January 30, 2004
If I'm very very good, maybe Santa would bring me one.
Thanks to Spoons for the pointer.
Posted by: Ted at
06:28 AM | category: Military
No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.
January 26, 2004
At various times I've seen some folks make a point of slamming President Bush or the media for not making a big deal out of this. They attempt to make this a political issue, or try to paint it as uncaring or unfeeling in some way. They have the right to their opinion, but I think they're absolutely wrong about it.
Don't think for a second that our military sons and daughters make their final homecoming under shameful secrecy.
Posted by: Ted at
06:50 PM | category: Military
No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.
January 13, 2004
So what exactly was Pluto? Simply put, Pluto was an atomic robotic aircraft, designed to fly faster than the Soviet defenses could react, dropping bombs and missiles at targets along the way as it went about its mission. Pluto would be powered by a ramjet, and fly just above treetop level at Mach 3+ (~2500mph).
From a Department of Energy document:
The principle behind the ramjet was relatively simple: air was drawn in at the front of the vehicle under ram (under great force) pressure, heated to make it expand, and then exhausted out the back, providing thrust.The notion of using a nuclear reactor to heat the air was fundamentally new. Unlike commercial reactors, which are surrounded by concrete, the Pluto reactor had to be small and compact enough to fly, but durable enough to survive a 7,000 mile trip to a potential target.
The name of this experimental RamJet was Tory II-C, and a working model was actually built and successfully run for a few seconds in 1961.
This .pdf document contains a picture of the Tory II-C test engine, which was mounted on a railroad flatcar. The technician working on the engine gives an idea of the scale of the engine, and just how large Pluto would've been.
This site is a nice look at various types of ramjets and how they work.
From the Sci.Space.History newsgroup:
Much of Pluto's rationale was lost when effective ABM systems failed to appear. The concept always had problems with attack routing -- many of the approach routes to the Soviet Union are over friendly or neutral territory -- and with detectability -- it might be hard to catch, but it would be awfully easy to track, since a *less* stealthy aircraft is difficult to imagine. The deathblow was the problem of how to safely test an ultra-high-speed necessarily-unmanned aircraft with global range and a tendency to kill everything under its flight path. Sure, you can run the tests over the Pacific, but what happens when one has a navigation failure? And for that matter, assuming everything works and your test is a success, what do you *do* with the thing at the end of the test? It's intensely radioactive and has no landing gear...
There was also some debate about whether Pluto actually needed warheads. Once again from Sci.Space.History:
The reason why folks wondered whether the thing needed a warhead was the radiation emitted by the engine itself (a completely unshielded half-gigawatt reactor) plus the shockwave generated by a fairly large aircraft doing Mach 3 at treetop height.
Sometimes you have to wonder how we ever survived to see 2000.
You can find more historical context in this paper titled The Decay of the Atomic-Powered Aircraft Program. The paper "examines the technical and socio-political aspects of the United States Air Force's Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion (ANP) program and associated programs, including the reasons the ANP program was undertaken, and the reasons it was canceled after a decade of work."
Posted by: Ted at
07:56 AM | category: Military
Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 576 words, total size 4 kb.
January 05, 2004
Posted by: Ted at
02:23 PM | category: Military
No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.
68 queries taking 0.076 seconds, 161 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.