America lost in space" in which he advocated BDBs. He also mentioned the Russian doing it so much better but his example was the Energia rocket and on his graph was Energia cost per pound to orbit, $300 dollars. This before the rocket made its second flight. And of course, what happened to this economical rocket? Yeltsin scrapped the Energia Buran program as too costly. Didn't even make an attempt to salvage the Energia offshoot, the smaller Energia "M". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[bdewoody]

How accurate do you need to be when delivering a nuclear warhead? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em><font size="2">Bob DeWoody</font></em> </div>

 

[PistolPete]

The same accuracy that you need with horseshoes and hand grenades. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

It depends on the target, warhead, and the capabilities of the reentry vehicle. Some targets are quite soft (like a city). Others, like a bunker, need either a direct hit or a burrowing warhead. The reentry vehicle controls the accuracy. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[qso1]

In addition to what willpittenger accurately described, the target accuracy is measured in circular error probability or CEP in DOD parlance. This means a warhead will most probably drop within a circle of a certain diameter. The more accurate the missile, the better chance of disabling hard targets such as command centers, hardened missile silos, etc. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

newsartist:<br />...and fixed around a 108 inch center tank which was a lengthened Jupiter!<br /><br />Me:<br />You betcha, I'd forgotten about that myself. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

Correct. I have heard that Cheyenne Mountain would no longer survive a hit, but I believe it would either have to be a direct hit or a hit from a burrowing warhead. Those use earthquakes to destroy underground structures like bunkers. In fact, I have heard about concepts for warheads that would be under one kiloton. GPS based accuracy and burrowing technology would let them hit most relatively soft bunkers with a direct hit. However, such small warheads were considered unreliable (they might not go off) after an impact. Considering that we now have specialized bunker busting conventional bombs, a small nuke might be obsolete. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[qso1]

Right, it would have to be a burrowing or large warhead to get NORAD (Cheyenne mountain). I suspect it will take a significantly large (500 Kt or larger) warhead...at least if one wants to be sure. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>