On Sun, 9 Feb 2003, Donald Qualls wrote:
> The same was true of at least one model of Soviet ICBM during the height
> of the Cold War...
> ...I don't recall if this was a storable liquid fuel, or
> solid fuel missile...
Could have been either. The Soviets used liquid fuels for ICBMs, and even
SLBMs, long after the US had gone all-solid for military missiles. But
the SS-25 road-mobile ICBM is solid-fuel.
> if liquid, there'd most likely have been a fueling
> step and additional crew for that function, since ICBM tanks would have
> been too fragile to transport fueled.
Don't count on it. The Soviets built their missiles, and even space
hardware, tougher than the US. Proton's fourth stage is fueled before
rollout (although oxidizer is loaded at the pad, since it's cryogenic)...
and the Proton transporter doesn't even support the fourth stage, it's
hanging out over the end.
A bunch of the early Soviet liquid-fueled mobile missiles had to be fueled
at the pad because their oxidizer tanks would corrode if they sat loaded
for very long, but that problem was solved long ago.
> None the less, such a vehicle is orbit capable with a reduced payload...
Possibly. The Start and Start-1 launchers (a few hundred kg to LEO) are
SS-25 derivatives, but each has at least one extra stage. (Information is
somewhat lacking because the SS-25 is still an operational missile and the
Russians are reluctant to discuss details.)
Henry Spencer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
ERPS-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
