So why not, I’ve uploaded another video of the QM-1 static test from way back in 2015 to YouTube. This one was with a handheld camera, so expect a bit of shakeycam. Bonus: I missed ignition by eleven seconds or so. Consequently, you miss an opportunity to hear what I sound like when I cuss profusely.
The video posted back in 2015:
In 1985, Rockwell International considered the possibility that there might be profit in ICBMs. In particular, small ICBMs (“Midgetman”), road-mobile with a single warhead. Sadly, the SICBM did not come to be. Nor did any other ICBM. The current ICBM that the USAF fields is the Minuteman, merely an updated version of the same missile first fielded nearly *sixty* years ago. The Peacekeeper ICBM was deployed the year after Rockwell produced this document… and the Peacekeeper was withdrawn twenty years later with no replacement in sight
I honestly wonder what practical value there is in the White House putting out memos on national strategy at this point, when the Manchurian is soon to be installed into power. Perhaps it’s just a poke in the eye… “go ahead and overturn this and show yourself to be a tool of the ChiComs,” perhaps?
Section 1. Policy. The ability to use space nuclear power and propulsion (SNPP) systems safely, securely, and sustainably is vital to maintaining and advancing United States dominance and strategic leadership in space. SNPP systems include radioisotope power systems (RPSs) and fission reactors used for power or propulsion in spacecraft, rovers, and other surface elements. …
(a) Develop uranium fuel processing capabilities that enable production of fuel that is suitable to lunar and planetary surface and in-space power, nuclear electric propulsion (NEP), and nuclear thermal propulsion (NTP) applications, as needed. …
(b) Demonstrate a fission power system on the surface of the Moon that is scalable to a power range of 40 kilowatt-electric (kWe) and higher to support a sustained lunar presence and exploration of Mars. …
(c) Establish the technical foundations and capabilities — including through identification and resolution of the key technical challenges — that will enable options for NTP to meet future Department of Defense (DoD) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) mission requirements …
(d) Develop advanced RPS capabilities that provide higher fuel efficiency, higher specific energy, and longer operational lifetime than existing RPS capabilities, thus enabling survivable surface elements to support robotic and human exploration of the Moon and Mars and extending robotic exploration of the solar system. …
(a) By the mid-2020s, develop uranium fuel processing capabilities that enable production of fuel that is suitable for lunar and planetary surface and in-space power, NEP, and NTP applications, as needed. …
(b) By the mid- to late-2020s, demonstrate a fission power system on the surface of the Moon that is scalable to a power range of 40 kWe and higher to support sustained lunar presence and exploration of Mars. …
(c) By the late-2020s, establish the technical foundations and capabilities — including through identification and resolution of the key technical challenges — that will enable NTP options to meet future DoD and NASA mission needs.
Even had Trump won re-election I have serious doubts that this memorandum would have changed things much… the anti-nuclear religion is far too powerful. Still, better to have a forward-thinking document like this than not. We are *generations* behind where we should be in the development of space-based nuclear power systems and nuclear thermal rockets.
A recently donated blueprint of the AGM-69A Short Range Attack Missile:
I’ve made available to above-$10 subscribers and patrons both the full resolution scan of the above, as well as a processed clearer B&W version. If you’d be interested in helping to preserve aerospace history such as this, as well as receiving bonus content like this, please consider signing up either for the APR Patreon or the APR Monthly Historical Documents Program.
.
Trying again…
OH SNAP!
OK, one minor malfunction, but that was still the best show I’ve seen since the first dual-booster landing.
Fuel header tank pressure was low during landing burn, causing touchdown velocity to be high & RUD, but we got all the data we needed! Congrats SpaceX team hell yeah!!
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 9, 2020
I found that I still have my own YouTube channel. Who knew? Anyway, if you’ve ever been *desperate* to find out what I sound like, here’s your chance, where I provide scintillating commentary during the touchdown maneuver:
Some of the audience…
… maybe. Looks like it’s scheduled for starting Tuesday at 8 AM. We shall see.
Ummm. I don’t know squadoo about these folks, but I have questions.
It seems they have a hangar and a mockup and some pretty graphics. I’m not sure they have a sensible business model. The idea is to launch a small rocket into orbit from underneath a newly-built fighter-sized UAV. Why not just launch from under a surplus fighter-sized fighter?
The rewards for APR Patrons and Monthly Historical Documents program subscribers have been sent out. Included in the November 2020 rewards package are:
1: A diagram of a proposed DC-9 aft propfan research configuration
2: A Kaman K-Max brochure
3: A preliminary draft/outline for a report on F-108 employment
4: A CAD diagram of the M61A1 Vulcan
If this sort of thing is of interest, sign up either for the APR Patreon or the APR Monthly Historical Documents Program.
If 2020 had been full of videos like this, and not full of reprobates rioting and looting, it would have been an incalculably better year.
