3 ms·

Solving a chemical manufacturing problem in the US has GOT to be easier than taking on additional operations and mechanical complexity for every single missile

Solving a chemical manufacturing problem in the US has GOT to be easier than taking on additional operations and mechanical complexity for every single missile in combat theatres. The article cites permitting and procurement snafus for why it's so hard to stand up new AP plants, but the same procurement process would apply for new liquid engine designs with all their moving parts, no?

JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
> Solving a chemical manufacturing problem in the US has GOT to be easier Why? We are currently scaling rocket-engine production for the launch industry. We aren’t doing the same for anything like AP. I don’t think anyone would blink at a well-resourced effort to build a new small-satellite launch vehicle in a couple years, for instance.
- cpgxiii 5mo ago
  Satellite launch is so much easier than storable SAM/ABM, the comparison is not really useful.
  - JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
    > Satellite launch is so much easier than storable SAM/ABM Sure. But the hard part of SAM/ABM doesn’t need to be in the propulsion for many use cases, e.g. those where heightened readiness states are predictable. We’re using storable missiles for use cases where that storability isn’t adding any value.
    - cpgxiii 5mo ago
      Where exactly is that storability not needed? In the VLS cells of USN warships? In the missile canisters of field-mobile SAM batteries being driven cross-country (which, for survivability on the modern battlefield need to be moving a lot more)? The only real cases a non-storable SAM/ABM is viable are where the target being protected is so small and so known that (1) all missile infrastructure on/near the target is vulnerable and (2) sufficient advance warning is available to handle liquid fuels as needed. There is really only one case of this: Guam. I think there is a case that a dedicated unique-to-Guam liquid-fueled SAM/ABM farm would go a long way to addressing stockpile and magazine depth concerns.
      - JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
        > There is really only one case of this: Guam Every U.S. base has this need. Stored munitions take out the first wave. That buys time to fuel the plentiful replacements.
        nixon_why69 5mo ago
        Which means US servicemen handling extremely dangerous chemical oxidizers under fire. This stuff reacts explosively with everything, including common metals and anything organic. Admittedly, it allows you to sidestep the regulatory hassles with handling those chemicals in the US, we can order troops to do all sorts of non-OSHA bad ideas, but wouldn't it be easier to just do the dangerous chemical handling on US soil, on a 9-5 in factory?
        JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
        > Which means US servicemen handling extremely dangerous chemical oxidizers under fire Fueling and oxidizing is automated now. The only risk would be the oxidizer being struck. But that isn’t super different from storing any ammunition. > wouldn't it be easier to just do the dangerous chemical handling on US soil, on a 9-5 in factory? No, it’s not. Particularly when you factor into the risk calculation the inevitability of exhausting those stockpiles in a conflict.
        nixon_why69 5mo ago
        Man, this is such a weird hill to stand on. Are we talking HTP+Kerosene or UDMH+N2O4 here? The article said HTP in which case you have 1% breakdown to water per year which will be an ongoing problem for stockpiles. N2O4 is nastier but more stable when contained. Either way, you're going from "dangerous chemistry in the plant" to "dangerous chemistry in the plant, through a global logistics network, and in operations". The solid rocket fuel is pretty stable after it's built, just don't light it on fire or drop it too hard. Room temperature oxidizers are terrifying.

JumpCrisscross 5mo ago

> Solving a chemical manufacturing problem in the US has GOT to be easier Why? We are currently scaling rocket-engine production for the launch industry. We aren’t doing the same for anything like AP. I don’t think anyone would blink at a well-resourced effort to build a new small-satellite launch vehicle in a couple years, for instance.

cpgxiii 5mo ago
Satellite launch is so much easier than storable SAM/ABM, the comparison is not really useful.
- JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
  > Satellite launch is so much easier than storable SAM/ABM Sure. But the hard part of SAM/ABM doesn’t need to be in the propulsion for many use cases, e.g. those where heightened readiness states are predictable. We’re using storable missiles for use cases where that storability isn’t adding any value.
  - cpgxiii 5mo ago
    Where exactly is that storability not needed? In the VLS cells of USN warships? In the missile canisters of field-mobile SAM batteries being driven cross-country (which, for survivability on the modern battlefield need to be moving a lot more)? The only real cases a non-storable SAM/ABM is viable are where the target being protected is so small and so known that (1) all missile infrastructure on/near the target is vulnerable and (2) sufficient advance warning is available to handle liquid fuels as needed. There is really only one case of this: Guam. I think there is a case that a dedicated unique-to-Guam liquid-fueled SAM/ABM farm would go a long way to addressing stockpile and magazine depth concerns.
    - JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
      > There is really only one case of this: Guam Every U.S. base has this need. Stored munitions take out the first wave. That buys time to fuel the plentiful replacements.
      - nixon_why69 5mo ago
        Which means US servicemen handling extremely dangerous chemical oxidizers under fire. This stuff reacts explosively with everything, including common metals and anything organic. Admittedly, it allows you to sidestep the regulatory hassles with handling those chemicals in the US, we can order troops to do all sorts of non-OSHA bad ideas, but wouldn't it be easier to just do the dangerous chemical handling on US soil, on a 9-5 in factory?
        JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
        > Which means US servicemen handling extremely dangerous chemical oxidizers under fire Fueling and oxidizing is automated now. The only risk would be the oxidizer being struck. But that isn’t super different from storing any ammunition. > wouldn't it be easier to just do the dangerous chemical handling on US soil, on a 9-5 in factory? No, it’s not. Particularly when you factor into the risk calculation the inevitability of exhausting those stockpiles in a conflict.
        nixon_why69 5mo ago
        Man, this is such a weird hill to stand on. Are we talking HTP+Kerosene or UDMH+N2O4 here? The article said HTP in which case you have 1% breakdown to water per year which will be an ongoing problem for stockpiles. N2O4 is nastier but more stable when contained. Either way, you're going from "dangerous chemistry in the plant" to "dangerous chemistry in the plant, through a global logistics network, and in operations". The solid rocket fuel is pretty stable after it's built, just don't light it on fire or drop it too hard. Room temperature oxidizers are terrifying.