Expended missiles

Weird Harold wrote:

Duckk wrote:http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/entry/Harrington/131/1

Thanks. I knew I'd read it, but couldn't find it again.

I think I did confuse an article I read on torpedoes that mentioned self-destruct conditions being set before launch.

The torpedoes of the RW have a slight negative buoyancy so that at the end of their run they sink. The negative buoyancy is compensated by the forward motion of the torpedo.

saber964 wrote:The torpedoes of the RW have a slight negative buoyancy so that at the end of their run they sink. The negative buoyancy is compensated by the forward motion of the torpedo.

The article was more concerned with self-destructing torpedoes that tried to circle back to the launch point. It was also concerned with early problems with torpedoes, possible before they adopted the negative buoyancy solution.

Still, despite the pearl's wording, I'd expect the relatively simple expedient of a self-destruct for an obvious over-run.

Real world, duds are a serious issue because, as much as people hate dud, they really, really hate having malfunctions that result in airplanes or ships exploding randomly. So the safety systems are tilted heavily towards the "don't explode" side of the balance instead of the "don't have duds" side.

Somehow I suspect that will remain the case. So if you fire 500,000 missiles, I'd guess that at least 5000 of them, given a perfect course, will not detonate due to some minor malfunction. Of those, at least 50 of those will not self-destruct because whatever the malfunction is that caused the warhead to fail also prevents the destruct system from operating. For example, the warhead still thinks it is awaiting launch because a sensor failed and that same sensor is part of the destruct safety chain. And for some reason the designer decided that missile should never ever explode inside the launching ship.

kzt wrote:Real world, duds are a serious issue because, as much as people hate dud, they really, really hate having malfunctions that result in airplanes or ships exploding randomly. So the safety systems are tilted heavily towards the "don't explode" side of the balance instead of the "don't have duds" side.

Somehow I suspect that will remain the case. So if you fire 500,000 missiles, I'd guess that at least 5000 of them, given a perfect course, will not detonate due to some minor malfunction. Of those, at least 50 of those will not self-destruct because whatever the malfunction is that caused the warhead to fail also prevents the destruct system from operating. For example, the warhead still thinks it is awaiting launch because a sensor failed and that same sensor is part of the destruct safety chain. And for some reason the designer decided that missile should never ever explode inside the launching ship.

Secondary warhead activated by a combination of accelleration and a simple timer.

For two big reasons, all the ordinance would half to have redundant self destruct systems to insure their complete vaporization or close enough where ANY surviving tiny parts and bits, (if any) could possibly be a safety concern.

The other big reason is that you do not want the other side or a non friendly "neutral party" going after and possibly disarming and retrieving even big chunks of your top secret stuff. I think both reason would be very important.

Important enough that the very self destruct systems would take up a considerable portion of the mass and cubage of the various missile systems, including the pods and Apollo missiles. End of run and remote controlled demo.

If both of those systems failed, then a third very paranoid computer program that would defeat any approach by salvage vessels. Basically a very suspicious bomb brain who only wants to blow itself up. Impossible to even approach.

HB of CJ (old coot) BOOM!

namelessfly wrote:Secondary warhead activated by a combination of accelleration and a simple timer.

It's in free fall all the time due to the compensator. And would it be OK if the ship had to maneuver under reaction drive and 5000 missiles exploded in the magazine?

kzt wrote:Real world, duds are a serious issue because,...

Fortunately, real world duds don't travel at relativistic speeds with significant KEW potential.

HB of CJ wrote:For two big reasons, all the ordinance would half to have redundant self destruct systems to insure their complete vaporization or close enough where ANY surviving tiny parts and bits, (if any) could possibly be a safety concern.

The other big reason is that you do not want the other side or a non friendly "neutral party" going after and possibly disarming and retrieving even big chunks of your top secret stuff. I think both reason would be very important.

Important enough that the very self destruct systems would take up a considerable portion of the mass and cubage of the various missile systems, including the pods and Apollo missiles. End of run and remote controlled demo.

If both of those systems failed, then a third very paranoid computer program that would defeat any approach by salvage vessels. Basically a very suspicious bomb brain who only wants to blow itself up. Impossible to even approach.

HB of CJ (old coot) BOOM!

As long as you don't mind having say .001% of your missiles exploding randomly that should be fine. Of course, with >5000 missiles on board the SD(P)s and BC(L)s you should be prepared to write a few thousand letters every year the next of kin on ships that mysteriously explode.

Weird Harold wrote:

kzt wrote:Real world, duds are a serious issue because,...

Fortunately, real world duds don't travel at relativistic speeds with significant KEW potential.

I've been assured that having an 8" dud go off under your track will get your attention just fine.

kzt wrote:I've been assured that having an 8" dud go off under your track will get your attention just fine.

A stray artillery round can ruin your whole day; a stray missile at c-fractional speeds can ruin your whole planet.