Martin Marietta LGM-118 Peacekeeper ICBM / Missile eXperimental MX / M-X

Some interesting systems on that page.

The Opfires FSRM (full size rocket motor?) dimensions but also the MX 2nd stage at 66” diameter. Was this a pre-Peacekeeper ICBM option under the whole “Missile Experimental” program?
The diameter seems wrong, 66 inches is well under the 92 inch (2.34m) overall diameter and only marginally bigger than the MMIII 3rd stage which is 1.3m overall (rocket motor stated at 52 inches, which is roughly the same). In fact 66 inches sounds more like MMIII 1st stage.

Astronautix also disagrees:


Aerojet solid rocket engine. Peacekeeper second stage.
AKA: Peacekeeper-2. Status: Retired 2005. Thrust: 1,365.00 kN (306,864 lbf). Gross mass: 27,800 kg (61,200 lb). Unfuelled mass: 2,900 kg (6,300 lb). Burn time: 54 s. Height: 5.40 m (17.70 ft). Diameter: 2.35 m (7.70 ft).

More here:


66 inches could be the nozzle base diameter:

1704554860395.png

1704554904381.png
 
Last edited:
The diameter seems wrong, 66 inches is well under the 92 inch (2.34m) overall diameter and only marginally bigger than the MMIII 3rd stage which is 1.3m overall (rocket motor stated at 52 inches, which is roughly the same). In fact 66 inches sounds more like MMIII 1st stage.

Astronautix also disagrees:




More here:


66 inches could be the nozzle base diameter:

View attachment 715936

View attachment 715937
Could it be a whole other system?

There was an article floating around that I can’t find anymore that said the USAF looked at something like 10,000 or so other ICBM iterations before settling on the final dimensions of Sentinel.
 
Last edited:
Lunny pointed to capabilities demonstrated during the three-year technology maturation and risk reduction (TMRR) phase, which set the stage for the engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) contract award in September of 2020. A digital engineering approach, the integration of electrical engineering and computer science engineering, was key to the successful TMRR of the weapon system; Northrop Grumman was able to show 10s of thousands of iterations.
 
You know what your payload is going to be. You know what your fuel is going to be. You know it's going to be a cylinder. How did they arrive at 10s of thousands of variations and would you even be able to tell them apart?
 
You know what your payload is going to be. You know what your fuel is going to be. You know it's going to be a cylinder. How did they arrive at 10s of thousands of variations and would you even be able to tell them apart?
8! is 40,320. Is there eight independent factors you are looking at? Probably many more. I'm not saying they are looking at every combination and permutation of everything that goes into designing a new ICBM but getting to the 10s of thousands wouldn't be too difficult IMHO.
 
38 warheads wow needed today on a new heavy lift ICBM.

Yes kidding pie in the sky dreaming but that said I’m constantly surprised at how incredible innovative the defense sector was in the 50-60s.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom