ICBM & Bomber Questions

[Zipper730]

Perhaps a more aeronautically minded comparison? The non-rigid airship is known as a pressure ship for that very reason...

From what I read, it was actually inspired by a party balloon, though the fact that it did have some structural support members, which were bolstered by pressurized gas/fuel make it more analogous to a balloon.

 

[nuuumannn]

From what I read, it was actually inspired by a party balloon, though the fact that it did have some structural support members, which were bolstered by pressurized gas/fuel make it more analogous to a balloon.

It certainly makes sense and I didn't know that's the reasoning behind it. Is that an anecdote?

 

[Zipper730]

I don't have any written quotes from the designer, so yes.

 

[mikemike]

They could be stored in the missile for extended periods. While the nitrogen tetroxide boils at 70-degrees (F), the silo was generally kept around 60-degrees, which is a bit chilly for my taste, but within human tolerances (the temperature).

Those compounds weren't safe, however.

The usual storable liquid oxidizer is Inhibited Red Fuming Nitric Acid, or IRFNA. Storable fuels would either be RP-1 kerosene or hydrazine. The Titan II used dinitrogen tetroxide, which is hypergolic with hydrazine.

 

[elbmc1969]

One accident caused a entire Titan II to exit it's silo thru the closed cover ( that weighed 750 tons) and deposit the warhead outside.

Now, that's just not true! Most of the missile was blasted to the bottom of the silo or embedded it its walls. All of the missile body was reduced to confetti and a bunch of the confetti that used too be the upper portion of the missile was blown out. It was just the extremely tough reentry vehicle and other (relatively) heavily-built parts that were shot out of the silo like a cannon.

 

[tyrodtom]

Now, that's just not true! Most of the missile was blasted to the bottom of the silo or embedded it its walls. All of the missile body was reduced to confetti and a bunch of the confetti that used too be the upper portion of the missile was blown out. It was just the extremely tough reentry vehicle and other (relatively) heavily-built parts that were shot out of the silo like a cannon.

Maybe a bad choice of words on my part.
I didn't mean the entire missile , in one piece, made it out of the silo.
But from a picture I remember of the site, some of the missile, in thousands of pieces, made it out of the silo.
After all a missile body that got punctured by a falling socket just ricocheting off it's side, even if that socket did weigh 80lbs, can't have a lot of excess structural strength.

I know the USAF can be anal with their accident investigations. I wonder if anyone weighed how much of the missile confetti remains inside the silo, and compared it with how much that exited the silo ?

 

[elbmc1969]

I was just being humorous

 

[GrauGeist]

They could be stored in the missile for extended periods. While the nitrogen tetroxide boils at 70-degrees (F), the silo was generally kept around 60-degrees, which is a bit chilly for my taste, but within human tolerances (the temperature).

Those compounds weren't safe, however.

Without going into too much detail, the silos are typically in the upper 50's at lower levels, which happens to be the region of the fuel/engines.
The upper levels of the silo will be about mid 60's or so.

They're cold and uncomfortable to be in/around.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

After all a missile body that got punctured by a falling socket just ricocheting off it's side, even if that socket did weigh 80lbs, can't have a lot of excess structural strength.

It didn't. The fuel and oxidizer tanks depended on the pressure of their contents to hold their shape and support the weight of the upper stages and payload. "Simplicate and add lightness." That same pressure eliminates the resiliency of the thin skin to deform slightly and "bounce off" an 8 pound socket that has free-fallen over a hundred feet and struck it at an acute angle. Ergo, you have a puncture wound.

 

[Zipper730]

It didn't. The fuel and oxidizer tanks depended on the pressure of their contents to hold their shape and support the weight of the upper stages and payload.

Yes and no. If the missile was empty, then it could stand on its own. If you started pumping in propellant you better fill the the first stage tanks first or the minimal support will cause the upper stage to crush the lower one -- also, you'll want to fill the lower tank on the lower stage before the upper or the upper tank will crush the lower and with hypergolic propellants the results are pretty awesome (awesomely bad, admittedly).

Once filled, they would support themselves because of the propellant much like how a soda-can is harder to squash when it's filled than empty.

"Simplicate and add lightness."

That's a good quote.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

If the missile was empty, then it could stand on its own. If you started pumping in propellant you better fill the the first stage tanks first or the minimal support will cause the upper stage to crush the lower one -- also, you'll want to fill the lower tank on the lower stage before the upper or the upper tank will crush the lower and with hypergolic propellants the results are pretty awesome (awesomely bad, admittedly).

What I said. Complicate and add wordiness. (as the pot calls the kettle black)

 

[Zipper730]

What I said. Complicate and add wordiness. (as the pot calls the kettle black)

True enough: I kind of thought you were talking about simplifying from a structural engineering standpoint, not a description one lol.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

True enough: I kind of thought you were talking about simplifying from a structural engineering standpoint, not a description one lol.

Don't Ed Heineman's famous words have an eternal ring to them? Like way beyond aircraft structures? Sounds like a life lesson to me. Too much complexity, not enough humor in this world. Needs fixing.