21 July 2013

Space reentry vehicles, part 3


Part 3: ICBMs and the cold war

(index)

Other than vehicles with a detached shock wave, all aircraft heat up more the faster they move.  From the NASA book Facing the Heat Barrier: A History of Hypersonics [1]
At Mach 3 and higher, there was the Lockheed SR-71 that cruised at 85,000 feet. The atmosphere at such altitudes, three times higher than Mount Everest, has a pressure only one-fiftieth of that at sea level. Even so, this airplane experienced aerodynamic heating that brought temperatures above [260C] over most of its surface.
The SR-71 Blackbird gets to 260C over most of its surface.  Aluminium anneals (softens) at 177C (alloys can be higher) making it unsuitable as a material for use on the outside of the Blackbird.  The Blackbird used titanium instead.

This temperature of 260C is in a vehicle moving at Mach 3.



The US Air Force's experimental rocket X-15 moved at Mach 5 and was designed to withstand temperatures of 1240F (671C) in some places.  If Mach 5 takes the temperature beyond the aluminium melting point (660C)*, how did the Apollo reentry capsule hold together at Mach 36?


pg 60 of [1]

In 1967 a version of the X-15, the A-2, broke a new record, reaching Mach 6.7 and was significantly damaged, but the Apollo craft was A-OK:
The X-15 reached Mach 6.7 in 1967, half the speed of an X-17 nose cone, and at 102,000 feet. Its structure was Inconel X heat sink, and it had further protection from a spray-on ablative. Yet it sustained significant physical damage due to high temperatures and never again approached that mark. [1]

The X-17 experimental rocket flying at Mach 15.5, altitude 98,000 feet, was heating at a rate of 2927C per second, and completely disintegrated. Yet Apollo moves at Mach 36 and is fine. X-17 moves at half that speed and completely disintegrates.  Its nose cone lived long enough only to return data; then it vanished into thin air.
Another noteworthy flight involved a five-stage NACA rocket that was to accomplish its own over-the-top mission. It was climbing gently at 96,000 feet when the third stage ignited. Telemetry continued for an additional 8.2 seconds and then suddenly cut off, with the fifth stage still having half a second to burn. The speed was Mach 15.5 at 98,500 feet. The temperature on the inner surface of the skin was 2,500ºF, close to the melting point, with this temperature rising at nearly 5,300ºF per second.[1]
How then did X-17 nose cones survive flight at nearly this speed, but at little more than one-third the altitude? They did not. They burned up in the atmosphere. They lacked thermal protection, whether heat sink or ablative...  pg 44 [1]

Reference [1] continues:
An ICBM nose cone was to re-enter the atmosphere at speeds above Mach 20. Its kinetic energy would vaporize five times its weight of iron. 


Really 5 times its weight?!  Just as well NASA invented the detached shock wave to protect those poor astronauts who were returning from space, otherwise they would have fried to a cinder!
Temperatures behind the bow shock would reach 9000 K, hotter than the surface of the Sun. 
There isn't a substance in the universe that can withstand 9000K!  
Research scien­tist Peter Rose wrote that this velocity would be “large enough to dissociate all the oxygen molecules into atoms, dissociate about half of the nitrogen, and thermally ionize a considerable fraction of the air.” pg 30 [1]
The Apollo reentry capsule was to move at Mach 36.  


The Apollo reentry capsule was basically made of aluminium on the top*.  How did this aluminium not soften, melt and boil during reentry?  (*Edit 3/8/13: only the outside, and part of the structure was made of aluminium.  It also had some ablative panels. And some glass windows.  Update here.)

In the first two parts of this post I argued that any vehicle returning from space will be destroyed by the huge heat of reentry.  Before NASA invented the fictitious mechanism of the detached shock wave this is exactly what was found:
"....no matter how streamlined the shape, or how super-duper the construction of the missile 'nose-cone', it came back to Earth a charred mess."
*************************

In 1957 the world's first satellite, Sputnik, sent shock waves through the American public who thought: if the Soviets can launch a satellite over our country, they could also send nuclear weapons.  This gave rise to the missile gap.

In truth, the nuclear ICBM threat from the Soviets wasn't that bad, even by conventional estimates.  The Soviets had only 4 ICBMs in 1957 and they were easy to detect, and took 20 hours to launch. 

US President Eisenhower was fully aware of how insignificant the alleged ICBM threat was.  The American military has always had superior nuclear weapons delivery systems based on traditional platforms like the B-52 bomber -- a platform that's maintained to this day.

Sputnik was a huge propaganda victory for the Soviets.  I think if Eisenhower had his way he just would have let it slide: so what if the Soviets had a tin can in space?  It really didn't mean anything.  And that was the attitude the Eisenhower administration took at first.

The US public put a lot more credence in the capabilities of space vehicles.  The 1950s was a time of almost unlimited dreaming, and unlimited promises, of space's potential.  People didn't realise how difficult a challenge space would turn out to be.

The Jetsons: the promise of a new space age that never came to be

Eisenhower decided he would play the space race game even if it was just for show.  After the launch of the Sputnik II on 3 November 1957 Eisenhower ordered his chief rocket scientist Wernher Von Braun to fast track the latest missile project, and 90 days later the US sent their first satellite into space, the Explorer I.


Von Braun (right) and Explorer I (from here)

Eisenhower tried to placate the American public, who were concerned about the missile gap, with a TV address on November 7, 1957 where he triumphantly displayed a nose cone from a missile that had supposedly been "...hundreds of miles to outer space and back." [3].

Eisenhower displays a nose cone from a Jupiter-C missile

It doesn't look to me like a particularly blunt nose cone.  The rounded end is somewhat blunt but is only small portion of the nose cone which is mostly tapered and conical. The nose cone was in good shape being practically untouched by the heat of reentry (video). 

Given that everything else up to that point had come back from outer space a charred mess, this missile couldn't have gone as high as Eisenhower claimed.

I couldn't find a single photo of a truly flat, blunt missile nose cone on the internet, like this one I doctored up: 

What a missile with a truly flat, blunt leading edge might look like if they actually existed.  You won't see one like this though.
From the beginning, propaganda was a distinct element of the space race, but in 1961 the Soviets took it up a notch with the announcement of the first man in space, Yuri Gagarin.

Gagarin pictured wearing a parachute outfit.  Strange outfit to wear into space.

The strange part of the story, which the Soviets covered-up at the time (to preserve its eligibility as an official space flight), is that Gagarin was not in the Vostok but supposedly ejected from the capsule and parachuted down next to it.  That doesn't sound right to me; it seems more likely that he and the capsule were both ejected from a plane with their respective parachutes open from the beginning.

The Vostok space capsule was supposed to have been fitted with a camera.  See the evidence here:

Vostok

But when it came to Yuri Gagarin's mission they conveniently forgot the camera.  As a result there's not a single photo of Gagarin's alleged space exploit.  But people worldwide, including most in America, believed it anyway just on the Soviet's hearsay!  (The forgetting the camera thing is a trick they do even to this day in the Soyuz.)

***********************

Now, if the Russians had ICBMs by 1957 and had sent a human to space and back by 1961, then why was there a Cuban missile crisis in 1962?  If nuclear missiles could be launched to America from the centre of Russia as easily as from Cuba, why should US President Kennedy care where the Soviets put their missiles?

The reason is because Kennedy knew the real limitations of missile technology, and that short and medium range missiles were the real deal, not the alleged globe-encompassing ICBMs. Kennedy was therefore rightly concerned about Soviet Premier Khrushchev's deployment of nuclear missiles to Cuba.

Despite the alleged existence of ICBM arsenals, the fact is that non-ICBM platforms (e.g. B-52s and submarines) received high priority in the US and other militaries.  A document declassified in 1999 showed that the US had land based nuclear missiles from Greenland to Taiwan in an effort to contain the Soviets during the cold war [2].

The Soviet Union was surrounded by non-ICBM nuclear weapons at all times throughout the cold war
From: United States Secretly Deployed Nuclear Bombs In 27 Countries and Territories During Cold War [2]:
The authors also found that during the peak years in the early 1970s, the United States had more than 7,000 nuclear weapons in NATO countries in Europe, and more than 2,000 on land in the Pacific.
A variety of naval vessels, including aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers, frigates and attack submarines, routinely carried another 3,000 nuclear weapons.
Understandably, countries will want to diversify their nuclear weapon delivery platforms.  But why all the emphasis on non-ICBM platforms if space-going ICBMs really were a reality?
...Germany was home for 21 U.S. weapon systems...Guam hosted 20 types and the Japanese island of Okinawa... hosted 19....
I contend that the ICBM (as a vehicle that truly returns from space) plays no part in the present or past nuclear deterrent of all nuclear powers, because they would burn up on reentry.  

France does away with the pretence of ICBMs altogether, and only deploys submarine-launched SLBMs.  All present nuclear weapons delivery platforms centre on medium to long range in-atmosphere missiles launched from land, air or submarines -- none come from outer space.

I have read on pro-Apollo websites that if America faked the moon landing the Soviets would have blown the whistle.  To this I say: why would the Soviets blow the whistle on the Americans when they were lying to their own people just as much about their own space program?

The space race and the spectre of ICBM-led mutually assured destruction was a propaganda tool for the superpower governments that was far more useful than blowing the whistle on their opponent.  And if they did blow the whistle who would believe them anyway?

References: 

[1]  Facing the Heat Barrier: A History of Hypersonics, T. A. Heppenheimer, NASA, 2007. (part 1) (part 2)

[2] United States Secretly Deployed Nuclear Bombs In 27 Countries and Territories During Cold War, (link), a summary of:

History of the Custody and Deployment of Nuclear Weapons: July 1945 through September 1977, Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense (Atomic Energy), 1978.  (link)

[3] Dwight D Eisenhower, Radio and Television Address to the American People on Science in National Security, November 7, 1957. (link)

(index)

16 comments:

  1. I watched your Youtube video titled "Bogus Reentry Vehicles" a couple years ago and again the other day. Great work, even without the content promised by the title!

    Glad to find the missing content in this blog post series. Thank you!

    "The space race and the spectre of ICBM-led mutually assured destruction was a propaganda tool for the superpower governments that was far more useful than blowing the whistle on their opponent."

    Exactly. However, have you not considered yet extending that reasoning on the prerequisite of the ICBM scare - the nuke scare? Do you think nukes are more real than ICBMs? Or even more real than flying saucers?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Cool one! Interesting informations over this web. It is pretty worth enough for me. Personally, if all site owners and bloggers made good content as you did, the net will be much more useful than ever before.| I could not resist commenting. I ‘ve spent some hours looking for such tips. I’ll also share it with a couple of friends interested in it.
    skip bin hire darra
    skip bin hire yeerongpilly

    ReplyDelete
  3. kepp writingul a its very usefull and helpful i appreciate this because the time and effort you put on this i wll share this with my friends
    cash for cars gold coast
    cash for cars brisbane

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ezy Cash for Cars is the topmost wreckers in Brisbane with free towing service and genuine cash for your old, damaged, unwanted, scrap and junk cars. We are the best car dealers and we are followed by lakhs of customers because of our fast removal service. No other car buyers offer this much top cash for your old vehicles as we offer.
    Cash for Cars Brisbane
    Cash for Cars Gold Coast
    Cash for Cars Sunshine Coast
    Cash for Cars Sydney
    Cash for Cars Logan
    Cash for Cars Toowoomba
    Cash for Cars Ipswich
    Cash for Cars Caboolture
    Cash for scrap metal brisbane

    ReplyDelete
  5. First cash for car is offering the best in the market cash for all types of cars no matter if it is in running condition or not. We are still be interested to buy it for cash and offer free pickup.
    First cash for car
    cash for car
    cash for car brisbane
    cash for car gold coast
    cash for car Ipswich
    cash for car Caboolture
    cash for car Sunnybank

    ReplyDelete
  6. We provide our best in town car removal services and cover a wide-region of Australia including Brisbane, Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, Toowoomba, and Ipswich
    cash for cars Ipswich

    ReplyDelete
  7. Looking for the low budget, manual, and automatic rental cars in Chennai? Onroadz is the best car rental provider within the city and outstation which meets your budget needs. You can also hire premium cars for rent in Chennai airport for self driving within the city or outstation based on hourly, daily, weekly, and monthly packages at the most reliable cost.

    self driven cars in Mysore
    self drive cars rent in Coimbatore
    self driving rental cars in Madurai
    self driving rental car in Vizag
    self drive car rental in Vijayawada

    ReplyDelete

  8. Awesome Article! Thanks for sharing this types of article is very helpful for us! If you looking for car removal services than contact any time for Quotes. Our services are:

    Cash for Car in Capalaba
    Cash for cars Kangaroo point
    free car removal Southport
    Free Car Removal Service in Wellington Point

    ReplyDelete
  9. Very informational blog! Want to sell out your car in Melbourne? Let's come for the top Cash for Car Melbourne
    .

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Having read this article, I found it to be very helpful. Many car owners benefit from the service you provide. From Australian dealers, you can choose from a wide variety of car models and makes. Adrian's Auto Wrecking Gold Coast is not the only vehicle recycler accepting this type of vehicle. Other vehicle recyclers accept it as well.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The attention a writer pays to details is admirable! It is a pleasure to congratulate you on your achievements. We are distinguished from other companies by our attention to detail. Your accomplishment is to be congratulated. We Buy Cars is one of Australia's most reputable money transfer companies because it provides free evaluations and instant cash transfers. An organization's mission statement should include the ability to transfer money quickly, conveniently, and for free.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Neither the author's writing nor the captivated reader can be ignored. The way in which he writes is engaging, despite the fact that he uses straightforward language. Besides highlighting the benefits of Sell My Car for Cash Brisbane to Max Cash For Cars, we will also discuss the price it pays for scrap cars.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Your readers will want to read more if your writing keeps them engaged. Metal Biz Recyclers are well known to almost everyone. Cash for cars is in addition to the services we offer in regards to vans and cars. We are happy to help you with any questions you may have. Our staff is friendly and knowledgeable. Cash For Cars North Brisbane is one of the vehicle recycling services that Metalbiz Car Breakers provides, which is a part of its vehicle recycling program.

    ReplyDelete
  15. This book has a skillful writing style that kept me captivated from beginning to end. As part of its commitment to sustainable development, Fast Car Removals offers clients the opportunity to Sell Your Car for Cash Gold Coast.

    ReplyDelete
  16. When creative and informative elements are combined, a win-win situation is achieved. Professionalism was evident in the presentations. The Cash For Cars Barton website provides free car removal and towing services offered by Scrap My Car Canberra.

    ReplyDelete