Would nuclear ICBM work?

[Artlav]

Were there any tests of nuclear weapons under deep re-entry conditions?

It seems that there were no launch-to-blast tests of a nuclear ICBM, only either dummy-warheaded rockets, or separate bombs. Were there?

What about this last part - what would a suborbital speed nuclear explosion be like, an would it be?

 

[Urwumpe]

It seems that there were no launch-to-blast tests of a nuclear ICBM, only either dummy-warheaded rockets, or separate bombs. Were there?

There should have been some life tests before the Limited test ban from Vandenberg.

Also there was the Frigate Bird test of a Polaris missile froma nuclear submarine.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_Test_Ban_Treaty"]Partial Test Ban Treaty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

[SiberianTiger]

Feb 20, 1956: an R-5M carrying a live warhead was shot from Kapustin Yar to a range near the Aral sea.

Operation Dominic, test named Frigate Bird on May 6, 1962: Polaris A2 Missile launched from the submarine USS Ethan Allen (SSBN-608). Only operational test of a United States ballistic missile.

I think, that's it - except for high altitude explosions.

 

[Notebook]

The UK used Black Knight to test and develop the re-entry vehicle for its nuclear warhead:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Knight_(rocket)

Further firings with different heads showed up some unusual phenomena, and further tests under the code names Gaslight and Dazzle were carried out in conjunction with the United States.
A variety of heads were flown in these tests, including a plain copper sphere and a silica sphere. Heads composed of a composite asbestos-based material known as Durestos were also flown, and later tests finalised on a cone-shaped head re-entering pointed-end first, as used on many subsequent missile RVs.

From the last paragraph above, I guess they were happy that the warhead would survive, not much else though...

N.

 

[Mogeley]

I don't know if there were any actual ICBM warhead tests... I don't think so. Probably too risky.

The cone shaped warheads are covered by a heat shield and would probably be slowed to terminal velocity before detonation. I don't think the velocity of the matter in a nuclear explosion matters much. You may get a little different shaping from the blast but you'd have to figure the blast of the total time of the reaction and the distance traveled. The reaction itself is pretty instant and the warhead would be traveling close to vertical by the time of detonation. So not much may change. At least that is my theory.

It may be the same as dropping it from a plane at high altitude. Depending on how much the atmosphere slows the ICBM warhead just before detonation.

Edit - thinking a little more on it the explosion may spread out forming an elliptical blast and distributed shock wave.

 

[kwan3217]

ICBM reentry vehicles are relatively low-drag, compared to any normal spacecraft we in the Orbiter community may be used to flying. Because they are weapons, and because they don't want to be shot down, these reentry vehicles are designed not to hit terminal velocity before the weapon is detonated. I've heard numbers like mach 3+, and the canonical picture of a set of MIRVs with no warheads shows a streak of flame all the way to impact in the ocean.

Warheads don't care about high G (see atomic artillery shells) or heating. They aren't normal payloads.

Peacekeeper missile reentry test, fired from Vandenberg Air Force Base and aimed near [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwajalein"]Kwajalein Atoll[/ame]. These eight streaks represent eight reentry vehicles. A fully loaded Peacekeeper could carry ten. In a live firing, each of these streaks would end with a 500kt explosion. Cloud decks like this usually bottom out at 5000-1000 ft (1.6-3.2km) so you can see that they are hypersonic to at least this level, and probably all the way to the ocean.

There has been precisely one live ICBM launch-to-detonation test performed by the USA - http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_24/frigate_bird.htm Dominic Frigate Bird, 6 May 1962. This was a test from a submarine. The interesting thing about it is that the tested missile was an ordinary active-duty missile from an ordinary active-duty sub, with no special preparations except for a telemetry package. This was more of a demonstration than a test, a demonstration that the USA was ready and able to live fire these things if needed.

 

[Sky Captain]

Kwan3217 do you have a hires version of that picture, it looks uber cool kinda like something straight out of sci fi movie.

 

[Andy44]

To see how fast those warheads hit the ground, watch this video. It's extremely cheesy with dumb music and an annoying announcer, but it has good footage. Especially watch the RV's hitting the target area near the helicopter pad towards the end of the vid, they are like bolts of lightning.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChhYOO1s-nY"]YouTube- Minuteman III Missile Launch - California to Kwajalein Atoll[/ame]

 

[tori]

Sky Captain, first couple hits are really big ones.

 

[Izack]

Sky Captain, first couple hits are really big ones.

Arr, why ye use the Pirate searrrch? :lol:

 

[tori]

Here's a run-down of Operation Dominic, including an operational test of the Polaris. The relevant part starts at about 11:30 (although the footage is poor).

Arr, why ye use the Pirate searrrch? :lol:

Arr, landlubber searrrch be no place f'r a gentleman o' fortune such as meself, sais I! Pirate searrrch be th' best f'r me electric painting plunderin's. Arrr...

Ahoy, !

 

[b_griffin]

Check the movie "Trinity and Beyond": http://www.vce.com/trinity.html

It shows the history of the nuclear tests. One of them, Upshot-Knothole Grable, was an nuclear artillery shell test:

The damage was substantially more than expected because the shell was supersonic when it exploded forming a precursor wave. All the yield data had to be recalculated for fast moving nuclear weapons. Check here too: http://www.sonicbomb.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=94&mode=&order=0&thold=0
http://sonicbomb.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=169