For Questions That Don't Merit Their Own Thread

[TheSaint]

  On 4/2/2024 at 4:51 PM, Gargamel said:

But of course, the response is “That’s a fake website you found”.  

Expand  

[ARS]

I just saw this on the internet. This is V-611 missile for M-11 Shtorm AA system on aircraft carrier Minsk. The one that I'm intrigued about is that nuke symbol, because as far as I know, Russia has no AA nuclear missile, and V-611 missile is only using HE-frag warhead. Can someone clarify?

[kerbiloid]

  On 4/3/2024 at 1:55 AM, ARS said:

as far as I know, Russia has no AA nuclear missile

Expand  

Russia had them since 1960s, not necessary exactly these ones.

  On 4/3/2024 at 1:55 AM, ARS said:

I'm intrigued about is that nuke symbol

Expand  

And I'm about that "SA-N-3" caption. Since when Russia started using NATO designations?

***

Upd.
Wiki says, it's replica.

Also
https://weaponsystems.net/system/466-M-11+Shtorm

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Edited April 3, 2024 by kerbiloid

[darthgently]

  On 4/3/2024 at 3:07 AM, kerbiloid said:

Russia had them since 1960s, not necessary exactly these ones.

And I'm about that "SA-N-3" caption. Since when Russia started using NATO designations?

Expand  

Maybe treaty verification related?  Dunno

[kerbiloid]

  On 4/2/2024 at 7:40 PM, Gargamel said:

the entire craft is heat shielding.  All of them.    Every single rocket ever. 

Expand  

  On 4/2/2024 at 4:51 PM, Gargamel said:

“The surface friction on  the way up is hotter than the inside of a hydrogen bomb.”

Expand  

So, the hydrogen charge makes boom inside the rocket, and can't get out.

[darthgently]

  On 4/2/2024 at 4:51 PM, Gargamel said:

“The surface friction on  the way up is hotter than the inside of a hydrogen bomb.”

Expand  

This is actually true before the bomb has been triggered.  Maybe that is what he meant.  Was he told this on April 1st?

[monophonic]

  On 4/3/2024 at 1:55 AM, ARS said:

I just saw this on the internet. This is V-611 missile for M-11 Shtorm AA system on aircraft carrier Minsk. The one that I'm intrigued about is that nuke symbol, because as far as I know, Russia has no AA nuclear missile, and V-611 missile is only using HE-frag warhead. Can someone clarify?

Expand  

Russia has used depleted uranium in fragmentation warheads. I know Finland withdrew their R-60 air-to-air missiles from use over public concern of DU. (They probably didn't have much life left in them anyway, but I digress...) I do not think this is the case here though.

This photograph is taken in 2013 when the Minsk was a theme park in China, so the paint job including the anatopistic NATO designation is probably of chinese origin. Since this location was most likely publicly accessible, I consider it most likely that the radiation warning sign is a sticker stuck there by some self-proclaimed peace activist. Most people inclined towards that behaviour that I have met (which is not many, I admit) would not have been able to differentiate a giant pencil from a nuclear ballistic missile. A conventional anti-aircraft missile would look like an ICBM to them.

[DDE]

  On 4/3/2024 at 5:43 AM, monophonic said:

Russia has used depleted uranium in fragmentation warheads. I know Finland withdrew their R-60 air-to-air missiles from use over public concern of DU. (They probably didn't have much life left in them anyway, but I digress...) I do not think this is the case here though.

This photograph is taken in 2013 when the Minsk was a theme park in China, so the paint job including the anatopistic NATO designation is probably of chinese origin. Since this location was most likely publicly accessible, I consider it most likely that the radiation warning sign is a sticker stuck there by some self-proclaimed peace activist. Most people inclined towards that behaviour that I have met (which is not many, I admit) would not have been able to differentiate a giant pencil from a nuclear ballistic missile. A conventional anti-aircraft missile would look like an ICBM to them.

Expand  

To further back this, only one missile has the sticker, and you definitely wouldn't use an identical paint scheme for a 'special' payload-tipped munition.

Weapons designers can sometimes be pretty callous about including a passively radioactive component. Older Milan missiles have a thoroum-232-based IR tracer, for example.

[kerbiloid]

M-11 Storm aka SA-N-3 from the photo.
http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-24.html

No nuke warhead is mentioned in Russian description, only "from the NATO info, can carry a nuke".
_{I guess, the NATO info is the photo above, lol.}

 

The first(?) Soviet AA missile with the nuke variant of warhead
http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-411.html
S-25 Berkut / Golden Eagle aka SA-1 Guild
20 kt, range 2 km, against bomber formations.
Nuka-tested in mid-50s at 10 km altitude, 3 pieces were on service at Moscow.

Edited April 3, 2024 by kerbiloid

[magnemoe]

  On 4/3/2024 at 5:43 AM, monophonic said:

Russia has used depleted uranium in fragmentation warheads. I know Finland withdrew their R-60 air-to-air missiles from use over public concern of DU. (They probably didn't have much life left in them anyway, but I digress...) I do not think this is the case here though.

This photograph is taken in 2013 when the Minsk was a theme park in China, so the paint job including the anatopistic NATO designation is probably of chinese origin. Since this location was most likely publicly accessible, I consider it most likely that the radiation warning sign is a sticker stuck there by some self-proclaimed peace activist. Most people inclined towards that behaviour that I have met (which is not many, I admit) would not have been able to differentiate a giant pencil from a nuclear ballistic missile. A conventional anti-aircraft missile would look like an ICBM to them.

Expand  

Or just an bored sailor. On battleship new Jersey some joker had marked some no longer used controls as warp drive and shields  
 I see this as likely as its just one missile, and it don't look like its an easy way to select missile to launch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-11_Shtorm
I assume missiles are moved forward then pushed up onto the launcher rails, this is not an issue if all missiles are the same. 

[DDE]

We know from a certain movie about oil drillers that a surface nuclear blast doesn't do diddly to an incoming asteroid.

What about a shaped surface or near-surface blast?

[kerbiloid]

Someone tried...

  Reveal hidden contents

It fell back onto the main body, and now they look like a

  Reveal hidden contents

.

 

[magnemoe]

  On 4/4/2024 at 2:32 PM, DDE said:

We know from a certain movie about oil drillers that a surface nuclear blast doesn't do diddly to an incoming asteroid.

What about a shaped surface or near-surface blast?

Expand  

You use something like an orion pulse nuclear charge, the plasma would generate an push, and the boil off on surface would add more.
An standard nuke would also have some of this effect but weaker. 
Unless you brake I say you come in way too fast to penetrate, tricks like having an sharped charge in front would be pointless as you move faster than the detonation wave of the sharped charge, who also move at your velocity but not the digging of the hole. 

[DDE]

  On 4/4/2024 at 11:34 PM, magnemoe said:

You use something like an orion pulse nuclear charge

Expand  

I was thinking of a more weaponized model. Plus, is it possible to "squeeze" the blast into a planar burst instead of a point one?

[darthgently]

  On 4/5/2024 at 6:08 AM, DDE said:

I was thinking of a more weaponized model. Plus, is it possible to "squeeze" the blast into a planar burst instead of a point one?

Expand  

One way is with a Hollywood Turbo Encabulator turned up to 11.

[kerbiloid]

  On 4/5/2024 at 6:08 AM, DDE said:

Plus, is it possible to "squeeze" the blast into a planar burst instead of a point one?

Expand  

Everything is a point, compared to the heated volume.

[K^2]

  On 4/2/2024 at 4:51 PM, Gargamel said:

Coworker is vehemently claiming rockets are covered in heat shields head to toe since “The surface friction on  the way up is hotter than the inside of a hydrogen bomb.”

Expand  

That actually sounds right. The inside of an h-bomb sitting on a missile inside its silo is only slightly warmer than the room temperature, and there is some heating of the rocket's skin on the way up. 

On the other hand, during the detonation, the heat evaporates tens to hundreds of meters of rock in an instant, so I'm not entirely sure what sort of shielding we'd be talking about. The thermal radiation would be kicking out x-rays at 10keV and up, which strip nuclei bare, causing any and all matter to disassociate into a rapidly expanding ball of superheated plasma. Anyone who thinks you can alleviate that with some thermal tiles is beyond help. They have been failed by society and should be consigned to whatever is the educational equivalent of hospice care.

[SunlitZelkova]

Let’s say there is a limited nuclear war. Military sites and major cities are hit by ICBMs, but bombers are called off mid-flight and only a few SLBMs are launched before a ceasefire is agreed upon.

High tech factories were destroyed in the cities they were in, but rural fossil fuel industries remain intact.

What is the best option for restoring power to the country during recovery?

I was thinking about this in the shower and wondering if survivors of a nuclear war would ever be able to have hot showers again.

Would coal be the most viable route for a quick recovery? I’ve heard China has mastered building them pretty quickly.

Or would renewables like solar and wind make sense, if countries that have industries for producing such infrastructure escape the war unscathed?

[StrandedonEarth]

  On 4/18/2024 at 9:49 PM, SunlitZelkova said:

Let’s say there is a limited nuclear war. Military sites and major cities are hit by ICBMs, but bombers are called off mid-flight and only a few SLBMs are launched before a ceasefire is agreed upon.

High tech factories were destroyed in the cities they were in, but rural fossil fuel industries remain intact.

What is the best option for restoring power to the country during recovery?

I was thinking about this in the shower and wondering if survivors of a nuclear war would ever be able to have hot showers again.

Would coal be the most viable route for a quick recovery? I’ve heard China has mastered building them pretty quickly.

Or would renewables like solar and wind make sense, if countries that have industries for producing such infrastructure escape the war unscathed?

Expand  

Solar hot water is fairly easy, as long as you have something black and watertight. Wind generation requires less tech than solar PV, although concentrated solar thermal would be similar to wind, aside from steam handling. This assumes the sun is still shining, not blocked out by clouds. 

AFAIK, military industrial would be primary targets, with population centres being collateral damage. So most useful industry (not including useless consumer goods) would be wiped out. 

[magnemoe]

  On 4/18/2024 at 10:17 PM, StrandedonEarth said:

Solar hot water is fairly easy, as long as you have something black and watertight. Wind generation requires less tech than solar PV, although concentrated solar thermal would be similar to wind, aside from steam handling. This assumes the sun is still shining, not blocked out by clouds. 

AFAIK, military industrial would be primary targets, with population centres being collateral damage. So most useful industry (not including useless consumer goods) would be wiped out. 

Expand  

Was in Morocco some years ago, solar hot water systems was everywhere from out rental apartment to farms. Morocco is unlikely to run out of sun. 

[kerbiloid]

  On 4/18/2024 at 9:49 PM, SunlitZelkova said:

if survivors of a nuclear war would ever be able to have hot showers again.

Expand  

Even have a bath

  Reveal hidden contents

every summer.

 

  On 4/18/2024 at 9:49 PM, SunlitZelkova said:

limited nuclear war. Military sites and major cities are hit by ICBMs

Expand  

Unlimited is probably an asteroid fall.

  On 4/18/2024 at 9:49 PM, SunlitZelkova said:

only a few SLBMs are launched before a ceasefire is agreed upon.

Expand  

SLBM are the first strike weapon, due to their stealth and possibility of low trajectory.

Strategic bombers are mostly cruise missile carriers.

So, looks like they spent everything but tactical weapon.

  On 4/18/2024 at 9:49 PM, SunlitZelkova said:

Would coal be the most viable route for a quick recovery?

Expand  

To the date, it's still the most viable power source but nuke.

  On 4/18/2024 at 9:49 PM, SunlitZelkova said:

I’ve heard China has mastered building them pretty quickly.

Expand  

Even XIX century British Empire was based on this, much less industrial than modern China.

  On 4/18/2024 at 9:49 PM, SunlitZelkova said:

renewables like solar and wind make sense

Expand  

Best use under clouds of smoke.

They need high-tech industry for support.


 

[Terwin]

Mechanical power from water is easy and is more than 5000 years old, so that will clearly be a thing very quickly.  Mechanical wind power is almost 3000 years old, both less concentrated and less reliable, but still pretty useful and should be back fairly quickly.

Turning either of those into electric power mostly requires magnets and wire, so intermittent local power(like a flour-mill that doubles as a battery charger) should be reasonably common, but if it gets set up by someone with limited understanding of electric theory(such as myself) such a charger is likely to damage the batteries with every charge.  Fortunately, batteries are more than 200 years old, so if you have copper and zinc, you can turn those into electrical power as well.

Unfortunately, oil is of limited use without refineries, and refineries would be a primary target(tanks run poorly without fuel after all), so only chemists would be able to run vehicles until new refineries were produces(I think fractional distillation can provide something functional, but I would expect it to be hard on any engine that uses it)

Straight crude could be burned as fuel, but would generally be inferior to coal, as liquids are harder to store and handle than solids.  Wood would likely be superior to both where it is available, as it is much less likely to produce hazardous fumes when burned.

So long as fuel reserves held out, food production would be in good shape, but would go down dramatically once farmers run out of diesel.  Food processing would likely have issue before that however.  Fortunately, it looks like almost all of the population is is major cities(86% in cities of 50k+ in 2020 for the US), so a drop in food production is probably not as critical as it would otherwise be.

There would probably be at least a decade of 'everyone is a farmer' with the related loss of population to starvation before we stabilized and started growing again.  Assuming no one was in a position where they could take advantage of our weakened state to invade.

 

[kerbiloid]

A typical illegal oil refinery.

Hundreds (thousands?) of them were working two decades ago in some regions right in field.

  Reveal hidden contents

Not much harder than a moonshine plant.

Allows to fuel low-octane engines, multi-fuel diesels, and stolen high-octane engines (significantly decreases the engine lifespan, so don't fuel with it your personal BMW).

It's simple. The petrol composition is from pentane (boiling point +36 C) to heptane (+98 C) and octane (+125 C).
Thus, by warming the oil to touch-hot temperature, you vaporize away all light fractions, by heating to boiling water point - distillate and collect the low-octane fractions, then by further boiling - low-quality machine oil and hudron.
To operate and service the plant, a family of shepherds is enough.

Another option for diesels is, say, rapeseed oil, but you should make the injector hole wider.

Edited April 19, 2024 by kerbiloid

[darthgently]

  On 4/19/2024 at 2:30 PM, kerbiloid said:

A typical illegal oil refinery.

Hundreds (thousands?) of them were working two decades ago in some regions right in field.

  Reveal hidden contents

Not much harder than a moonshine plant.

Allows to fuel low-octane engines, multi-fuel diesels, and stolen high-octane engines (significantly decreases the engine lifespan, so don't fuel with it your personal BMW).

It's simple. The petrol composition is from pentane (boiling point +36 C) to heptane (+98 C) and octane (+125 C).
Thus, by warming the oil to touch-hot temperature, you vaporize away all light fractions, by heating to boiling water point - distillate and collect the low-octane fractions, then by further boiling - low-quality machine oil and hudron.
To operate and service the plant, a family of shepherds is enough.

Another option for diesels is, say, rapeseed oil, but you should make the injector hole wider.

Expand  

Don't forget thermal depolymerization where one converts waste plastic to fuel with enough to spare to run the process and get plenty of usable "diesel" to run most diesels enough.  There is a group on some island in the Caribbean running their generators on washed up plastic from the sea (the currents are right to gather a bunched dumped from central and south America or something like that).  There is a YouTube vid on it, will try to find...

Can't find specific vid, but searching on YouTube for "plastic to fuel" returns a véritable plethora of results

Edited April 19, 2024 by darthgently

[mikegarrison]

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-38

I worked on this rule for six years almost full-time, and it has finally become part of US code. (It's been law in other places for several years now.)