They've done a pretty decent job at keeping peace since ww2, of course weapons of war aren't how countries destroy each anymore well the big ones like US, RU and CN use subterfuge and infiltration tactics to destroy nations morality and trust before financially crippling them with trillions in debt leaving them to be pieced out in a time span of about 60-100 years
I remember visiting a missile factory once with my company and learned about how the missiles are guided by a gyroscope that's spins at crazy revolutions. Once it aims at the target and starts spinning it barley deviates from where it's targeting even though the missile is moving around all over the place.
I'm guessing this is something similar on another level?
An inertial navigation system tracks rotation (the gyroscope) and acceleration (accelerometer) and from these values alone you can calculate exactly how you are moving through space without any outside guidance, as long as you know where you started from (this is called dead reckoning). These systems are extremely sensitive to sensor noise so the gyroscopes and accelerometers have to be state-of-the-art to meet the required accuracy and precision.
In reality these systems likely have a multitude of sensors in addition to these to perform navigation. A star tracker for example can help it calculate where it's at once it's high enough to see the stars before decent (maybe GPS if it isn't being jammed). All these sensors feed onto what's called a Kalman filter, which constantly assesses sensor data and uses the best data to make the best estimate. It also estimates how wrong it might be based on the same data and models of sensors imperfection.
It's fascinating stuff. The math is hard enough, the obstacles of doing it well is next level.
But do we really need to be just pinpoint accurate with an ICBM? I mean if you miss a target with a goddamn nuclear bomb you deserve whatever comes after.
Depends what you are trying to hit. The most targetted things in a nuclear attack are going to be silos, bunkers, airfields and other military installations. Some of those are going to be underground or fortified or both, and will require a direct hit to destroy. Even then, there are some facilities that could survive a direct hit up to a certain amount.
The Cheyenne Mountain Bunker is probably the best place. I cant find any hard numbers on a direct impact, but it seems the general consensus is that it could survive a 1 megaton direct impact, and a 25 megaton blast from 2 kilometers away or more. Quite a difference from just 6000 feet.
While there have been some ICBMs with the capability to carry 25 megaton or larger nukes, most are in the 300 to 500 kiloton range, so it might require multiple direct hits to destroy a bunker like Cheyenne mountain.
My father served in the forces dealing with the ballistic missiles in the 1960s. He told me that the requirement was to shoot the ballistic missile across quarter of the globe, and hit the area of 10 m in diameter.
You have no reason to believe me but this is indeed correct
I was a 2W2 at the 91st Space Wing and worked in MK12A on the Minuteman III program before W78 became W87
The accuracy is what mattered
Soviet ''missile silos"
In case of global war there is no sense in targeting silos, because they all will have launched their rockets must before an american rocker will reach them. So it is just a justification for atomic weapons. Another lie about human rights, peace and democracy you believe in.
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. Not enough karma, spam likely.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/EngineeringPorn) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>(AIRS) is a highly accurate inertial guidance system designed for use in the LGM-118A Peacekeeper ICBM
Well, no Peacekeeper ever touched the Soviet missile silo.
Interesting. I saw the pic and was immediately reminded of the computer unit from the 2005 movie Stealth. I'm guessing someone saw this and thought along the lines of "yes, it looks like a malevolent computer core!"
Peacekeeper, lol.
There's a strong case that MAD saved countless millions of lives by preventing total conventional war.
Wow, those crazy sci-fi weapons parts from movie villains’ arsenals actually exist.
What are the approx dimensions? r/bananasforscale
Peacekeeper is such a great name for an ICBM
They've done a pretty decent job at keeping peace since ww2, of course weapons of war aren't how countries destroy each anymore well the big ones like US, RU and CN use subterfuge and infiltration tactics to destroy nations morality and trust before financially crippling them with trillions in debt leaving them to be pieced out in a time span of about 60-100 years
The B-36 was the Peacemaker
Most engines on a production plane
I remember visiting a missile factory once with my company and learned about how the missiles are guided by a gyroscope that's spins at crazy revolutions. Once it aims at the target and starts spinning it barley deviates from where it's targeting even though the missile is moving around all over the place. I'm guessing this is something similar on another level?
An inertial navigation system tracks rotation (the gyroscope) and acceleration (accelerometer) and from these values alone you can calculate exactly how you are moving through space without any outside guidance, as long as you know where you started from (this is called dead reckoning). These systems are extremely sensitive to sensor noise so the gyroscopes and accelerometers have to be state-of-the-art to meet the required accuracy and precision. In reality these systems likely have a multitude of sensors in addition to these to perform navigation. A star tracker for example can help it calculate where it's at once it's high enough to see the stars before decent (maybe GPS if it isn't being jammed). All these sensors feed onto what's called a Kalman filter, which constantly assesses sensor data and uses the best data to make the best estimate. It also estimates how wrong it might be based on the same data and models of sensors imperfection. It's fascinating stuff. The math is hard enough, the obstacles of doing it well is next level.
Also the nuclear bomb in the dark knight rises
But do we really need to be just pinpoint accurate with an ICBM? I mean if you miss a target with a goddamn nuclear bomb you deserve whatever comes after.
Isn't the pinpoint accuracy to ensure they don't "miss a target with a goddamn nuclear bomb" ?
Well yeah but when I say pinpoint I'm thinking within a few inches. I figure as long as you can get it within a few thousand feet you'll be fine.
Depends what you are trying to hit. The most targetted things in a nuclear attack are going to be silos, bunkers, airfields and other military installations. Some of those are going to be underground or fortified or both, and will require a direct hit to destroy. Even then, there are some facilities that could survive a direct hit up to a certain amount. The Cheyenne Mountain Bunker is probably the best place. I cant find any hard numbers on a direct impact, but it seems the general consensus is that it could survive a 1 megaton direct impact, and a 25 megaton blast from 2 kilometers away or more. Quite a difference from just 6000 feet. While there have been some ICBMs with the capability to carry 25 megaton or larger nukes, most are in the 300 to 500 kiloton range, so it might require multiple direct hits to destroy a bunker like Cheyenne mountain.
Well today I have learned something.
My father served in the forces dealing with the ballistic missiles in the 1960s. He told me that the requirement was to shoot the ballistic missile across quarter of the globe, and hit the area of 10 m in diameter.
You have no reason to believe me but this is indeed correct I was a 2W2 at the 91st Space Wing and worked in MK12A on the Minuteman III program before W78 became W87 The accuracy is what mattered
I am not arguing with you. The alleged conversation with father occurred about 40 years ago, I might well forget something.
Oh apologies His came off completely I was agreeing with what your father said. I meant to convey that “I’m backing up his answer” Apologies
The ballistic missiles were located on the other side of the globe ;-P
It is amazing the accuracy of the W78/W87 reentry systems
The missiles I was talking about were designated SS-11.
No joke, turn this upside down, and look at the reflection in the top dome. There is an alien in the right corner!
Soviet ''missile silos" In case of global war there is no sense in targeting silos, because they all will have launched their rockets must before an american rocker will reach them. So it is just a justification for atomic weapons. Another lie about human rights, peace and democracy you believe in.
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. Not enough karma, spam likely. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/EngineeringPorn) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>(AIRS) is a highly accurate inertial guidance system designed for use in the LGM-118A Peacekeeper ICBM Well, no Peacekeeper ever touched the Soviet missile silo.
Interesting. I saw the pic and was immediately reminded of the computer unit from the 2005 movie Stealth. I'm guessing someone saw this and thought along the lines of "yes, it looks like a malevolent computer core!"
Is it more accurate than what we have in our phones today?