mark@jarthur.Claremont.edu (Mark Anderson) (08/05/90)
From: Mark Anderson <mark@jarthur.Claremont.edu> What with the developing situation with Iraq, I have begun to wonder about their potential for acquiring ballistic missile capability and nukes. How hard is it to take a booster capable of putting something in low earth orbit (LEO) (say about ~90 minutes period) and turn it into a IBCM, or at least something capable of delivering payloads intra regionally? I have done some back of the envelope calculation with regard to delta vee needs and such, but I get results all over the place. To put something into orbit, there is (as I understand it) a boost phase and then a substantial secondary burn to go from the transfer orbit to the more circular desired one. As I understand IBCMs, they have a very rapid initial burn, and then free fall in a ellipse which re-enters near the target. A final burn by the payload bus puts the warhead on target. Now the delta vee requirements seem roughly equivalent from my calculations, but I have to make way too many assumptions, and my numbers come out wierd. Theoretical Mechanics was not my favorite class. :-) The other, and probably more important consideration is how hard is it to build the control system for the BM. The LEO final burn would apparently be much less 'picky' than the sets of burns to put a warhead near it's target. If all you needed was to have a terror weapon rather than real hard target kill, it doesn't seem as if the guidance would be anywhere near as hard. Could you steal the inertial guidance from say an Exocet, and hack it up (kludge is probably more accurate) to work well enough? Given the technologies available these days, how hard is that kind of system to acquire? This brings up the converse. How hard would it be to hack an IBCM to deliver a satellite to LEO? Take the bus out from a MIRV and replace with say a final stage and a satellite? Could you take a SSNB and turn it into a launch site for small photorecon type satellites? (Not a KH14!) Aside from the reaction of the USSR of a US sub doing satellite launches, would it work? A mobile, hardened, hard to kill (hopefully) satellite launcher would be useful in a conventional warfare scenario with ASAT enagements. If I made any mistakes, I'm sure someone will be kind enough to tell me :-) Of course this is all speculation, and those on the net who know probably can't tell. But with aggressive nations demonstrating satellite capability, and several going after nuclear capability, one wonders how real the threat is. Mark A. Anderson mark@jarthur.claremont.edu Platt Campus Center manderson@hmcvax.bitnet Harvey Mudd College uunet!jarthur!mark Claremont, CA 91711
pspod@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (08/08/90)
From: pspod@venus.lerc.nasa.gov In article <1990Aug5.042309.27779@cbnews.att.com>, mark@jarthur.Claremont.edu (Mark Anderson) writes... > > >From: Mark Anderson <mark@jarthur.Claremont.edu> > >What with the developing situation with Iraq, I have begun to wonder about >their potential for acquiring ballistic missile capability and nukes. Iraq essential has ballitic missile capability. They test launched an IRBM (three stage, I think) about 6 months ago!. I think is was a combination of tactical rocket stages.
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (08/08/90)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: Mark Anderson <mark@jarthur.Claremont.edu> >...How >hard is it to take a booster capable of putting something in low earth orbit >(LEO) (say about ~90 minutes period) and turn it into a IBCM, or at least >something capable of delivering payloads intra regionally? Easy, unless the warhead you want to deliver weighs a lot more than the satellites you can launch. What an ICBM does is to put its payload into an orbit that intersects the Earth -- an ellipse with perigee less than Earth's radius. This is generally somewhat easier than putting it into an orbit that clears the Earth. Of course, if you want it to be *accurate*, then things get harder. :-) Getting within a kilometer or two of a specified orbit is considered very good, but that's not impressive accuracy by ICBM standards. >This brings up the converse. How hard would it be to hack an IBCM to deliver >a satellite to LEO? ... Not difficult, although it will reduce the payload some. There was some discussion of a "basing mode" for MX that would have involved launching the warheads into orbit in a crisis (!). There are also rumors that a few of the existing ICBM/SLBM fleet normally sit with emergency comsats up top, rather than warheads. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
c8636248@cc.nu.oz.au (08/11/90)
From: c8636248@cc.nu.oz.au In article <1990Aug5.042309.27779@cbnews.att.com>, mark@jarthur.Claremont.edu (Mark Anderson) writes: > This brings up the converse. How hard would it be to hack an IBCM to deliver > a satellite to LEO? Take the bus out from a MIRV and replace with say a > final stage and a satellite? Could you take a SSNB and turn it into a launch > site for small photorecon type satellites? (Not a KH14!) Aside from the > reaction of the USSR of a US sub doing satellite launches, would it work? A > mobile, hardened, hard to kill (hopefully) satellite launcher would be > useful in a conventional warfare scenario with ASAT enagements. I am sure this is going to be well out of date and deluged by far more knowledgeable replies, but anyway... There is no problem about turning an older, perhaps obsolescent ICBM into a launch system; the US did with the Titan series way back when (I'm sure there I've seen mention of it in with the regard to the Mercury program, even if it was only in 'The Right Stuff'), and the USSR still uses one of their earlier ICBM designs (SS-9?) today. In fact, I think it's still one of their major launch vehicles. You tend to feel that this is a clear case of 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it.' Of course, I dare say they needed some tinkering before they were used as people, rather than equipment, movers. Andrew Hide Computer Science Honours University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia
zimerman@phoenix.princeton.edu (Jacob Ben-david Zimmerman) (08/14/90)
From: zimerman@phoenix.princeton.edu (Jacob Ben-david Zimmerman) There was mention made of the rumor that there were in the US inventory strategic launch systems which were kept with emergency comsats sitting on top of them. I think I recall that, in addition, there were some missiles which carried transmitters designed to operate on during the payload's ascent, in order to transmit EAMS (Emergency Action Messages) or other information to friendly forces (other missile sites, submarines, bombers) in the event of communication loss due to nuclear explosions or whatever. Can anyone tell me if this is correct, or whether I'm speaking through my hat? I can't remember exact details, and am wondering if this is true. If these do/did exist, what platforms launched them and what was their effectiveness in tests? -JBZimmerman! ___________ |-Here comes your father. || | -Henry V || ||acob Zimmerman!+> <zimerman@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> INTERNET === | <zimerman@PUCC> BITnet
ewright@uunet.UU.NET (Edward V. Wright) (08/19/90)
From: convex!ewright@uunet.UU.NET (Edward V. Wright) henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >Of course, if you want it to be *accurate*, then things get harder. :-) >Getting within a kilometer or two of a specified orbit is considered very >good, but that's not impressive accuracy by ICBM standards. Not if you're trying to take out an opponent's ICBM silos. If all you want to do is dump a thousand pounds of chemical weapons or a small nuke onto New York City, one or two kilometers would be impressive enough for me. >There are also rumors that a >few of the existing ICBM/SLBM fleet normally sit with emergency comsats >up top, rather than warheads. I know the US Navy studied a proposal a few years back to make one missile on each Trident SSBN an emergency-commsat launcher instead of a warhead carrier, but officially at least the proposal was never approved. I also saw a reference once in a Congressional budget document to something called (I think) the Emergency Rocket Transponder System, which apparently is operational on a Minuteman launch vehicle. The name, however, implies to me that this might not be a satellite but simply a temporary rely, launched on a suborbital trajectory, to help ensure that SAC gets all its missiles off at the start of a war. This makes more sense since there have never been any orbital tests of the Minuteman or Trident vehicles.
besst@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Brian E. Schwadron) (08/22/90)
From: Brian E. Schwadron <besst@unix.cis.pitt.edu> In article <1990Aug14.034455.10614@cbnews.att.com> zimerman@phoenix.princeton.edu (Jacob Ben-david Zimmerman) writes: > >I think I recall that, in addition, there were some >missiles which carried transmitters designed to operate on during the >payload's ascent, in order to transmit EAMS (Emergency Action Messages) >or other information to friendly forces (other missile sites, >submarines, bombers) in the event of communication loss >-JBZimmerman! I believe that you are talking about the ERCS ( Emergency Rocket Communication System). It consists of 2 Minutemen with UHF transmitters instead of warheads. The transmitters are programmed with their instructions and launched by a EC-135 Looking Glass. I am not sure, but I believe that the ERCS can only launch ICBMs; they have no capability to send messages to SSBN or bombers.