Jeez, who knows, but I'm sure whatever it is, it will contribute to keeping the peace.
China ICBM/SLBM, nuclear arms thread
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
Jeez, who knows, but I'm sure whatever it is, it will contribute to keeping the peace.
So there is no reason being that a solid can’t have water in it if it were true, let’s say they did even have water in them, why would it matter at this moment being? It’s like Chinas at war or anything. Let’s say one or two did and got discovered, fire the people who did and put in rocket fuel promlem solved j don’t understand why those people think it’s such a huge deal.
I think you've missed the point of my post and frankly I don't see how what you are writing has any bearing to what you quoted.
A "Peacekeeper", if you will.
My guess is that China wants to present the US with the fear of having to face a total annihilation scenario in case of nuclear war between both nations. So there should be no more cause for the US top brass to expose similar views like they did in the past were they claimed that they could easily survive a mutual nuclear exchange situation with China and come out on top.
Right now North Korea has pretty advanced liquid ICBMs in service. These were most likely based on technology leaked from Ukraine after the Soviet collapse. I would find it difficult to believe that China didn't have way better access to this same technology. China did have access to the Ukrainian RD-120 rocket engine used in the Zenit rocket for example. And Ukraine made the R-36M Satan.
The thing with solid rockets is that it is hard to make a large diameter solid rocket. So if you want to make a huge rocket with a massive payload it is a pretty difficult thing to do. Pouring the solid propellant without cracks and cavities is hard to do in large solid rockets. It is also much harder to control fuel flow in flight. So you have much less flexibility to control the rocket's flight. With liquid rockets you can also make the rocket, transport it empty, and fuel it close to the launch site. Which means much easier transport of large rockets.
Actually I'm wondering, is civilian space infrastructure mutually interchangeable with ICBM silos? Any reason why you couldn't just stuff a bunch of warheads into a LM fairing if China has already shown it is capable of performing fractional bombardment? Well other then the fact that space infrastructure will be targeted in a first strike of course.
solid rockets don't work like that. you don't make the rocket, then fuel it. the fuel is part of the rocket's structure. It is made alongside the rocket casing.
Why? Because there has to be a hole for the solid rocket fuel to burn into.
The hole is physically part of the rocket and the hole shape changes the thrust profile.
Water is a liquid. Liquids cannot have holes machined into them.
Water also sloshes around. This unbalances the rocket. Solid rockets explicitly do not allow for sloshing, and if there was indeed water filled solid rockets, you'd immediately notice even by driving it around because the same thing is accounted for in tanker trucks.
China has a solid fuel rocket with 3.5meters diameter
This one:
It was carbon fiber casing too, most powerful single segment solid fuel rocket in the world IIRC.
You can think of putting the solid rocket propellant inside the casing as a bit like concrete pouring. Similarly to concrete you need some kind of mixer at the factory. If you stop stirring it gets solid quickly. The propellant is poured into the casing and it later solidifies. And just like concrete if you get the formula wrong or it is cured improperly you get cracks in the solidified propellant. Which can cause the rocket to instantly explode in the pad or in flight after you lit it up. Solid rockets typically have no benign failure modes.
Also much like concrete it weighs a ton. A solid rocket of similar performance to a liquid rocket typically has less volume but higher weight. It is just how it is. The Isp, which you can think of as fuel efficiency, of liquid rockets is also typically higher than for solid rockets. You can typically get more range with a liquid rocket of similar mass to a solid one.
The casing of solid rockets in the old days used to be made of pretty heavy gauge steel. But nowadays they use carbon fiber because it makes it lighter. Which increases the rocket range and/or payload.
If you really want to know what the solid fuel is made of. It depends. Some rockets use HTPB (polyurethane) as the binder. Aluminium powder is sometimes used as the fuel, and Ammonium Perchlorate is sometimes used as the oxidizer.
Also much like concrete it weighs a ton. A solid rocket of similar performance to a liquid rocket typically has less volume but higher weight. It is just how it is. The Isp, which you can think of as fuel efficiency, of liquid rockets is also typically higher than for solid rockets. You can typically get more range with a liquid rocket of similar mass to a solid one.
The casing of solid rockets in the old days used to be made of pretty heavy gauge steel. But nowadays they use carbon fiber because it makes it lighter. Which increases the rocket range and/or payload.
If you really want to know what the solid fuel is made of. It depends. Some rockets use HTPB (polyurethane) as the binder. Aluminium powder is sometimes used as the fuel, and Ammonium Perchlorate is sometimes used as the oxidizer.
Last edited: