Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Share

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  Mike E on Thu Jan 08, 2015 3:48 am

    Rmf wrote:
    Mike E wrote:
    Yes and no to you Garry... They may induce more drag, but they *more than make up for it* with the immediate reduction of weight. You have to remember that drag is only an issue during the initial launch (closer to the Earth = more air resistance as you know) while weight an issue throughout the entire process. This instantly renders weight a more important concern than aerodynamics.
    its a physics momentum equasion and kind of a paradox but you dont want your engine and tanks to reach orbit. only payload.
    with single stage rocket of 100 tonns when you get 4 tons into orbit its all big booster engines and tanks -no useful payload.

    with smaller 5 tonns 3rd stage moving fast and high you need about 1/4 booster size and engine weight and a small fuel tank -about 50%, so you get 50% payload from 3rd stage or 2,5 tons.
    and todays payload fraction for rockets is actually 3-4%.
    - Which is my point, drop-able boosters allow the rocket to drop weight as much as possible as soon as possible, so a larger payload can be lifted.

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  victor1985 on Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:36 am

    Both opinions yours and you forum colleague can be tested. 2 rockets one whit drag and other whit fuel tank still on rocket can be launch. And then see who has more speed to know who has less disavantage.

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  victor1985 on Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:45 am

    Rmf wrote:
    victor1985 wrote:A stupid question: can a rocket have the engine in front? Like 4 nozzles whir equal flames and so the tanks could be dropped whitout dropping engines?
    1.ofcourse it can, but it wont be very aerodynamic ,plus all those hot exhaust flames traveling several km/s near fuel tanks ,with heat and ablation risks.
    2.also fuel in outer space is free floating in tanks if there is no acceleration, and needs a kick- some G's pulled to settle at the bottom of the tanks so it can be pumped.
    3.it you have staging and want to lose the engines- how would you do it, if they are on top?
    well yes but the engines would not be lost and will be at slow speed only at first stage on your teritory. After removing first fuel tank the extra engine will compensate the drag. About flame well fridge like freon could keep down temperature. Also a neck can be created near flames.
    Fuel can be pulled whit compressed air.
    You dont loose engines. Indeed you burn fast fuel but the extra speed would help reaching targets. The drop of fuel tanks whitout dropping engines that work continuosly will add extra speed.

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  victor1985 on Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:47 am

    Also engines could be mounted whit long bars that keep distance from fuel tanks

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  victor1985 on Thu Jan 08, 2015 8:09 am

    Also everyone here said that the speed of ICMBs dont matter because they will be seen anyway. And thinking that enemy missiles that shut down ICMBs are lighter cause they dont need extra fuel tanks this kind of ICMB would not matter if have speed but coutermeasures on it like small rockets. Plus like i said only on start will be slower after dropping first stage will be more faster

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  victor1985 on Thu Jan 08, 2015 8:32 am

    Also few fuel but powerfull could be used

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jan 08, 2015 9:47 am

    Yes and no to you Garry... They may induce more drag, but they *more than make up for it* with the immediate reduction of weight. You have to remember that drag is only an issue during the initial launch (closer to the Earth = more air resistance as you know) while weight an issue throughout the entire process. This instantly renders weight a more important concern than aerodynamics.

    Except that the vast majority of the weight is the actual fuel, with the structure actually being very light... in some cases pressurised with fuel like a balloon so when the fuel is gone it would most likely collapse if the rear mounted engine inside it continued to develop thrust using fuel in stages in front of it.

    A stupid question: can a rocket have the engine in front? Like 4 nozzles whir equal flames and so the tanks could be dropped whitout dropping engines?

    Not a stupid question... if you have a look at quite a lot of missiles they have rocket nozzles half way down their sides... especially ATGMs because as they fly through the air and burn fuel their centre of gravity shifts so they would need large wings to retain level flight. Instead they have mid mounted rocket nozzles and burn fuel from the centre backwards to counter balance the front mounted warhead. the fuel burning from the centre to the back means the centre of gravity remains in the centre as the front mounted warhead and rear mounted guidance computer and wire spooling system balance each other out.

    Nose mounted rocket thrusters directed backwards are used in the Shkval rocket powered torpedo with the rocket exhaust flowing over the outside of the weapon keeping the missile away from the high drag water to maximise speed.

    Or what about air pressurized rockets? They dont emit IR at all

    Not efficient enough, plus the very high pressure would require very strong and therefore very heavy tank walls which would reduce performance.

    - Which is my point, drop-able boosters allow the rocket to drop weight as much as possible as soon as possible, so a larger payload can be lifted.


    Boosters or stages... they are in effect the same thing, except a stage would be more aerodynamic... external tanks just make the overall missile shorter.

    Both opinions yours and you forum colleague can be tested. 2 rockets one whit drag and other whit fuel tank still on rocket can be launch. And then see who has more speed to know who has less disavantage.

    Most of the rockets will external tanks use cryogenic fuels, while the ones that use 3 stages tend to be ICBMs.

    The drop of fuel tanks whitout dropping engines that work continuosly will add extra speed.

    the first engine carries everything and needs to be big and powerful because the missile is stationary.

    The second stage engine does not need to be powerful because a large part of the fuel is already burned and the rocket is already moving in flight and at altitude.

    The third stage needs an even smaller rocket motor that will be used to ensure the payload gets to exactly the right height and speed to continue its journey where ever that might be.

    the newer Russian ICBMs have much more powerful rocket fuel to shorten the time the first stage burns leaving it less vulnerable to interception during launch.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Morpheus Eberhardt
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1967
    Points : 2092
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Thu Jan 08, 2015 10:23 am

    victor1985 wrote:That is the reason i thinked too.  So th# missile in flight consume fuel but not the tank that contain the fuel. Finally you will have at close of target a almost empty tank that ads weight to missile. And that weight is unnecesary. Someone thinked to vertical stages instead of horizontal ones? I think maibe this would be easyer. The only problem would be droping from missile. But could be more numerous stages.
    Sound stupid what ive said no?
    Mean the fuel to be put in short bars that be dropped one by one. But i think that would add extra weight.

    Some of the Khrunichev's proposals for Angara had drop-tanks.

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  victor1985 on Thu Jan 08, 2015 11:33 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Yes and no to you Garry... They may induce more drag, but they *more than make up for it* with the immediate reduction of weight. You have to remember that drag is only an issue during the initial launch (closer to the Earth = more air resistance as you know) while weight an issue throughout the entire process. This instantly renders weight a more important concern than aerodynamics.

    Except that the vast majority of the weight is the actual fuel, with the structure actually being very light... in some cases pressurised with fuel like a balloon so when the fuel is gone it would most likely collapse if the rear mounted engine inside it continued to develop thrust using fuel in stages in front of it.

    A stupid question: can a rocket have the engine in front? Like 4 nozzles whir equal flames and so the tanks could be dropped whitout dropping engines?

    Not a stupid question... if you have a look at quite a lot of missiles they have rocket nozzles half way down their sides... especially ATGMs because as they fly through the air and burn fuel their centre of gravity shifts so they would need large wings to retain level flight. Instead they have mid mounted rocket nozzles and burn fuel from the centre backwards to counter balance the front mounted warhead. the fuel burning from the centre to the back means the centre of gravity remains in the centre as the front mounted warhead and rear mounted guidance computer and wire spooling system balance each other out.

    Nose mounted rocket thrusters directed backwards are used in the Shkval rocket powered torpedo with the rocket exhaust flowing over the outside of the weapon keeping the missile away from the high drag water to maximise speed.

    Or what about air pressurized rockets? They dont emit IR at all

    Not efficient enough, plus the very high pressure would require very strong and therefore very heavy tank walls which would reduce performance.

    - Which is my point, drop-able boosters allow the rocket to drop weight as much as possible as soon as possible, so a larger payload can be lifted.


    Boosters or stages... they are in effect the same thing, except a stage would be more aerodynamic... external tanks just make the overall missile shorter.

    Both opinions yours and you forum colleague can be tested. 2 rockets one whit drag and other whit fuel tank still on rocket can be launch. And then see who has more speed to know who has less disavantage.

    Most of the rockets will external tanks use cryogenic fuels, while the ones that use 3 stages tend to be ICBMs.

    The drop of fuel tanks whitout dropping engines that work continuosly will add extra speed.

    the first engine carries everything and needs to be big and powerful because the missile is stationary.

    The second stage engine does not need to be powerful because a large part of the fuel is already burned and the rocket is already moving in flight and at altitude.

    The third stage needs an even smaller rocket motor that will be used to ensure the payload gets to exactly the right height and speed to continue its journey where ever that might be.

    the newer Russian ICBMs have much more powerful rocket fuel to shorten the time the first stage burns leaving it less vulnerable to interception during launch.
    well i think also that a more ways to all 3 tanks fuel to the engine will be fine. First from the first tank fuel that may be the shortest because only need at launch then a equlibrated consume from 2 and 3 stage for center of gravity. In this way the weight of the 3 or 4 engines mounted on front could be counterbalanced. More than this the engines could be put in different configurations 2 on front and 2 middle or back. In this way different power/weights configurations might be achieved. Different levels of speeds can be on each tipe of rocket for different distances and purposes. Even at normal ICMBs whit engines in line small boosters can be aded to back of rocket for different speeds weights and fuel consumtions. And for balance.

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  victor1985 on Thu Jan 08, 2015 11:35 am

    Also a front mounted engines can be put at different angles to sustain center of gravity. Angle that might be ajustable during flight

    Rmf
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 381
    Points : 376
    Join date : 2013-05-30

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  Rmf on Thu Jan 08, 2015 10:25 pm

    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
    victor1985 wrote:That is the reason i thinked too.  So th# missile in flight consume fuel but not the tank that contain the fuel. Finally you will have at close of target a almost empty tank that ads weight to missile. And that weight is unnecesary. Someone thinked to vertical stages instead of horizontal ones? I think maibe this would be easyer. The only problem would be droping from missile. But could be more numerous stages.
    Sound stupid what ive said no?
    Mean the fuel to be put in short bars that be dropped one by one. But i think that would add extra weight.

    Some of the Khrunichev's proposals for Angara had drop-tanks.

    yes but you always have different thrust profile for the mission (thrust is not constantly the same during ascent ),and using just single type engines is not weight economical and also nozzle has reduced efficiency in different pressures and enviroments.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine_nozzle

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  Mike E on Fri Jan 09, 2015 4:36 am

    Why mount the engine up top? It is very counter-intuitive to say the very least... Never add extra weight up top.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  Mike E on Fri Jan 09, 2015 4:41 am

    GarryB wrote:
    - Which is my point, drop-able boosters allow the rocket to drop weight as much as possible as soon as possible, so a larger payload can be lifted.
    Boosters or stages... they are in effect the same thing, except a stage would be more aerodynamic... external tanks just make the overall missile shorter.
    Wrong.... Boosters can be dropped at anytime, stages can not. And rockets can only be *so* tall.

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  victor1985 on Fri Jan 09, 2015 7:21 am

    i think a rocket could be made as tall as you want. only condition is to have budget to build. its limitations come from calculations about target to aquire, distance, speed , enemy missiles and so on. about the nozzle can be made one whit adaptation? i mean different shapes for different atmosphere pressures. also as we know its not about the flame pushing the air is about have and explosion so flame could simply be covered by something to have the desired pressure.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5391
    Points : 5640
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  Werewolf on Fri Jan 09, 2015 9:30 am

    victor1985 wrote:i think a rocket could be made as tall as you want. only condition is to have budget to build. its limitations come from calculations about target to aquire, distance, speed , enemy missiles and so on. about the nozzle can be made one whit adaptation? i mean different shapes for different atmosphere pressures. also as we know its not about the flame pushing the air is about have and  explosion so flame  could simply be covered by something to have the desired pressure.

    Well you can not make a missile as tall as you want it would destroy the Center of Gravity and the thrust would just result in a spinning Rocket along its own axis. There are bounderies for everything and like the approach here from Mike E and GarryB except that the discussion ended up a little bit exceptional of their approaches. Making a missile slim and adding cells around the fuselage to avoid making the entire missile wider to reduce weight air drag over time compared to slightly more airdrag but no additional weight same as with boosters that can be decoupled. It is more a sume up of those approaches than anything exceptional from the other both principles add mainly positives to the missile design and its behavior.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  Mike E on Fri Jan 09, 2015 9:44 am

    Thanks Werewolf for summing up my thoughts. +1

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  victor1985 on Fri Jan 09, 2015 10:47 am

    Werewolf wrote:
    victor1985 wrote:i think a rocket could be made as tall as you want. only condition is to have budget to build. its limitations come from calculations about target to aquire, distance, speed , enemy missiles and so on. about the nozzle can be made one whit adaptation? i mean different shapes for different atmosphere pressures. also as we know its not about the flame pushing the air is about have and  explosion so flame  could simply be covered by something to have the desired pressure.

    Well you can not make a missile as tall as you want it would destroy the Center of Gravity and the thrust would just result in a spinning Rocket along its own axis. There are bounderies for everything and like the approach here from Mike E and GarryB except that the discussion ended up a little bit exceptional of their approaches. Making a missile slim and adding cells around the fuselage to avoid making the entire missile wider to reduce weight air drag over time compared to slightly more airdrag but no additional weight same as with boosters that can be decoupled. It is more a sume up of those approaches than anything exceptional from the other both principles add mainly positives to the missile design and its behavior.
    well seems a endless game between you and your enemy in wich both are trying to make counter missiles to other one approach. in theory after calculation one type of solution will give a high speed on a certain moment of flyght. the point is in wich moment do you wish the rocket to have the maximum speed. all that depend of your enemy:distance to him and his advance in missile design. as i learned the enemy missiles for defence are faster than ICMBs because they are not neavy they just get to target. they have light hulls and small tank fuel cause they travel only 15% lets say from the distance a ICMB must have. the point is that if only was the distance from russia to america would be fine cause the ICMB would have the big first stage to carry to us and then the 2 or 3 stage lighter would make all whit speed. but now us wanna put defense missiles in europe so.... it can be intercepted in even first stages when the rocket is heavy and slow. adding engines on sides of rocket would resolve problem because of the speed gained. also a first wave of rockets would be designated to destroy defence in europe leaving a clean road for the latest waves wich would be another type of missiles

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  victor1985 on Fri Jan 09, 2015 10:51 am

    ofcourse nuclear warheads can be also SLBMs and aicraft carryed ones. that complicate the problem. and different variations of SLBMs ICMBs and aicrafts must be taked. a best command center of all weapons is in finally nedeed


    Last edited by victor1985 on Fri Jan 09, 2015 10:53 am; edited 1 time in total

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  Mike E on Fri Jan 09, 2015 10:52 am

    The thing about rockets is you can't just strap engine and fuel tanks where ever you want (like in KSP if you've ever played that). Center of gravity and roll come into play, as does aerodynamics and good ole' weight. I good example of this would be the N1, it was simply too ambitious with all the engines and stages.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jan 09, 2015 10:52 am

    Wrong.... Boosters can be dropped at anytime, stages can not. And rockets can only be *so* tall.

    Booster is the wrong word... we are not talking about actual boosters, we are talking about externally mounted fuel tanks with no engine attached.

    external fuel tanks generate drag and would be dropped as soon as they are empty... the same could be said for stages...

    Stages can be shut down and jettisoned early if need be... usually though they will burn all their fuel and be dumped with the later stages changing their burn times to alter the flight profile.

    As an example the US space shuttle has two solid rocket boosters that can't be turned off and remain attached until they burn out. They are used instead of stages.



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  Mike E on Fri Jan 09, 2015 10:53 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Wrong.... Boosters can be dropped at anytime, stages can not. And rockets can only be *so* tall.

    Booster is the wrong word... we are not talking about actual boosters, we are talking about externally mounted fuel tanks with no engine attached.

    external fuel tanks generate drag and would be dropped as soon as they are empty... the same could be said for stages...

    Stages can be shut down and jettisoned early if need be... usually though they will burn all their fuel and be dumped with the later stages changing their burn times to alter the flight profile.

    As an example the US space shuttle has two solid rocket boosters that can't be turned off and remain attached until they burn out. They are used instead of stages.
    Gotcha... 

    To Victor; Why not just use boosters instead of external tanks?

    ICBM's need to be as thin as possible, the wider they are the harder they are to carry, launch, and build silos for.

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  victor1985 on Fri Jan 09, 2015 11:00 am

    Mike E wrote:The thing about rockets is you can't just strap engine and fuel tanks where ever you want (like in KSP if you've ever played that). Center of gravity and roll come into play, as does aerodynamics and good ole' weight. I good example of this would be the N1, it was simply too ambitious with all the engines and stages.
    ofcourse. you do what physics allow to. all those are just things that are in my brain

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  Mike E on Fri Jan 09, 2015 11:03 am

    I hate to sound rude but... Why ask in the first place if you already know the idea is unpractical? Not that it isn't nice having a conversation...Very Happy

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  victor1985 on Fri Jan 09, 2015 11:03 am

    Mike E wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    Wrong.... Boosters can be dropped at anytime, stages can not. And rockets can only be *so* tall.

    Booster is the wrong word... we are not talking about actual boosters, we are talking about externally mounted fuel tanks with no engine attached.

    external fuel tanks generate drag and would be dropped as soon as they are empty... the same could be said for stages...

    Stages can be shut down and jettisoned early if need be... usually though they will burn all their fuel and be dumped with the later stages changing their burn times to alter the flight profile.

    As an example the US space shuttle has two solid rocket boosters that can't be turned off and remain attached until they burn out. They are used instead of stages.
    Gotcha... 

    To Victor; Why not just use boosters instead of external tanks?

    ICBM's need to be as thin as possible, the wider they are the harder they are to carry, launch, and build silos for.
    external tanks seems more safer.
    yea but in the same time they must be enough tough and longer to resist attacs and carry a large amount of fuel......

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  victor1985 on Fri Jan 09, 2015 11:05 am

    Mike E wrote:I hate to sound rude but... Why ask in the first place if you already know the idea is unpractical? Not that it isn't nice having a conversation...Very Happy
    you know......every time you whish to see what others cant.....and you hope it wasnt made yet.....and hope to have right

    Sponsored content

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 8:21 pm


      Current date/time is Fri Dec 09, 2016 8:21 pm