Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!ihopa!riccb!jmc
From: jmc@riccb.UUCP (Jeff McQuinn )
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
Subject: Re: Re: Another (quick) satellite launch capability
Message-ID: <755@riccb.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 29-Oct-86 06:32:23 EST
Article-I.D.: riccb.755
Posted: Wed Oct 29 06:32:23 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 29-Oct-86 22:52:13 EST
References: <338@alliant.UUCP> <7255@utzoo.UUCP> <372@petrus.UUCP>
Organization: Rockwell Telecommunications, Downers Grove,Il.
Lines: 19
Xref: mnetor sci.space.shuttle:6 sci.space:69

> Missiles like the Titans make poor ICBMs because they must sit fueled and
> launch-ready for years at a time. The explosion of a Titan in Arkansas
> a few years back was caused by a technician dropping a socket wrench that
> punctured the Titan's tanks, resulting in a propellant leak.  It is likely
> that the explosion and eventual sinking of the Soviet submarine off Bermuda
> a few weeks ago had a similar cause.  It is interesting to note that the
> majority of Soviet missiles are liquid fueled, unlike American missiles
> which are (except for the Titans) now all solid fueled. (This has interesting
> implications when comparing the two forces, especially when strategic
> defenses are involved, but I digress...)
> 
> Phil

Please digress further!  I, for one, would be very interested in a comparison
of American and Soviet missiles.   Are liquid fueled or solid fueled boosters
more easily "targeted" during boost phase?  As I understand it liquid fueled
has more lift capability.  Does that imply a hotter plume?  Please, digress!

				Jeff McQuinn just VAXing around