http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150824-how-a-nazi-rocket-could-have-put-a-briton-in-space

In the summer of 1945, with the war in Europe over, Allied forces rushed to unravel the secrets of Nazi V2 rockets. These terror weapons, built by slave labourers, did little to affect the outcome of the war – but they had the potential to change the world.
—-
Known as Operation Backfire, the British program involved firing V2 rockets from the Netherlands to the edge of space before they splashed down in the North Sea. The experiment proved successful, with the missiles reportedly descending within three miles of their targets – more accurately than the Germans managed during the war.
Engineers overseeing the tests realized that von Braun had solved fundamental problems in rocketry: he had designed a sizeable engine, an advanced pump to get fuel in fast enough and a sophisticated guidance system.
“The rocket was out of this world, literally,” says Becklake who later helped restore a V2 for museum display. “It was packed full of high technology.”
—-

Engineers at the British Interplanetary Society in London decided this technology could help them realise their dream of building a spaceship, a dream that had been considered fanciful only five years earlier. In 1946, society member, designer and artist Ralph Smith put forward a detailed proposal to adapt the V2 missile into a “man-carrying rocket.”
Smith’s Megaroc design involved enlarging and strengthening the V2’s hull, increasing the amount of fuel and replacing the one-tonne warhead with a man-carrying capsule. The rocket would not have been powerful enough to carry a person into orbit. Instead, the spaceman (and only a man was considered) would have been launched on a parabolic trajectory some 300,000 metres above the Earth.
—-

“The design was totally practical,” says space historian and editor of Spaceflight magazine David Baker, who has studied the Megaroc designs. “All the technology existed and it could have been achieved within three to five years.”
Baker, who was trained on V2 technology in the States and has spent most of his career as a Nasa engineer working on the Space Shuttle programme, says Megaroc was 10 years ahead of its time. “By 1951 Britain could have been routinely putting people into space on a ballistic trajectory,” he says.
—-

(More in link)

Remarkable, thanks for that.

> The rocket would not have been powerful enough to carry a person into orbit. Instead, the spaceman (and only a man was considered) would have been launched on a parabolic trajectory some 300,000 metres above the Earth.

I can well believe that. Part of the concern is the acceleration and vibration at take-off. That needs to be measured in order to determine if it’s survivable by a trained human.

on a V2?

its risky

as pointed out you’d have acceleration consideration, manned flights are normally relatively slow take off

what could be a problem is the re – entry strikes me as potential problem

yuri g parachuted out I believe

wookiemeister said:

on a V2?

its risky

as pointed out you’d have acceleration consideration, manned flights are normally relatively slow take off

what could be a problem is the re – entry strikes me as potential problem

yuri g parachuted out I believe

Yes, Gagarin got out at about 7000 m. It always struck me as interesting that the USSR went straight for an orbital manned mission rather than sub-orbital to start with.

Although the paper by Smith described a plan for a sub-orbital human flight, it would have been possible for them to use what they had learned from the V2 to make a launch system for putting a probe in orbit.

The V-2 reached a maximum altitude of ~190 km in post-WW2 flight tests.

This frame is usually considered the first picture of earth taken from space, from a camera aboard a V2 in the USA.

Only just read about the Bumper rocket tests at Cape Canaveral and White Sands in the late 1940s.

These were the first multistage rockets, consisting of a WAC corporal atop a V2. The max Alt reached by a bumper was 393 km, in 1949.

Really the Americans could have pressed on from there to put an object in orbit much earlier than the Sputnik launch.

dv said:

Only just read about the Bumper rocket tests at Cape Canaveral and White Sands in the late 1940s.

These were the first multistage rockets, consisting of a WAC corporal atop a V2. The max Alt reached by a bumper was 393 km, in 1949.

Really the Americans could have pressed on from there to put an object in orbit much earlier than the Sputnik launch.

Rushing to beat the Russians

its hard

going sub orbital is one thing

getting into orbit requires lots of velocity and hence power/ fuel

wookiemeister said:

its hard

going sub orbital is one thing

getting into orbit requires lots of velocity and hence power/ fuel

I believe it was Hermann Oberth who said “No shit, Sherlock”.

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

its hard

going sub orbital is one thing

getting into orbit requires lots of velocity and hence power/ fuel

I believe it was Hermann Oberth who said “No shit, Sherlock”.

I remember that novel, Sherlock Homes and the case of the missing poo

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

its hard

going sub orbital is one thing

getting into orbit requires lots of velocity and hence power/ fuel

I believe it was Hermann Oberth who said “No shit, Sherlock”.

which is why a rocket perched on a V2 is only ever going to be good for sub orbital and why it took the yanks time to get where they needed to go

wookiemeister said:

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

its hard

going sub orbital is one thing

getting into orbit requires lots of velocity and hence power/ fuel

I believe it was Hermann Oberth who said “No shit, Sherlock”.

which is why a rocket perched on a V2 is only ever going to be good for sub orbital and why it took the yanks time to get where they needed to go

I guess you missed the point entirely. It’s true that a two-stager based on a standard V2 couldn’t achieve orbit, but a three-stager with a modified V2 (ie with a 50% larger fuel tank) and two well-tuned upper stages would have been able to put something the size of the Explorer 1 satellite in orbit. The Americans just had to keep working on it. But they kind of let it slide for a few years in the early 1950s.

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

dv said:

I believe it was Hermann Oberth who said “No shit, Sherlock”.

which is why a rocket perched on a V2 is only ever going to be good for sub orbital and why it took the yanks time to get where they needed to go

I guess you missed the point entirely. It’s true that a two-stager based on a standard V2 couldn’t achieve orbit, but a three-stager with a modified V2 (ie with a 50% larger fuel tank) and two well-tuned upper stages would have been able to put something the size of the Explorer 1 satellite in orbit. The Americans just had to keep working on it. But they kind of let it slide for a few years in the early 1950s.

i’m still not convinced

the V2 was always a missile, it was heavy for one and not particularly efficient thanks to its shape and nozzle shape

wookiemeister said:

i’m still not convinced

the V2 was always a missile, it was heavy for one and not particularly efficient thanks to its shape and nozzle shape

That’s what some of them said in those days, but the Space Age proved them wrong.

The key being that they had solved the problem of timing of stages.

Ultimately the first orbital launch by the USA was on a Jupiter-C using a Redstone first stage, which at 27 tonnes was twice the size of a V-2 but was otherwise similar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_V-2_test_launches#Launches_of_captured_V-2_rockets_in_the_USA_after_1945

I don’t see anything in the list of American V2 flights that point to any real success with the design

by 1952 the yanks had scrapped the V2 programme and had moved on to presumably something more useful and reliable

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

its hard

going sub orbital is one thing

getting into orbit requires lots of velocity and hence power/ fuel

I believe it was Hermann Oberth who said “No shit, Sherlock”.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-origin-of-the-sentence-No-shit-Sherlock

one major difference is that they did away with the bulging shape of the V2

anything going into orbit will have to carry lots of fuel, be lightweight and be efficient to some degree

the V2 design was so good the yanks would have continued with it, anything they built after it never looked like a V2 and certainly didn’t use alcohol

the V2 was a workhorse designed to get a 1 tonne payload of explosive over to Britain , nothing more

wookiemeister said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_V-2_test_launches#Launches_of_captured_V-2_rockets_in_the_USA_after_1945

I don’t see anything in the list of American V2 flights that point to any real success with the design

by 1952 the yanks had scrapped the V2 programme and had moved on to presumably something more useful and reliable

So … you are not able to see a set of successful American V2 flights in the link you provided.

wookiemeister said:

one major difference is that they did away with the bulging shape of the V2

anything going into orbit will have to carry lots of fuel, be lightweight and be efficient to some degree

the V2 design was so good the yanks would have continued with it, anything they built after it never looked like a V2 and certainly didn’t use alcohol

the V2 was a workhorse designed to get a 1 tonne payload of explosive over to Britain , nothing more

I hardly like to say that you are talking out of your arse but you are talking out of your arse. The first orbital launch by the USA was atop a Redstone that a) looked very much like a scaled-up V2 and b) used alcohol.

from 1946 to 1952 only one American flight had “excellent performance” all the others were nominal or failures

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

one major difference is that they did away with the bulging shape of the V2

anything going into orbit will have to carry lots of fuel, be lightweight and be efficient to some degree

the V2 design was so good the yanks would have continued with it, anything they built after it never looked like a V2 and certainly didn’t use alcohol

the V2 was a workhorse designed to get a 1 tonne payload of explosive over to Britain , nothing more

I hardly like to say that you are talking out of your arse but you are talking out of your arse. The first orbital launch by the USA was atop a Redstone that a) looked very much like a scaled-up V2 and b) used alcohol.

bullshit

the V2 design was rarely a success for what the yanks were trying to do with it

rockets and missiles are different beasts because they have different objectives

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

one major difference is that they did away with the bulging shape of the V2

anything going into orbit will have to carry lots of fuel, be lightweight and be efficient to some degree

the V2 design was so good the yanks would have continued with it, anything they built after it never looked like a V2 and certainly didn’t use alcohol

the V2 was a workhorse designed to get a 1 tonne payload of explosive over to Britain , nothing more

I hardly like to say that you are talking out of your arse but you are talking out of your arse. The first orbital launch by the USA was atop a Redstone that a) looked very much like a scaled-up V2 and b) used alcohol.

that doesn’t look anything like a V2

wookiemeister said:

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

one major difference is that they did away with the bulging shape of the V2

anything going into orbit will have to carry lots of fuel, be lightweight and be efficient to some degree

the V2 design was so good the yanks would have continued with it, anything they built after it never looked like a V2 and certainly didn’t use alcohol

the V2 was a workhorse designed to get a 1 tonne payload of explosive over to Britain , nothing more

I hardly like to say that you are talking out of your arse but you are talking out of your arse. The first orbital launch by the USA was atop a Redstone that a) looked very much like a scaled-up V2 and b) used alcohol.

bullshit

the V2 design was rarely a success for what the yanks were trying to do with it

rockets and missiles are different beasts because they have different objectives

No, all of the early rockets used for orbital launches (including the Redstone) were originally designed as intermediate or intercontinental ballistic missile launchers.

Anything else?

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

dv said:

I hardly like to say that you are talking out of your arse but you are talking out of your arse. The first orbital launch by the USA was atop a Redstone that a) looked very much like a scaled-up V2 and b) used alcohol.

bullshit

the V2 design was rarely a success for what the yanks were trying to do with it

rockets and missiles are different beasts because they have different objectives

No, all of the early rockets used for orbital launches (including the Redstone) were originally designed as intermediate or intercontinental ballistic missile launchers.

Anything else?

yes and they learnt from bitter experience that its better to design stuff to specifically go into orbit than try to use missile systems

wookiemeister said:

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

one major difference is that they did away with the bulging shape of the V2

anything going into orbit will have to carry lots of fuel, be lightweight and be efficient to some degree

the V2 design was so good the yanks would have continued with it, anything they built after it never looked like a V2 and certainly didn’t use alcohol

the V2 was a workhorse designed to get a 1 tonne payload of explosive over to Britain , nothing more

I hardly like to say that you are talking out of your arse but you are talking out of your arse. The first orbital launch by the USA was atop a Redstone that a) looked very much like a scaled-up V2 and b) used alcohol.

bullshit

the V2 design was rarely a success for what the yanks were trying to do with it

rockets and missiles are different beasts because they have different objectives

What about ICBM’s

the V2 isn’t suitable to put stuff into orbit – its a missile system

as I pointed out only one launch by the americans had excellent performance

the last American launch is quite telling

Army training test. Tail explosion at 27s terminating thrust.

many of the launches are failures

I mean damn, son …

The history of spaceflight is kind of my thing, or one of my things. You do want to do your homework if you are going to start something.

dv said:

I mean damn, son …

The history of spaceflight is kind of my thing, or one of my things. You do want to do your homework if you are going to start something.

If the yanks hadn’t gotten hold of any V2’s or German scientists I wonder how much longer it would have taken to develop a space program

Cymek said:

wookiemeister said:

dv said:

I hardly like to say that you are talking out of your arse but you are talking out of your arse. The first orbital launch by the USA was atop a Redstone that a) looked very much like a scaled-up V2 and b) used alcohol.

bullshit

the V2 design was rarely a success for what the yanks were trying to do with it

rockets and missiles are different beasts because they have different objectives

What about ICBM’s

designed to do something different, you’re not designing it to go high just throw it quick enough to hit a point elsewhere

an ICBM wouldn’t carry the same fuel load as a rocket putting something into orbit

Cymek said:

dv said:

I mean damn, son …

The history of spaceflight is kind of my thing, or one of my things. You do want to do your homework if you are going to start something.

If the yanks hadn’t gotten hold of any V2’s or German scientists I wonder how much longer it would have taken to develop a space program

much, much longer

the germans spent more money on the rocket programme than the manhatten so ive just read

dv said:

I mean damn, son …

The history of spaceflight is kind of my thing, or one of my things. You do want to do your homework if you are going to start something.

so I hear sonic waves travel through rock now…

a proper ICBM these days uses solid fuel

a proper rocket these days uses liquid fuels

solid fuel reliable but not providing the same thrust and duration, cheaper – heavier for the given power they’ll push out

liquid fuels more complex, less reliable, more costly – lighter for the same weight of fuel as a solid fuel ICBM

they stopped using the V2 design because it obviously didn’t work for what they wanted

Titans were some of the early rockets i think. ex ballistic.

interestingly the V2 has a straight cone nozzle rather than a fancy bell shaped nozzle, not as efficient

• a proper ICBM these days uses solid fuel
  
  a proper rocket these days uses liquid fuels

Isn’t the reason because ICBM sits around needing to be ready to go at any moment whereas a space rocket gets fuelled up only when it needs to be launched?

Cymek said:

dv said:

I mean damn, son …

The history of spaceflight is kind of my thing, or one of my things. You do want to do your homework if you are going to start something.

If the yanks hadn’t gotten hold of any V2’s or German scientists I wonder how much longer it would have taken to develop a space program

It depends on what other assumptions are made.

The advances made by von Braun in design were quite crucial in the development of practical high-speed rocketry. If we assume that none of that material was recovered it is easy to imagine it being a ten year set back for everyone. If we assume that the Russians nabbed all of the parts and designs and the US ended up with none, then I guess it would depend on how fast American spies could steal the details.

diddly-squat said:

dv said:

I mean damn, son …

The history of spaceflight is kind of my thing, or one of my things. You do want to do your homework if you are going to start something.

so I hear sonic waves travel through rock now…

That’s just crazy talk.

furious said:

• a proper ICBM these days uses solid fuel
  
  a proper rocket these days uses liquid fuels

Isn’t the reason because ICBM sits around needing to be ready to go at any moment whereas a space rocket gets fuelled up only when it needs to be launched?

yes

more reliable and no time needed to fuel

wookiemeister said:

the V2 isn’t suitable to put stuff into orbit – its a missile system

To repeat:
All of the early orbital launchers were originally missile systems.

furious said:

• a proper ICBM these days uses solid fuel
  
  a proper rocket these days uses liquid fuels

Isn’t the reason because ICBM sits around needing to be ready to go at any moment whereas a space rocket gets fuelled up only when it needs to be launched?

I believe so, not much use if incoming commie nukes are you need to fuel your missles

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

the V2 isn’t suitable to put stuff into orbit – its a missile system

To repeat:
All of the early orbital launchers were originally missile systems.

and they gave up on them

it was a marriage of convenience to use missile systems but they stopped using them

dv said:

Cymek said:

dv said:

I mean damn, son …

The history of spaceflight is kind of my thing, or one of my things. You do want to do your homework if you are going to start something.

If the yanks hadn’t gotten hold of any V2’s or German scientists I wonder how much longer it would have taken to develop a space program

It depends on what other assumptions are made.

The advances made by von Braun in design were quite crucial in the development of practical high-speed rocketry. If we assume that none of that material was recovered it is easy to imagine it being a ten year set back for everyone. If we assume that the Russians nabbed all of the parts and designs and the US ended up with none, then I guess it would depend on how fast American spies could steal the details.

Spies like this ?

they gave up using bombers to drop nuclear devices, a missile was most likely much faster, cheaper and more reliable and harder to shoot down

in theory aircraft can be used to deliver a nuclear bomb but in reality they would most likely use a missile slung underneath

wookiemeister said:

a proper ICBM these days uses solid fuel

Yes, most ICBM systems these days use solids for the bottom stages, basically so they can be stored long term.

This wasn’t the case in the early days of the missile programs.

a proper rocket these days uses liquid fuels

a) Your use of “rocket” is a bit weird. ICBMs use rockets, suborbital sounders use rockets.
b) If what you mean is orbital launch vehicles, the great bulk of them use liquids (sometimes with solid boosters).

they stopped using the V2 design because it obviously didn’t work for what they wanted

They ultimately scaled up the V2 design to create the Redstone. Same fuel, similar relative dimensions and thrust to mass ratios.

wookiemeister said:

they gave up using bombers to drop nuclear devices, a missile was most likely much faster, cheaper and more reliable and harder to shoot down

in theory aircraft can be used to deliver a nuclear bomb but in reality they would most likely use a missile slung underneath

I suppose these days there is concern that someone somewhere will deliver a nuclear warhead in a truck.

I think they used elements of the V2 to build later rockets / missiles but they never revisited that exact design – the bloated belly the huge fins, it was early days before anyone really knew how something like that was meant to look or act.

if I were the germans I would have built solid fuel rockets and much smaller rockets and fired them across the channel to hit the ports – they wasted an awful lot of money for very little results

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

they gave up using bombers to drop nuclear devices, a missile was most likely much faster, cheaper and more reliable and harder to shoot down

in theory aircraft can be used to deliver a nuclear bomb but in reality they would most likely use a missile slung underneath

I suppose these days there is concern that someone somewhere will deliver a nuclear warhead in a truck.

or a car or someone with a suitcase bomb

one scenario is a ship sailing into a port like new York and in the belly of the ship a nuclear bomb

• if I were the germans I would have built solid fuel rockets and much smaller rockets and fired them across the channel to hit the ports – they wasted an awful lot of money for very little results

I thought your beef was with roads, not ports?

wookiemeister said:

and they gave up on them

Ah, no, they used them to launch things into space.

The USA’s first satellite launch (Explorer 1) used a Redstone, which was an alcohol burning missile launcher.

The USSR’s first satellite launch (Sputnik 1) used an R-7 as a bottom stage, which was a kero burning ICBM.

furious said:

• if I were the germans I would have built solid fuel rockets and much smaller rockets and fired them across the channel to hit the ports – they wasted an awful lot of money for very little results

I thought your beef was with roads, not ports?

potplants

if they had built lots of solid fuel missiles that could be loaded into barrels and simply pointed into a genral direction they would have hit something

the beauty of hitting the ports of the south east would mean supplies could be disrupted, lots of small missiles hitting the south coast could be seen with binoculars – you’d simply adjust your fire

furious said:

• if I were the germans I would have built solid fuel rockets and much smaller rockets and fired them across the channel to hit the ports – they wasted an awful lot of money for very little results

I thought your beef was with roads, not ports?

whatever shoe fits

in this case you are just doing damage to cause costs to spiral

you might even have a go hitting shipping in the channel

>the bloated belly the huge fins

Abbott & Costello tried to go to Mars in a ship like that, but ended up on Venus.

you could fire off salvos every few minutes and then pack up and go elsewhere before the RAF could find you

if they had developed tat kind of system i’m sure D-day could have been blunted

thousands of missiles flying at support ships or landing craft could have done serious damage to the invasion

werner von braun had this weirdly shaped rocket that was meant to go to the moon – huge wings at the bottom

as the years passed the fins got smaller and smaller

the Saturn V was actually going to dump its fins to save weight – it didn’t need them, it had guidance systems to correct the rocket in flight it didn’t need passive guidance as such

fuming nitric acid was a favourite for a while

I mean it is pretty amazing that the whole world hasn’t been destroyed by nutters making nuclear bombs in their basements. The technology is like 70 years old. Fortunately the materials are hard to come by.

Nitric acid is still pretty big in China where, I suppose, environmental considerations do not loom so large.

furious said:

• if I were the germans I would have built solid fuel rockets and much smaller rockets and fired them across the channel to hit the ports – they wasted an awful lot of money for very little results

I thought your beef was with roads, not ports?

Roads, ports, bike lanes, skate ramps, the list goes on

dv said:

I mean it is pretty amazing that the whole world hasn’t been destroyed by nutters making nuclear bombs in their basements. The technology is like 70 years old. Fortunately the materials are hard to come by.

its quite hard to make bombs

you need the materials and also the expertise on many levels to make it – i’m doubtful if one person could make it. it would need a team of people and of course the word would get out

it requires a state to make a nuclear bomb

Cymek said:

furious said:

• if I were the germans I would have built solid fuel rockets and much smaller rockets and fired them across the channel to hit the ports – they wasted an awful lot of money for very little results

I thought your beef was with roads, not ports?

Roads, ports, bike lanes, skate ramps, the list goes on

Why can’t people just stay where they are?

wookiemeister said:

dv said:

I mean it is pretty amazing that the whole world hasn’t been destroyed by nutters making nuclear bombs in their basements. The technology is like 70 years old. Fortunately the materials are hard to come by.

its quite hard to make bombs

you need the materials and also the expertise on many levels to make it – i’m doubtful if one person could make it. it would need a team of people and of course the word would get out

it requires a state to make a nuclear bomb

Is ISIS a state?

dv said:

I mean it is pretty amazing that the whole world hasn’t been destroyed by nutters making nuclear bombs in their basements. The technology is like 70 years old. Fortunately the materials are hard to come by.

There was that American fellow who designed one for a senior college project some 40 years ago, IIRC

wookiemeister said:

dv said:

I mean it is pretty amazing that the whole world hasn’t been destroyed by nutters making nuclear bombs in their basements. The technology is like 70 years old. Fortunately the materials are hard to come by.

its quite hard to make bombs

you need the materials and also the expertise on many levels to make it – i’m doubtful if one person could make it. it would need a team of people and of course the word would get out

it requires a state to make a nuclear bomb

Reading up on it, its does seem to require a large amount of resources to make nuclear weapons material

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

dv said:

I mean it is pretty amazing that the whole world hasn’t been destroyed by nutters making nuclear bombs in their basements. The technology is like 70 years old. Fortunately the materials are hard to come by.

its quite hard to make bombs

you need the materials and also the expertise on many levels to make it – i’m doubtful if one person could make it. it would need a team of people and of course the word would get out

it requires a state to make a nuclear bomb

Is ISIS a state?

They will probably steal or buy one though

• Reading up on it, its does seem to require a large amount of resources to make nuclear weapons material

Well, you just sent off alarm bells somewhere…

Neophyte said:

dv said:

I mean it is pretty amazing that the whole world hasn’t been destroyed by nutters making nuclear bombs in their basements. The technology is like 70 years old. Fortunately the materials are hard to come by.

There was that American fellow who designed one for a senior college project some 40 years ago, IIRC

John Aristotle Phillips

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

dv said:

I mean it is pretty amazing that the whole world hasn’t been destroyed by nutters making nuclear bombs in their basements. The technology is like 70 years old. Fortunately the materials are hard to come by.

its quite hard to make bombs

you need the materials and also the expertise on many levels to make it – i’m doubtful if one person could make it. it would need a team of people and of course the word would get out

it requires a state to make a nuclear bomb

Is ISIS a state?

they’d need to buy it or steal one

all those devices have electronic brains that would stop you from setting one off without a code i’d bet

ISIS is a terrorist organisation not a state as such. I think the word “state” implies many things , invasion by an armed group is just that and nothing more.

Neophyte said:

dv said:

I mean it is pretty amazing that the whole world hasn’t been destroyed by nutters making nuclear bombs in their basements. The technology is like 70 years old. Fortunately the materials are hard to come by.

There was that American fellow who designed one for a senior college project some 40 years ago, IIRC

sure you can design one but will it work, then you need everything to be exactly right and have a heavy level of understanding of what makes the thing go boom

the americans should have been much more careful about who had access to the secrets of the bomb

it would have been better if only they had the bomb, instead fuchs was driving the secrets off base at a time when few people were allowed off base

they should have been tailing scientists that were leaving and nipped the thing in the bud

The beauty of rocket artillery is that it can be unsophisticated, the propellent can be as simple as gunpowder. It doesn’t require precision, or tolerances or the metals needed for artillery pieces. Against that in primitive systems it is not accurate but you can deliver a great throw weight. The Russians had great success with rocket systems in world Smackdown the second, and it was effectively just trucks with tubes angle ironed to them and loaded with rockets with other trucks carrying reloads. Very cheap and effective but not so good againt hard targets and the bright flaming rain heading at you from over the horizon was more of a morale breaker than a threat to entrenched positions. Palestinians make them from pipes.

in any kind of military armaments system production you need people snooping around and watching the people doing the work

the Collins class was most likely felled by foreign agents in some way

wookiemeister said:

the americans should have been much more careful about who had access to the secrets of the bomb

it would have been better if only they had the bomb, instead fuchs was driving the secrets off base at a time when few people were allowed off base

they should have been tailing scientists that were leaving and nipped the thing in the bud

Maybe they should have used that four year window where they were they only nuclear power to blackmail the USSR into giving up.

You could make a disruptive nuclear weapon with low grade radioactive waste and a chemical explosive. Set it off in the centre of the city of choice and declare another one is set to go off. The Authoritah will soon confirm radioactivity, massive speculation that it was a misfire, city is evacuated, clean up has to happen. Hella expensive and all for the cost of some anfo and some waste.

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

the americans should have been much more careful about who had access to the secrets of the bomb

it would have been better if only they had the bomb, instead fuchs was driving the secrets off base at a time when few people were allowed off base

they should have been tailing scientists that were leaving and nipped the thing in the bud

Maybe they should have used that four year window where they were they only nuclear power to blackmail the USSR into giving up.

the only way to beat Russia is though treaties, no one has ever truly beaten Russia without treaties

economic blockades only harden their resolve

Ukraine is hardly an innocent in the grand scheme of things , the country is evolving towards the right wing, Russia is playing a waiting game / proxy war now, its a war in its own turf and a known quantity – then you’ve got the extensive spy networks left over form the cold war

wookiemeister said:

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

the americans should have been much more careful about who had access to the secrets of the bomb

it would have been better if only they had the bomb, instead fuchs was driving the secrets off base at a time when few people were allowed off base

they should have been tailing scientists that were leaving and nipped the thing in the bud

Maybe they should have used that four year window where they were they only nuclear power to blackmail the USSR into giving up.

the only way to beat Russia is though treaties, no one has ever truly beaten Russia without treaties

economic blockades only harden their resolve

Yeah but if you start dropping nuclear weapons on them they would surrender eventually.

AwesomeO said:

You could make a disruptive nuclear weapon with low grade radioactive waste and a chemical explosive. Set it off in the centre of the city of choice and declare another one is set to go off. The Authoritah will soon confirm radioactivity, massive speculation that it was a misfire, city is evacuated, clean up has to happen. Hella expensive and all for the cost of some anfo and some waste.

you could hose it all away though

if I were a hardcore terrorist I would target the power system – principally the coal fired stations providing base load

the next target would be the switchyards where 330KV is set down to 132KV

there aren’t too many coal fired stations neither are their too man of these switchyards/ substations

disruption of the national grid would be where its at

destroying the control building to these switch yards would be hard to repair – take time

they should probably have security guards visit these places on the fly to see whats going on, tis would disrupt a potential attack

there was a news article less tan 12 months ago in America where a switchyard/ substation was attacked by some people with assault rifles – it disappeared from the news

I believe the smallest launchpad mass for any system that delivered an object to orbit was the Scout X-1, which had 16 tonnes on the launchpad.

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

dv said:

Maybe they should have used that four year window where they were they only nuclear power to blackmail the USSR into giving up.

the only way to beat Russia is though treaties, no one has ever truly beaten Russia without treaties

economic blockades only harden their resolve

Yeah but if you start dropping nuclear weapons on them they would surrender eventually.

nah

it would only provoke a whole sale invasion of western Europe. the army would march through everywhere and you’d need to try and nuke your own cities to try and stop them, you’d end up doing immense damage to your self

plus then you’ve got chemical weapons and biological weapons that would also be used

chemical weapons hitting cities would cause millions of casualties

wookiemeister said:

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

the only way to beat Russia is though treaties, no one has ever truly beaten Russia without treaties

economic blockades only harden their resolve

Yeah but if you start dropping nuclear weapons on them they would surrender eventually.

nah

it would only provoke a whole sale invasion of western Europe. the army would march through everywhere and you’d need to try and nuke your own cities to try and stop them, you’d end up doing immense damage to your self

plus then you’ve got chemical weapons and biological weapons that would also be used

chemical weapons hitting cities would cause millions of casualties

Yeah but surely beating the commies is the most important thing

wookiemeister said:

AwesomeO said:

You could make a disruptive nuclear weapon with low grade radioactive waste and a chemical explosive. Set it off in the centre of the city of choice and declare another one is set to go off. The Authoritah will soon confirm radioactivity, massive speculation that it was a misfire, city is evacuated, clean up has to happen. Hella expensive and all for the cost of some anfo and some waste.

you could hose it all away though

if I were a hardcore terrorist I would target the power system – principally the coal fired stations providing base load

the next target would be the switchyards where 330KV is set down to 132KV

there aren’t too many coal fired stations neither are their too man of these switchyards/ substations

disruption of the national grid would be where its at

destroying the control building to these switch yards would be hard to repair – take time

they should probably have security guards visit these places on the fly to see whats going on, tis would disrupt a potential attack

there was a news article less tan 12 months ago in America where a switchyard/ substation was attacked by some people with assault rifles – it disappeared from the news

They could hose it off, it would do no real harm, apart from the explosion. But that is not the point, if you fail to understand what a suspected nuke would do in a city, the promise of a second, the reactions of the authoritah and the inhabitants then you have no clue.

wookiemeister said:

AwesomeO said:

You could make a disruptive nuclear weapon with low grade radioactive waste and a chemical explosive. Set it off in the centre of the city of choice and declare another one is set to go off. The Authoritah will soon confirm radioactivity, massive speculation that it was a misfire, city is evacuated, clean up has to happen. Hella expensive and all for the cost of some anfo and some waste.

you could hose it all away though

if I were a hardcore terrorist I would target the power system – principally the coal fired stations providing base load

the next target would be the switchyards where 330KV is set down to 132KV

there aren’t too many coal fired stations neither are their too man of these switchyards/ substations

disruption of the national grid would be where its at

destroying the control building to these switch yards would be hard to repair – take time

they should probably have security guards visit these places on the fly to see whats going on, tis would disrupt a potential attack

there was a news article less tan 12 months ago in America where a switchyard/ substation was attacked by some people with assault rifles – it disappeared from the news

dude.. you really need to get that strategic military teaching post we’ve talked about… I’m not sure anyone has thought about targeting critical infrastructure before.

dv said:

I believe the smallest launchpad mass for any system that delivered an object to orbit was the Scout X-1, which had 16 tonnes on the launchpad.

might be

the scout was all solid fuel as well!

wookiemeister said:

dv said:

I believe the smallest launchpad mass for any system that delivered an object to orbit was the Scout X-1, which had 16 tonnes on the launchpad.

might be

the scout was all solid fuel as well!

Aye, four and five stages.

diddly-squat said:

wookiemeister said:

AwesomeO said:

You could make a disruptive nuclear weapon with low grade radioactive waste and a chemical explosive. Set it off in the centre of the city of choice and declare another one is set to go off. The Authoritah will soon confirm radioactivity, massive speculation that it was a misfire, city is evacuated, clean up has to happen. Hella expensive and all for the cost of some anfo and some waste.

you could hose it all away though

if I were a hardcore terrorist I would target the power system – principally the coal fired stations providing base load

the next target would be the switchyards where 330KV is set down to 132KV

there aren’t too many coal fired stations neither are their too man of these switchyards/ substations

disruption of the national grid would be where its at

destroying the control building to these switch yards would be hard to repair – take time

they should probably have security guards visit these places on the fly to see whats going on, tis would disrupt a potential attack

there was a news article less tan 12 months ago in America where a switchyard/ substation was attacked by some people with assault rifles – it disappeared from the news

dude.. you really need to get that strategic military teaching post we’ve talked about… I’m not sure anyone has thought about targeting critical infrastructure before.

and apparently roads as well

the trucks to my knowledge still roll from turkey

wookiemeister said:

the trucks to my knowledge still roll from turkey

What about the tracks of your tears?

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

dv said:

I believe the smallest launchpad mass for any system that delivered an object to orbit was the Scout X-1, which had 16 tonnes on the launchpad.

might be

the scout was all solid fuel as well!

Aye, four and five stages.

very reliable but they don’t use it anymore for whatever reason

wookiemeister said:

diddly-squat said:

wookiemeister said:

you could hose it all away though

if I were a hardcore terrorist I would target the power system – principally the coal fired stations providing base load

the next target would be the switchyards where 330KV is set down to 132KV

there aren’t too many coal fired stations neither are their too man of these switchyards/ substations

disruption of the national grid would be where its at

destroying the control building to these switch yards would be hard to repair – take time

they should probably have security guards visit these places on the fly to see whats going on, tis would disrupt a potential attack

there was a news article less tan 12 months ago in America where a switchyard/ substation was attacked by some people with assault rifles – it disappeared from the news

dude.. you really need to get that strategic military teaching post we’ve talked about… I’m not sure anyone has thought about targeting critical infrastructure before.

and apparently roads as well

the trucks to my knowledge still roll from turkey

I suggest sending your advice the Joint Chiefs of Staff… I’me sure they would be appreciative..

walking dogs

diddly-squat said:

wookiemeister said:

AwesomeO said:

You could make a disruptive nuclear weapon with low grade radioactive waste and a chemical explosive. Set it off in the centre of the city of choice and declare another one is set to go off. The Authoritah will soon confirm radioactivity, massive speculation that it was a misfire, city is evacuated, clean up has to happen. Hella expensive and all for the cost of some anfo and some waste.

you could hose it all away though

if I were a hardcore terrorist I would target the power system – principally the coal fired stations providing base load

the next target would be the switchyards where 330KV is set down to 132KV

there aren’t too many coal fired stations neither are their too man of these switchyards/ substations

disruption of the national grid would be where its at

destroying the control building to these switch yards would be hard to repair – take time

they should probably have security guards visit these places on the fly to see whats going on, tis would disrupt a potential attack

there was a news article less tan 12 months ago in America where a switchyard/ substation was attacked by some people with assault rifles – it disappeared from the news

dude.. you really need to get that strategic military teaching post we’ve talked about… I’m not sure anyone has thought about targeting critical infrastructure before.

It is suprising though and perhaps the terrorist in our own hood thing is more fright than reality that some disgruntled person(s) haven’t attacked our power facilties, our local substation is fenced off but that’s it

wookiemeister said:

walking dogs

That’s brilliant. Put a small slice of the bomb in the collar of a walking dog. On a given signal, the dogs come together in a particular configuration, causing criticality.

diddly-squat said:

wookiemeister said:

diddly-squat said:

dude.. you really need to get that strategic military teaching post we’ve talked about… I’m not sure anyone has thought about targeting critical infrastructure before.

and apparently roads as well

the trucks to my knowledge still roll from turkey

I suggest sending your advice the Joint Chiefs of Staff… I’me sure they would be appreciative..

They might make you a General, General Wookie, no longer just Han Solos side kick

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

walking dogs

That’s brilliant. Put a small slice of the bomb in the collar of a walking dog. On a given signal, the dogs come together in a particular configuration, causing criticality.

Gives a new meaning to the words hot dog

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

wookiemeister said:

you could hose it all away though

if I were a hardcore terrorist I would target the power system – principally the coal fired stations providing base load

the next target would be the switchyards where 330KV is set down to 132KV

there aren’t too many coal fired stations neither are their too man of these switchyards/ substations

disruption of the national grid would be where its at

destroying the control building to these switch yards would be hard to repair – take time

they should probably have security guards visit these places on the fly to see whats going on, tis would disrupt a potential attack

there was a news article less tan 12 months ago in America where a switchyard/ substation was attacked by some people with assault rifles – it disappeared from the news

dude.. you really need to get that strategic military teaching post we’ve talked about… I’m not sure anyone has thought about targeting critical infrastructure before.

It is suprising though and perhaps the terrorist in our own hood thing is more fright than reality that some disgruntled person(s) haven’t attacked our power facilties, our local substation is fenced off but that’s it

too small scale, too few affected people

• General, General Wookie

• too small scale, too few affected people

Not flashy enough…

furious said:

• too small scale, too few affected people

Not flashy enough…

less flashy than a rockspider at a Justin Bieber concert

diddly-squat said:

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

dude.. you really need to get that strategic military teaching post we’ve talked about… I’m not sure anyone has thought about targeting critical infrastructure before.

It is suprising though and perhaps the terrorist in our own hood thing is more fright than reality that some disgruntled person(s) haven’t attacked our power facilties, our local substation is fenced off but that’s it

too small scale, too few affected people

Videoing a decapitation? Only one person affected.

quick one

a conventional head , solid fuel ICBM is the best defence for Australia

lots can be made

can strike key targets in the region

can be spread out in large area

cheap

reliable
can destroy the airfields of fancy bombers/ fighters / personnel to maintain them/ power stations

AwesomeO said:

diddly-squat said:

Cymek said:

It is suprising though and perhaps the terrorist in our own hood thing is more fright than reality that some disgruntled person(s) haven’t attacked our power facilties, our local substation is fenced off but that’s it

too small scale, too few affected people

Videoing a decapitation? Only one person affected.

sure.. but losing power at your house for 12 hours and losing your head are slightly different orders of magnitude

• Videoing a decapitation? Only one person affected.

One person physically affected. But also quite discomforting for anyone watching it. Blow up a power sub station and people will bring popcorn to watch it burn…

diddly-squat said:

AwesomeO said:

diddly-squat said:

too small scale, too few affected people

Videoing a decapitation? Only one person affected.

sure.. but losing power at your house for 12 hours and losing your head are slightly different orders of magnitude

Could power be restored that quickly if a power station was destroyed

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

AwesomeO said:

Videoing a decapitation? Only one person affected.

sure.. but losing power at your house for 12 hours and losing your head are slightly different orders of magnitude

Could power be restored that quickly if a power station was destroyed

if it were the power station then probably not, but I would think a local substation could be replaced pretty quickly

furious said:

• Videoing a decapitation? Only one person affected.

One person physically affected. But also quite discomforting for anyone watching it. Blow up a power sub station and people will bring popcorn to watch it burn…

My point is terrorism is about perceptions. The measurements of success are different.

just watching an old doco about Saturn series of rockets

the military handed over the Saturn rocket programme because they had no use for it – it was doubtful the huge payload would ever be of any use to the military

one thing to note

von braun was arrested by the gestapo/ ss at one point – they accused him of not wanting to develop a weapon but something to fly into space

the V2 is a weird rocket because its not particularly reliable as a weapon, it takes liquid fuels not solids which are more reliable, it takes time to set up – not useful in a military situation

the V2 is the first of its kind and more of an experimental venture rather than something of any real military value

it seems to me that von braun was playing around with liquid fuels and the engine design rather than something that might have any real use

wookiemeister said:

one thing to note

von braun was arrested by the gestapo/ ss at one point – they accused him of not wanting to develop a weapon but something to fly into space

the V2 is a weird rocket because its not particularly reliable as a weapon, it takes liquid fuels not solids which are more reliable, it takes time to set up – not useful in a military situation

the V2 is the first of its kind and more of an experimental venture rather than something of any real military value

it seems to me that von braun was playing around with liquid fuels and the engine design rather than something that might have any real use

Hitler was eventually convinced otherwise.

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

one thing to note

von braun was arrested by the gestapo/ ss at one point – they accused him of not wanting to develop a weapon but something to fly into space

the V2 is a weird rocket because its not particularly reliable as a weapon, it takes liquid fuels not solids which are more reliable, it takes time to set up – not useful in a military situation

the V2 is the first of its kind and more of an experimental venture rather than something of any real military value

it seems to me that von braun was playing around with liquid fuels and the engine design rather than something that might have any real use

Hitler was eventually convinced otherwise.

no one knew enough about it to know what von braun was up to

wookiemeister said:

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

one thing to note

von braun was arrested by the gestapo/ ss at one point – they accused him of not wanting to develop a weapon but something to fly into space

the V2 is a weird rocket because its not particularly reliable as a weapon, it takes liquid fuels not solids which are more reliable, it takes time to set up – not useful in a military situation

the V2 is the first of its kind and more of an experimental venture rather than something of any real military value

it seems to me that von braun was playing around with liquid fuels and the engine design rather than something that might have any real use

Hitler was eventually convinced otherwise.

no one knew enough about it to know what von braun was up to

Didn’t matter, it was unmanned, it killed what it landed on.. it is all about numbers.

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

roughbarked said:

Hitler was eventually convinced otherwise.

no one knew enough about it to know what von braun was up to

Didn’t matter, it was unmanned, it killed what it landed on.. it is all about numbers.

it was a rudimentary missile but didn’t quite live up to its objective

von braun was playing with the idea rather than developing anything in a serious way, what came later in America after the V2 was the more useful design

wookiemeister said:

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

no one knew enough about it to know what von braun was up to

Didn’t matter, it was unmanned, it killed what it landed on.. it is all about numbers.

it was a rudimentary missile but didn’t quite live up to its objective

von braun was playing with the idea rather than developing anything in a serious way, what came later in America after the V2 was the more useful design

People fought for their lives under Hitler. It was not a game. Nor was it able to be peer reviewed in all seriousness.

>>they accused him of not wanting to develop a weapon but something to fly into space

He really wanted to get away from them

the Americans only moved forward in their space programme when they ditched the V2

wookiemeister said:

the Americans only moved forward in their space programme when they ditched the V2

They used the V2 as the basis for their launch program: their first successful orbital launcher (the Redstone) was a scaled up V2.

But I already told you that.

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

the Americans only moved forward in their space programme when they ditched the V2

They used the V2 as the basis for their launch program: their first successful orbital launcher (the Redstone) was a scaled up V2.

But I already told you that.

no rocket the Americans ever built after the V2 ever looked like the V2, the shape was wrong for one , the yanks always went for a straight barrel shape with small fins

red stone was a rocket that used the knowledge of the mistakes of the V2

the nose cone on red stone is far more conical and shorter than the V2

it’s much longer length to width than the V2

the fins are much smaller than the V2 and a completely different shape

the barrel thickness is much less , as evidenced by the fact that I’ve never seen ice forming on the skin of the German V2 at least or any pictures of the yank V2s

from a brief scan of the red stone it looks to me as if von Braun duped the Americans as he did the nazis , again with the liquid fuel rockets for a military vehicle when solid fuel is far more reliable and has zero preparation time compared to a liquid fuel vehicle.

von Braun was only ever interested in space exploration , the military was wedding of convenience , when space vehicles were needed they turned to von Braun.