A victory for environmentalists? Engines on our nuclear missles being replaced with less-polluting, EPA approved models

[glenn1]

Story link

April 6, 2004: In order to meet disarmament treaty obligations, the United States is retiring it's most recent ICBM design, the Peacekeeper. Older Minuteman III ICBMs will be upgraded to replace the retired missiles. The Peacekeeper entered service in 1986, as the ultimate Cold War era ICBM. Only 23 Peacekeepers are still in service.

The upgrading of the older Minuteman III missiles has been under way for several years. The air force is in the process of replacing the decades old solid fuel rockets of its 500 Minuteman III missiles. Actually, a test of a 33 year old Minuteman I rocket motor showed that the motor (actually, a long tube full of slow burning explosives) still performed according to specification. The last of the Minuteman III missiles will receive their new motors by 2008. It costs about $5.2 million to replace the rockets on each missile. The new rocket motors, which have to comply with EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) rules, will have a shorter range than the original motors (which was classified, but thought to be nearly 10,000 kilometers, based on where the missiles were stationed and where likely Russian targets were.)

 

[HappyPuppy]

But will they have NAWS and an type R sticker?

 

[Spencer278]

At least we won't pollute the air as we blow up the whole planet. I really hope russia also upgrades their missles I won't their air to contimiated in the event of MAD.

 

[TheBoyBlunder]

It is a little bizzare to replace perfectly working motors on ICBMs with shorter ranged EPA approved models. If the missiles were ever used, I think pollution from their engines would be a relatively minor concern...

 

[MercenaryForHire]

I could think of a lot better ways to spend $5.2 million. As mentioned above, why the **** are they making nuclear warheads more EPA-friendly?

- M4H

 

[WinkOsmosis]

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard that the Bush administration didn't come up with.

 

[Wallydraigle]

That sounds like a very good idea...




















...FOR ME TO POOP ON!!oneone!!!

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: TheBoyBlunder
It is a little bizarre to replace perfectly working motors on ICBMs with shorter ranged EPA approved models. If the missiles were ever used, I think pollution from their engines would be a relatively minor concern...

Not exactly, I *think* (being a layman and all). Solid fuel rockets like the LGM-30 Minuteman III are an extreme hazard to those based around them - the fumes are toxic. I'd imagine that the EPA-approved re-engineering addresses this issue to some extent.

 

[Pocatello]

Originally posted by: TheBoyBlunder
It is a little bizzare to replace perfectly working motors on ICBMs with shorter ranged EPA approved models. If the missiles were ever used, I think pollution from their engines would be a relatively minor concern...

Sometimes the Navy would test fire these rockets without the warhead.

 

[TitanDiddly]

:disgust::frown::|

 

[phoenix79]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
I could think of a lot better ways to spend $5.2 million. As mentioned above, why the **** are they making nuclear warheads more EPA-friendly?

- M4H

I believe their upgrading has more to do with the accuracy issue mentioned in the article than their environmental impact.

 

[iwearnosox]

I used to work in the plant that made the fuel for the minuteman missile. I didn't stay long, it scared the crap out of me- all the explosives just laying around.

 

[Wuffsunie]

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
But will they have NAWS and an type R sticker?

You know, that's what I'd love to see; someone slap a Type-R sticker on the side of an ICBM and take a picture

 

[TheBoyBlunder]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: TheBoyBlunder
It is a little bizarre to replace perfectly working motors on ICBMs with shorter ranged EPA approved models. If the missiles were ever used, I think pollution from their engines would be a relatively minor concern...

Not exactly, I *think* (being a layman and all). Solid fuel rockets like the LGM-30 Minuteman III are an extreme hazard to those based around them - the fumes are toxic. I'd imagine that the EPA-approved re-engineering addresses this issue to some extent.

You mean the fumes eminating from the missile are toxic if it's just in storage, or if it's fired?

Pocatello - That's actually a pretty decent reason to change the engine.

 

[fredtam]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: TheBoyBlunder
It is a little bizarre to replace perfectly working motors on ICBMs with shorter ranged EPA approved models. If the missiles were ever used, I think pollution from their engines would be a relatively minor concern...

Not exactly, I *think* (being a layman and all). Solid fuel rockets like the LGM-30 Minuteman III are an extreme hazard to those based around them - the fumes are toxic. I'd imagine that the EPA-approved re-engineering addresses this issue to some extent.

If one of those is ever fired odds are there is one heading toward where it came from. Toxic fumes should be the last of their worries unless they kill you within 20 minutes.

It is probably those stupid Canadians bitching that we have to shoot them over them. Right M4H?.

 

[Pocatello]

When the Pentagon people destroy an ICBM missile (through disarmament treaties), they would put the warheads away, and then fire up the rocket engines until all the fuel is used up, supposedly this is bad for the environment. Mostly for show, the Russians would do the same thing, so both side would know those missiles cannot be reused.

 

[glenn1]

When the Pentagon people destroy an ICBM missile (through disarmament treaties), they would put the warheads away, and then fire up the rocket engines until all the fuel is used up, supposedly this is bad for the environment. Mostly for show, the Russians would do the same thing, so both side would know those missiles cannot be reused.

Since I presume when they switch motors, they're going to dispose of the old solid propellent by burning it, how does this help matters environmentally? It would have been better to leave it as-is with the unburned propellant rather than switch them out and burn the propellant to get rid of it.

 

[kami333]

It's not only the problem with firing the missles but also storage and transportation, where leakage of the toxic fuels could cause personell and environmental damage.

Link to a study of "green" propellants