Author Topic: US Army Nanomissile  (Read 4749 times)

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
US Army Nanomissile
« on: 05/09/2012 02:22 pm »


The Army seems to think so...

http://www.spacenews.com/military/100806-nanomissile-launch-the-smallest-satellites.html

So ... was this going to be an operational system, or was this just some study contract that is now over and done?

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: US Army Nanomissile
« Reply #1 on: 05/09/2012 02:40 pm »
I can't find anything to say it was canceled, and it's still on the Dynetics website, so I guess it's still being studied, albeit at a low level.

Dynetics is rather busy with larger rockets at the moment, though, so they might just not be pushing for further work on the nanolauncher.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: US Army Nanomissile
« Reply #2 on: 05/10/2012 04:55 pm »
I can't find anything to say it was canceled, and it's still on the Dynetics website, so I guess it's still being studied, albeit at a low level.


Interesting propellant combination. I'd need to crank up ISP to check it's performance but it should be *very* safe to handle. I think the days of the Army routinely handling IRFNA/UDMH (Lance missile) are gone.

The logical connection would be for them to hook up with John Whitehead of LLNL. His team have worked on small pumped designs since the early 90's. IIRC they believe even SSTO is possible with the right configuration.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: US Army Nanomissile
« Reply #3 on: 05/10/2012 05:13 pm »
I can't find anything to say it was canceled, and it's still on the Dynetics website, so I guess it's still being studied, albeit at a low level.


Interesting propellant combination. I'd need to crank up ISP to check it's performance but it should be *very* safe to handle. I think the days of the Army routinely handling IRFNA/UDMH (Lance missile) are gone.

The logical connection would be for them to hook up with John Whitehead of LLNL. His team have worked on small pumped designs since the early 90's. IIRC they believe even SSTO is possible with the right configuration.
Relevent "document" and message in another thread :)
http://www.quantumg.net/mockingbird.pdf
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=2847.msg781261#msg781261

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Re: US Army Nanomissile
« Reply #4 on: 05/10/2012 11:46 pm »
The Army seems to think so...

http://www.spacenews.com/military/100806-nanomissile-launch-the-smallest-satellites.html

So ... was this going to be an operational system, or was this just some study contract that is now over and done?

I dug into this a while ago, and most of the funding for the system was via earmarks to a Huntsville-based company called COLSA, which was using Orion Propulsion to build the hardware, while they provided "Systems Engineering". Last I heard, the program wasn't being actively funded anymore (ran out of earmark money), but that may have changed, since it was over a year ago that I last had any info on the project. 

~Jon

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
Re: US Army Nanomissile
« Reply #5 on: 06/17/2012 08:09 pm »
N2O and C2H2 are a reasonably storable combination and essentially nontoxic. Quite useful where the vehicle has to remain fueled for any length of time. Orion tested various thrusters using this combination. ISP not quite as good as LOX/RP-1 but better than hypergols and a lot cheaper to operate. The Orion thrusters used spark plug ignition. However N2O is not entirely benign; it can undergo catalytic detonation, so be careful of sparks.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: US Army Nanomissile
« Reply #6 on: 03/18/2014 01:50 am »
bump for SWORDS cancellation relevancy.

I guess sometimes nanolaunchers just fade away.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: US Army Nanomissile
« Reply #7 on: 03/18/2014 10:50 am »
N2O and C2H2 are a reasonably storable combination and essentially nontoxic.

I thought acetylene burned very hot and had some explosion problems.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: US Army Nanomissile
« Reply #8 on: 03/18/2014 09:25 pm »
N2O and C2H2 are a reasonably storable combination and essentially nontoxic.

I thought acetylene burned very hot and had some explosion problems.
The pdf lists it as Ethane, that's C2H6. It's much more stable than Ethyne.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1