Skunk Works Mailing List
Re: skunk-works-digest V8 #66
From: "Adam Chance"
Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V8 #66
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 17:58:15 -0400
Forgive me if this is just plain stupid, I have no idea what I am talking
about.
However just a quick observation.
It seems to me that for a variety of reasons the amount of fuel onboard the
missile would have effects on its maneuvarbility, range and speed.
However in the field there would be no time for people to properly fuel up
the missiles before plotting the intercept. It would seem a safe bet that
the missiles are kept pretty much fueled up (would a missile like this use
solid fuel or liquid fuel?) so they would have maximum range at a moments
notice.
It would also seem that the closer the missile got to its target the more
important its manuverbility and flight characteristics would be. So what I
am going to suggest is maybe it is a basic feature that the when the
computer plots the course it also includes a flight pattern that would burn
off the excess fuel well before the intercept point.
Please feel free to poke holes in this theory, that is why I read this
group, so I can get smarter.
----- Original Message -----
From: patrick <patrick@e-z.net>
To: <skunk-works@netwrx1.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 19, 1999 10:42 AM
Subject: RE: skunk-works-digest V8 #66
> At 10:11 AM 6/19/99 -0400, Sam wrote:
> >This was the intended flight path of the missile. It was done
> intentionally in
> >order to burn excess fuel to make sure the missile did not have enough to
> leave
> >the White Sands test range and possibly crash into a populated area.
> >
> >
> >
> Say what? This makes no sense whatever. Excess fuel equals poorer
> performance (acceleration after ignition) as Art has recently pointed out.
> What kind of an anti-missile has a pregrogrammed flight path designed for
> fuel manoevering and when does this profile give way to the flight profile
> requiring intercept? If it was a true concern why have the excess fuel
> onboard? The "burn" segment of flight indicates too much fuel was added
> knowingly before flight if your statement is valid.
>
> And finally having some awareness of WSMR and its operations I don't
> believe they need to be concerned with populated areas when they plan and
> conduct testing like this. WSMR is a vast range, surrounded by even more
> unpopulated areas, much of which can be called up for temporary range use
> by pre-negotiated agreements with ranchers.
>
> As I recall the Patriot missiles flown against SCUD's during the Gulf War
> exhibited similar characteristics. I could be wrong though.
>
> Sam, were you kidding??
>
> patrick
>
Next Message
| Previous Message
| List Surrounding Messages
|
This archive of mailing list messages
is provided as a free public courtesy.
It is maintained automatically.
The webmaster has no control over content,
does not review these messages and accepts no
liability for the accuracy of information contained herein.
Responsibility for this material rests solely with the author
and mailing list moderator (if any).
Note: This is a temporary archive only; this message will
be deleted eventually. See main page for more info.
This site is supported by the
Research Center Bookstore.
Please visit our catalog if you appreciate our free web services.
|
|
Created: Sat Jun 19 18:00:27 EDT 1999