[NSRCA-discussion] Fw: ~Defining Acceleration~

[jh102649 at speakeasy.net]

Dwayne -

The article was copied from the on-line encyclopedia, Wikipedia. Type "Sprint
Missile" in your favorite web search engine there may be a video out there too. I
had a peripheral association with the system through the warhead testing program.

Jeff

On Tue Oct 25 11:45 , 'Dwayne Brown' <dwaynenancy at suddenlink.net> sent:

>Jeff, where did you get your information?  Dwayne
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>[nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
>jh102649 at speakeasy.net
>Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 2:00 PM
>To: General pattern discussion
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: ~Defining Acceleration~
>
>
>Its been a long time so my memory may be wrong but I think the US produced a
>missile, called the Sprint, that went 0->mach 10 in a few seconds. It was a
>short
>range, nuclear armed, anti-missile missile. If it was ever deployed it was
>only
>for a short time because the ABM treaty outlawed them. In the movies I've
>seen of
>its launch you cannot see it once it clears the silo. If the information in
>Wikipedia is correct the top fuel dragster is much slower. Following is the
>Wikipedia article:
>
>The Sprint was a two-stage, solid-fuel anti-ballistic missile, armed with a
>W66
>enhanced radiation thermonuclear warhead. It was designed as the short-range
>high-speed counterpart to the longer-range LIM-49 Spartan as part of the
>Sentinel
>program. Sentinel never became operational, but the technology was deployed
>briefly in a downsized version called the Safeguard program. The Sprint,
>like the
>Spartan, was in operational service for only a few months in the Safeguard
>program, from October 1975 to early 1976. A combination of high costs,
>congressional opposition, and questionable efficacy resulted in a very short
>operational period.
>
>The Sprint accelerated at 100 g, reaching a speed of Mach 10 in 5 seconds.
>It was
>designed for close-in defense against incoming nuclear weapons. As the last
>line
>of defense it was to intercept the reentry vehicles that had not been
>destroyed
>by the Spartan, with which it was deployed.
>
>The Sprint was stored in and launched from a silo. To make the launch as
>quick as
>possible, the cover was blown off the silo by explosive charges, then the
>missile
>was ejected by an explosive-driven piston. As the missile cleared the silo,
>the
>first stage fired and the missile was tilted toward its target. The first
>stage
>was exhausted after only 1.2 seconds, but produced 2,900 kN (650,000 lbf) of
>thrust. The second stage fired within 1 - 2 seconds of launch. Interception
>at an
>altitude of 1,500 m to 30,000 m took at most 15 seconds.
>
>The Sprint was controlled by ground-based radio command, which tracked the
>incoming reentry vehicles with phased-array radar and guided the missile to
>its
>target.
>
>The Sprint was armed with an enhanced radiation nuclear warhead with a yield
>reportedly of a few kilotons, though the exact number has not been
>declassified.
>The warhead was intended to destroy the incoming reentry vehicle primarily
>by
>neutron flux.
>
>Perhaps we are talking about manned vehicles?
>Jeff Hill
>
>On Mon Oct 24  9:04 , Dennis Bodary d_bodary at yahoo.com> sent:
>
>>For someone who has seen a Top Fuel car in Person. Every one should see one
>at
>least once your speakers on television do nothing for you. It can best be
>described as violent. Not to mention your whole body hurts from the sound on
>Acceleration.B The cars are Brutal
>>
>>--- On Mon, 10/24/11, Keith Black tkeithblack at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>From: Keith Black tkeithblack at gmail.com>
>>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: ~Defining Acceleration~
>>To: "General pattern discussion" nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>Date: Monday, October 24, 2011, 10:59 AM
>>
>>Awesome Nat, thanks for sharing!
>>
>>On Monday, October 24, 2011, Nat Penton natpenton at centurytel.net> wrote:
>>> B 
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Larry Smith
>>
>>> To: Larry Smith
>>> Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 9:11 PM
>>> Subject: ~Defining Acceleration~
>>> For those who love numbers, engineers, speed freaks and those who think
>they
>have gone too fast at one time or another.B This puts Corvette performance
>in
>perspective.B  This article mentions Lingenfelter twin turbo powered Z06.B 
>>
>>>
>>> B Read this thru slowly and try to comprehend the amount of force
>produced in
>just under 4 seconds!B  The last paragraph puts it all into perspective !
>>>
>>> B There are no rockets or airplanes built by any government in the world
>that
>can accelerate from a standing start as fast as a Top Fuel Dragster or Funny
>Carb
>
>_______________________________________________
>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion