Nuclear warheads detonate a distance up in the air.

@@Safetytrousers Depends on the desired effect. Ground level maximizes dirty fallout if you want the target area unusable for some time. High altitude airblasts shorten the time until you can put boots on the rubble. Japan was kind of medium between these options as the bombs hadn't been optimized for invasion yet.

Damn, you beat me to it :D I was gonna comment the same thing :D

In these research films, is ther a duck, that when the rxplosion it happen the wind blows his bill around like this, and in order to speak he has to put it back around like this

@@Safetytrousers Have you consulted Professor Bobeye? Professor Bobeye, the one with the incredibly strong forearms that are miss-sized for his body.

This is the re Tory Bruno by the way y'all.

This is awesome, thanks for sharing with us Tory!

I have a mighty need to hear this story, maybe in interview format? 👀

Thank you Mr Bruno thats some amazing tidbits

Wow, was it because the Aerospike deployment?

in unrelated news, NASA announced a surprise expedition to the core of the earth

@@marcopohl4875 Wasn't that an Onion article?

@@iainballas yep

Yes indeedee!

@@iainballas so that means it legit!

The pointiness of the rocket has nothing to do with aerodynamics. its about payload capabilities

@@tabeebrahman4843 I'm going with Elon and Aladeen, make it pointy

@@tabeebrahman4843 Rockets need to be pointy to work.

I thought it was a "French Tickler"?

If you dont make one end pointy how is it supposed to know which direction to take!

Nowadays you can apparently achieve the same result with a couple well-placed drones😉

Horrifying that they would put so much detailed planning into a doomsday scenario.

@@cal-native what air defense doing?

@@viliamklein apparently not much given the drone/missile strikes deep into Russian airspace 🤔

Can't defend if they're radioactive ash.

The real question is if it actually is Mach 1 under water that would be almost equivalent to Mach 5 in air.

well it's Mach 1 in the air... as you know, it's impossible to reach Mach 1 in water, because that would require travelling at 1500 m/s or 5400 km/h

The conclusion on the supercavitating torpedo was that it was a 'weapon of last resort'. They are really noisy and immediately give away the launcher's position. On top of that is a programmed course weapon, because sensors, like sonar, cannot operate through the cavity. However, if you have direct line of sight on a large enemy vessel/high value target, which was worth the detection risk, then it woudl be almost impossible to dodge, though very prone to explosive countermeasures. There is a US Navy, or RAND Corporation report on them, I forget which, that presented the conclusion that they would have a very limited use, but might be worth having one or two per attack submarine

@@profpep Meanwhile the soviets looked at their swarms of often diesel powered attack boats, compared them to a nuclear powered aircraft carrier and said "Yeah... seems like a fair trade."

@@Tomyironmane Not at all. Carriers and modern destroyers deploy submarine-hunting helicopters and aircraft, while supercavitating torpedoes have a very limited range. Russian submarines are notoriously noisy once they are no longer new, because Russia is terrible at keeping its hardware well-maintained.

The early Ohio class boats were built for the C4 Trident I, not C3 Poseidon. They were later refitted for the longer D5 Trident II.

Agreed, it's not Everyday that one content creator acknowledges another one.

If unclass, I would love to know what it sounded like. I'm kind of an audiophile (not the over-priced stereo klind).

Was it true?

@@tonyhawk123 The missile rides a gas bubble out of the tube and is thrown out of the water. The motor fires as the missile begins to fall back, according to film of launch tests.

@@kentw.england2305 cheers. I suppose that makes sense. They always appear to behave that way visually. Hadn't cottoned on to the zero gravity moment being ideal for a sensor.

@@tonyhawk123 Its probably not the only thing that tells the computer to ignite the motor.

@@obsidianjane4413 Yeah, you'd want half a dozen different inputs that add up to an ignition command. It would be kind of embarassing if the rocket went off in the tube.

I remember remembering Dad on display in the missile cone housing but he cant just blow it off randomly since the public cant know

@@TimPerfetto good Old dad.. I was remembering remembering him blowing off too

It’s rare that the government does something that makes so much sense! Forward thinking.

@@alphagt62 My thought exactly. Thank God the Social Security Administration doesn't design anything important.

Yeah i noticed that. Praises a competing channel for their graphics and then takes it to the next level. Very modest.

@@tonyhawk123 Rather interesting timing to be directing people to Tim's channel too, with his news today.

@@Thermalions that's true! Just about the biggest announcement anyone could conceivably make on their youtube channel. Probably had the heads up.

Thank you for you service. I myself was an ftb on ssbn 727 and a tm on ssbn 738. I would weigh in if I could but all the inner working is classified

@@albobarhop ahhh...FTBs...whenever there was missile handling ops they were First To (the) Beach 🤣

I was a Missile Tech (Trident Backfit, NEC 3315) back in the 1980s. SSBN 641. It doesn’t seem that long ago but the minor aches and pains in my body tells me differently. This video did bring back some memories.

This took me back - Served at an MT on 658,641, and 643, also served at POMFLANT and SWFLANT

A friend of mine used to work on Titan II missiles years ago when he was in the Air Force. He told me a story about some guys that were working in a room with a solid rocket motor that was, IIRC, supposed to separate stages, when they screwed up and set it off. It fired for maybe a second and those guys were essentially erased from existence.

@@RCAvhstape Hot time in the old test cell tonight!

There was a case at Hill AFB, Utah in the late 50's or early 60's in which some airman where performing unauthorized maintenance on a AIM-9 Sidewinder rocket motor. The rocket motor ignited and raised the temperature of the maintenance bay, incinerating the airmen. The incident happened on a weekend, and they had to preform a total recall of the section to determine who exactly was killed.

@@RCAvhstape Geezus....what a horrible way to go.

Those are shock cone intakes, a completely different type of device.

@@scottmanley air conditioner inlet lol

@@MrJay_White Balls compresor, cause those pilots would be too big to fit

@@derrekvanee4567 sr71 had no parachute. in emergency the pilots where expected to glide down like magic tanuki.

Scott is correct. Those devices were designed to control the impingement point of the shockwave from the supersonic air on the intake of the engines. They were necessary to prevent unstarts. Also they would move forward/backwards depending on the speed of the aircraft.

Engineers tried to push this idea early on but nobody got the point.

🤣

besides vostok and gemini, sure. but those systems aren’t under the same length constraints as the rockets discussed in this video

Possibly if they had shaped it for that purpose, but they may have just seen the tower as an appendage that needed to be somewhat aerodynamic, and they didn't really go beyond that in designing the shape of it.

They did do supersonic wind tunnel tests to see if the shockwaves would negatively effect flow. Probably as long as it didn't do that, that was good enough. The margins on man rated launchers were such that any benefit would have been negligible.

Interesting point. I’m wondering if this had an effect on reducing the atmospheric drag on the Apollo Service Module RCS quads. I always thought it was miraculous that the Service Module RCS quad nozzles could survive the supersonic atmospheric drag over the course of a Saturn V launch.

@@obsidianjane4413 I think the Saturn V engineers (at least) were keen to scrape every last bit of performance out of their rocket. The second batch of Saturn V's would have removed the first stage fins for a STAGGERING 97kg additional payload* to LEO (not the moon, just LEO). This second batch would have incorporated many other changes as well, but sadly it was cancelled when the Vietnam war started to put pressure on the space budget. *With a very strong dose of "IIRC."

The 1848 Colt Dragoon revolver used a sugarloaf-shaped bullet not unlike the sort you'd fit into a rifle, making it one of the few (if not the only) handguns that can shoot a long, sharply pointed bullet. The downside? The cylinder of a Dragoon is about as big as a hand grenade and the gun itself is almost twice as heavy as a typical handgun.

It's been done. Très Haute Vitesse (very high speed) aka THV and Monad rounds back in the 80s. You can't make it longer as you noted so they cut the rest of the bullet back. That resulted in lower mass and that was offset with higher velocity. They tested well including on animals but didn't catch on. Lehigh brought it back a few years back as the Xtreme Cavitator and they pretty much left the scene. Hard to feed in some pistols, won't fly right if the tip is deformed, and 50/50 on the terminal effects - if the spike flattened on some bone then you're left with a smaller equivalent of a full metal jacket. If you're still interested, check out the Xtreme Defender series, they look like Phillips head screwdriver tips. Same idea but far more practical.

Most handgun rounds are just barely supersonic. I'm not sure this type of system would have enough benefit to be even close to being worth the complexity of developing a telescoping aerospike for a relatively tiny bullet. Just a wild guess based on the angle of the shocks in the test video, but it looks like they're talking about Mach 2.5+ where this effect comes into play.

He did mention that.

It's not the only place, but a convenient one. There are also trailing cones and trailing "bombs" that you can tow for static pressure measurements. The boom (the industry term for the "spike" we're talking about) can also be fitted with a Yaw and Pitch Sensor (YAPS) head to measure AoA and sideslip. But it's worth mentioning that all of those are for flight test. Production air data sensors (pitot-static, AoA) are placed wherever is convenient and calibrated to the flight test data.

into?

@@dubious_potat4587 Sword. At least I guess that's what he meant.

@@dubious_potat4587 It's a quote from Zorro

Yes, speeds greater than 330m/sec underwater.

I think you meant F-15.

@@StevePemberton2 i meant F-15B, but i'm both lazy and dyslexic

Some guy named Vlad would like to you... in private

OMG that is so amazing you must have a lot of hair to remember with and love other phallic objects like one time I saw you and you couldnt see through all the hair but you knew you could just launch off into somewhere else like when or where ok

don't mind me, just hanging out here so I get notified when you get the answer

Well, yes and no. First of all, a difference has to be made between telescopic aerospikes and a "spiked nose". The first one allows you to choose wich aerodynamic profile suits you best depending on your needs, without needing two physical nosecones, the other is just a design choice (as said in the video, for equipements, weight or length among others) to emulate a pointy nosecone. The M51 rocket (on wich i've worked) and other sub-launched rockets use telescopic aerospikes to change their aerodynamic profile because they goes through two very different environnements. The parabolic nose is the most aerodynamic profile underwater (wich is why torpedoes have such a nose and not pointy ends) but it is very unefficient in the air. Pointy noses are very loud underwater (due to cavitation among others) but ideal in the atmosphere. That's why telescopic aerospikes are used, in order to choose the aerodynamic profile depending on the medium it is going through. The Saturn 5 does not change medium during flight. This means no need to change the aerodynamic profile, an thus no need to make it telescopic. The Saturn 5 could have made a pointy nosecone with the LAS close to the astronauts (as in Blue Origins New Shepard), or, the final decision, make the LAS solid propellant tank as a "spiked nose" (long an slim) and put it above the astronauts. A safety driven aerodynamic choice. So no, it does not act as an aerospike, as it is not meant to change the aerodynamic profile. But the design choice is based on the same aerodynamic principle : a physical nosecone isn't mandatory as long as you can emulate it by changing the airflow in the same manner. And in fact, the spiked nose of the Saturn 5 and Orion actually create a lot of airflow disturbances because of the four LAS exhaust nozzles... but it is apparently ok in the general design choice.

@@WawaDvdis transitioning from sub- to supersonic similar to a medium change? If so, do they help there?

@@marcopohl4875 - Subsonic and hypersonic regimes are not a change in medium, just a change in the flow surrounding an object (up to molecular level and atomic division, on wich I do not know much). Aerospikes help in hypersonic regimes, by changing the shape of the nosecone... in a simplified version, the faster the pointier. You, amongst others, have to factor in bending (much more fragile than a physical nosecone) and oscillations of the aerospike but the idea is there. Going hypersonic doesn't make aerospikes mandatory. They have advantages and inconveniences, you just have to design your object depending on the constraints you have.

Doesn’t it use solid rocket engines?

Sounds like BS to me, what is your source for that?

@@benbaselet2026 en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval it is.

@@joshuahadams at first to get to high speed, then the water ramjet takes over.

@@benbaselet2026 Was curious, checked Wiki, on the VA-111 Shkval it says: "Once accelerated, speed is maintained by an underwater ramjet fueled by hydroreactive metals using seawater as both reactant and the source of oxidizer". There's some useful info in the wiki article references, #6 is particularly interesting. Apparently magnesium based?

Oh you love his mention ooohhhhhhhhhhh super cavitating torpedoes ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhahahaa misunderstood cavitation

Look for OpenFOAM

@@scottmanley Nice!! Open source, is my favourite flavour of source! :) Downloading now...

I think he said that a pointy cone is better, and this is just better if u need to make a blunter shape

Probably keeping it simple at this stage of evolution. This concept seems like it would need a lot of research for a comparative small amount of gain. Look for it on the model 16 Heavy 🤪.

Remember, the purpose of this was to fake having a pointy nose... they didn't have room for a real nose cone on the missiles, so they used this deploy-after-launch spike to get some of the benefit anyway. It's clever, but nothing more than a workaround for a design limitation.

Civilian space launchers aren't length, width or mass-limited in the way that military missiles usually are. Falcon 9 could be made much longer and heavier with improved engines to enable it to launch heavier payloads, but you can't do that so much with a missile that has to fit inside a sub or an aircraft weapons bay. That's also part of the reason why propellents for space launch haven't changed much over the years (first methane /oxygen rocket flew in 1931 for example), because the ones we have are good enough, safe enough and cheap enough to do the job and if we need more performance we just use more. In contrast, solid propellant research is ongoing to get around the limitations imposed on military rockets, and improve things like safety and long term stability.

You can only fit the first 2 stages of the d-5 in a railcar.

Now with Ukraine war, i think most of the Soviet/Russia military hardware are inflatable. They were just to scare NATO.

People will poop their pants imagining that the missile would impale them on impact 😁

@@nkronert But it would only hurt for a little bit until the warhead exploded!

@@mikehipperson Nuclear warheads detonate a distance up in the air.

@@Safetytrousers Most of them do. However there are some in pretty much every arsenal that indeed detonate when hitting the ground. IIRC both the US and Russia have a fair amount of nuclear warheads that do exactly that and would be used to specifically target missile silos and hardened defensive positions such as Raven Rock and Cheyenne Mountain.

@@squirrelguy2195 That knowledge also defuses the joke.

No. There is no possibility.