Slashdot Mirror
Cold-War Missile Launches Military Satellite
Velcroman1 writes "At 11:49 a.m. EDT, a Minotaur IV+ rocket — essentially a decommissioned Peacekeeper missile built decades ago during the Cold War — launched the TacSat-4 satellite into orbit. Most troops today carry PRC-117 radios for communication, devices that rely on UHF transmissions. They relay calls and data back to a base station that's brought in and fixed in place, either set up on a hillside locally or carried overhead in a nearby plane. The TacSat-4 (or tactical microsatellite) lets the hundreds of thousands of military handheld radios currently in use communicate directly with an antenna orbiting in the most convenient spot imaginable: all that space overhead. 'If you're a mobile force, that requires a mobile infrastructure, the best place to put that infrastructure is in space,' said Dr. Larry Schuette, director of innovation for the Navy's Office of Naval Research (ONR)."
This is a good thing.
The last word of this story title could have been much worse.
Let's examine the spectrum from:
Cold-War Missile Launches Military Assault
to
Cold-War Missile Launches Military Baby Shower
Satellite launch cold-war missile.
This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
I'm just playing on one of my favorite films,
Dr. Strangelove
And one the silliest made-for-tv movies,
Slavage 1".
Actually maybe old Jed really did know a good cracker when he tasted one. MMM, MMM!
This is a great way to demonstrate to the rest of the world that our old munitions are still capable.
"For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice" -- God
The next war will be in space. He who controls orbit controls the planet. With control of orbital communications and weapons in support of ground troops it will be impossible to resist. We waste too much money building weapons to fight the last war. On to the next one.
... we've been doing this for years. Converting USAF ICBM's into non-warhead launch vehicles isn't exactly a new practice. We've been doing this since the late 50's. A lot of early NASA launches were on ex-USAF Atlas missiles. The earlier Minoaturs were based on decommissioned Minuteman II's. Now it's the Peacekeeper's turn. One day, Minuteman III's will be retired to launch duty too. It just makes sense to do so. I remember Barbara Streisand giving a speech back in the 80's, about how buying ICBMs was wasteful because "they'd never be used". Shows what she knew. We were sending up a lot of converted Titan missiles as launch platforms during that period. So I don't know why this is news. Using these converted missiles has been a standard (and economical) practice for a long, long time now.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
The Soyuz rocket is based on the R-7, the first soviet ICBM.
IIRC a modified R7 launched Sputnik, and well, they still launch Soyuz.
I wonder if Brazilian truckers will figure out how to use this satellite.
Sent from my PDP-11
Or you could use use high-altitude aircraft for a tenth of the price. Satellites were a lot easier to justify when they were impregnable, but that hasn't been the case for awhile now, at least for low orbit.
Sure, overhead is great and a good idea, particularly if it's only a few hundred miles up. But for a satellite to stay in place it has to be parked 22,000 miles over the equator. That means it takes more power to talk to, but most importantly that space is in very high demand. Any lower and it doesn't stay put over the battlefield, it orbits at a different speed than the earth's rotation. So to be really useful for this type of use you need several in orbit so that you can always get to one.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Yeah, and basically ever since.
The Soviet workhorse Soyuz is still directly descended from the world's first ICBM, the R-7, and the Proton is derived from a 100Mt ICBM design (though it was never produced as such).
The US Titan and Atlas launchers initially served as ICBMs under the same names, and the Delta family is derived from the Thor, the first US ICBM.
And the Chinese Long March 1 is derived from the Dongfeng 4, China's first ICBM, while the Long March 2-4 are derived from the successor Dongfeng 5.
Basically, the only entities who don't use a modified ICBM are the ones who don't have any; those who have been in space several decades (US and Russia) have or are developing dedicated launchers, since the requirements really don't match precisely, but the old designs are still in wide use.
The TacSat-4 (or tactical microsatellite) lets the hundreds of thousands of military handheld radios currently in use communicate directly with an antenna orbiting in the most convenient spot imaginable: all that space overhead.
In a few years, just about any country with any sort of technological capability will be able to shoot down satellites. Satellite radios are all fine and dandy, but I think it would be best if those radios can also switch to a "PRC-117 Mode".
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
A more efficient way of communicating so you can kill people.
Like New Orleans after Katrina (after civilian orgs failed), Indian Ocean region after their tsunami, Haiti after the earthquake, Japan after their tsunami, etc?
Meme chill YOU!
This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
Except, IIRC, the Saturn V and the Shuttle - I don't remember their having direct ancestors in the ICBM families. Of course, R&D and operations experience from ICBM vehicles were critical for non-ICBM derived follow-ons...
Lost in this conversation is that this is part of the new usage for the Kodiak, Alaska launch facility. This program will be the launch point for many future educational and experimental satellites as they intend to focus on pico and microsats. With the cubesat program and these re-purposed launch vehicles they were talking $50k to put a project in space.
The PRC-117 radios are the hundreds of thousands of military handheld radios they're referring to. TacSat-4 is just a new relay point (a really, really high altitude relay point).
So I'm wondering if 900 lbs. would be enough for a tiny capsule, with minimal life support, to get a single person into orbit.
Of course this would probably preclude the use of any sort of re-entry shield or system and would make this a one way trip. Still this might have a few (desperate) applications, like sending up some rescue personnel to an orbiting spacecraft or the ISS. Or maybe there would be some more clandestine James Bond-esque application like the hijacking of an orbital vehicle.
On the other hand, what is the lightest possible re-entry shielding for a single human being? I once saw a proposal that a large FOAM dish could be used with a space suited individual. Because the combination of foam and spacesuit would be comparatively much less dense than a compact and heavy capsule, the re-entry would be much gentler, skimming the atmosphere over a long period of time and the heat load per unit area much less. Anyone know if that idea (or other unusual ideas) would work? How about the "paper" airplane the Japanese astronaut threw out of the ISS? Did anyone find it?
But perhaps the G-Forces on launch of this refurbished military launcher would be too great for a manned vehicle.
Yeah, I know... I used to use the PRC-25 set. :D Ahm old(ish)
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
I guess soon the ONR will be "rebranded" into ONI - Office of Naval Intelligence and this is just the begining. Get ready to kick some Covenant asses!!!
I'll bet the launch g-forces are way to high. ( the B in ICBM is balistic which I believe describes most of the flight ) plus, the thing probably doesn't nearly approach safety standards for human flight.
Well, the shuttle SRBs use the same solid fuel concept developed for ICBM use, so there is an indirect lineage there as well.
But the Shuttle was a bigger waste of money.
And ICBM's never killed anybody, 14 people died in the 2 shuttle accidents.
It's been awhile.... but the mentioned "Prick" 117 has anti spoof anti jam capabilities (SINCGARS and HAVEQUICK), Basically frequency hoppers (amongst other shenanigans).
While possible to jam, it isn't easy. Voice comm still gets through along with heavily error corrected (and slow!) data streams.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Probably.
Maybe.
You're talking about 700 pounds once you'e made allowance for the passenger. Which is a bit tight.
On the other hand, Mercury, sans heat shield and a lot of electronics (which are, of course, much lighter now) didn't weigh much more than that. And we have better material technology now, so a lighter mercury might be doable in 900 pounds.
Note, for reference, that a Falcon 9 can loft a Dragon capsule for only $50-odd million. Assuming you have a Dragon capsule, of course - not sure if SpaceX has bothered to set a price on the things yet.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
"I'll bet the launch g-forces are way to high. ( the B in ICBM is ballistic which I believe describes most of the flight )"
Just what does that have to do with anything? Just about any none winged rockets flight is ballistic! Ballistic has nothing to do with g loading.
Guess what the rocket that is used to put the Soyuz in orbit is a converted ballistic missile called the R-7.
The rocket that put John Glenn in orbit was a converted ballistic missile called the Atlas.
The rocket that put the Gemini capsules in orbit was a converted ballistic missile called the TitanII.
The real answer is, no 900 lbs is not enough for a manned mission. The Mercury space craft is about as small and bare boned as you would want to get was 2700 lbs. Even with modern materials cutting that in half would be hard and you still don't have room for a person.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I find that hard to believe. Not *one* fueling accident in all those years?
Learn about Photography Basics.
As long as people are willing to trump all other methods with force, only force remains to deal with them.
Force trumps all and cares not a whit what you like.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
"I used to use the PRC-25 set."
"Pterodactyl 21, we have hostile Triceratops fording the river.
Request trebuchet fire on both banks, urgent!" (runs)
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-25C_Titan_II#Service_history
53 dead in 1965, 2 in 1978, 1 in 1980
I don't know why andy thought the Ballistic part was important to mention, but he does have a point about G-limits. The human body can only endure so much acceleration before it essentially turns to mush. A number of non-human-rated launchers are desgined to deliver payloads fast, hard, and quickly (that's doubly true for missiles that are designed to kill shit before their launch is detected). That said, the G-loading on the peacekeepers is probably well above safe-limits for the human body to endure. Of course, that's just an educated guess on my part. But what do I know? I'm just a launch vehicle flight safety engineer...
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
Nice.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Well It looks like about 4.6g at launch I don't have the stage weights and odds are very good that they do have them cores reduce thrust as they burn so yeah it would probably be a rough ride at best. It is the term ballistic that I found odd,
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.