Environmentally friendly nuclear missles

[rogwar]

Hello folks,

I was listening to Paul Harvey on the radio the other day and heard one of those famous, humorous sound bytes. I tried to verify it by searching news but could not although I found some other interesting stuff to share. Will post the links below.

Anyway, Paul Harvey was saying that the new rocket fuel for the upgraded minuteman nuclear missle has to meet newer, stricter emission guidelines during its burn.

Now solid fuel does give off some nasty stuff but is it really all that important given the overall more serious issues if we start exchanging nukes with some country.

I just thought it was funny...

Oh and the links:

How's this for a mortar type round?

http://www.brook.edu/fp/projects/nucwcost/davyc.htm

Good photos of ADMs....

http://www.brook.edu/fp/projects/nucwcost/madm.htm

"What if I push this button? Always wanted to push this...this is gonna be funny"

http://www.brook.edu/fp/projects/nucwcost/155mm.htm

They are thinking, "wow wish we could cook one of these babies off...".

http://www.brook.edu/fp/projects/nucwcost/talos.htm

[Bodhi]

Originally posted by rogwar

Now solid fuel does give off some nasty stuff but is it really all that important given the overall more serious issues if we start exchanging nukes with some country.

hehe, yeah, now that does make a lot of sense.

knuckleheads

[Vermillion]

Don't laugh too hard before you think about all the issues.

FYI I work for an environmental agency in a state were decomissioned Navy solid rocket/missile fuel is disposed of by a simple method (and the only viable one) they take it outside into a large metal pan (literally its 10 yds by 10 yds and about a foot deep) and set it on fire.  Where its destroyed by open burning.  All kinds of nasty stuff coming out of that smoke and fumes.

I'm not sure if the Minuteman is a solid fuel or a liquid fuel.  But in most rockets/missiles the fuel has a shelf life and it must either be replaced, or the entire weapon decomissioned and a new one built.  Either way the old stuff has to be obviously disposed of in some manner or another because its highly flammable and explosive under the correct conditions.

And not I'm not a tree hugger... I'm an engineer.  

[Chairboy]

I read recently that some ex-soviet SAM installations were decommissioned somewhere by burning, and that one of the rockets actually broke free of the launch rail and caused some commotion as it flew a quarter mile before impacting.

Rockets want to be free!

I think it's a shame that the ICBMs are simply burned off instead of used to loft payloads into orbit.  The Minotaur launcher that Orbital handles is a good example of doing this (where they use the first stage of a Minuteman (I think) plus another booster for insertion).

I'd like to see four solid ICBMs strapped or welded together ignited at the same time using the same ignition timing they use for Titan IVs.  I bet you could loft some real cargo using that, and it'd be more useful then just setting them afire.

[Nilsen]

if those minutemans are later used as rockets to put nice stuff into orbit i can see the enviromental side of it...then you also have  Vermillions point.

however i do see the irony

[Vermillion]

Guys, the whole reason the rockets are decomissioned, is that they are judged unsafe to use.

Solid rocket fuel developes cracks over time, which means uneven burning of the propellant.  Which typically causes a catastrophic event.  In other words, it blows the heck up !!

So you wouldn't want to put expensive satellite payloads on top of those things. hehehe

[rogwar]

Originally posted by Vermillion
Don't laugh too hard before you think about all the issues.

 

That's a good point. The stuff does have a shelf life and disposal is an issue. It's just the context of the news that is funny.