Vehicle suggestions

[cosmicfish]

I would probably use this as the base instead:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_...Tactical_Truck

A little more modern, a little more rugged, etc. Personal preference, really. But I would probably still build from scratch for Science 1, I think it would be worthwhile.

[tsofian]

I don't think the Hemmet is more rugged than the Hardened Mobile Launcher. Hemmets aren't designed to survive the sorts of blast over pressure the HML was

[tsofian]

Here are pics of the Hard Mobile Launcher

[cosmicfish]

Originally Posted by tsofian

I don't think the Hemmet is more rugged than the Hardened Mobile Launcher. Hemmets aren't designed to survive the sorts of blast over pressure the HML was

So why don't we design bombers to imitate the ruggedness of the Space Shuttle? Which was killed by a piece of frozen foam?

From what I can find (in particular the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists), the HML was designed to survive specific hazards and operate only on military bases and very flat areas. I don't think it was able to operate anywhere that was not pretty flat and gentle, and not especially quickly either. And while it could survive a high-pressure wave it was not seemingly intended to survive ground combat - I can find no reference to any protection against anything other than a somewhat distant nuclear weapon, and that is not very good protection against anything else.

In short, while it is an interesting vehicle, it was designed for a very specialized mission that does not line up well with Project requirements. You could up-armor it, but there is nothing to be done about the terrible mobility.

[tsofian]

The Hemmet is a truck, to the best of my recollection it doesn't have any armor at all. It is reasonably mobile, for a truck, but once you load it down with a whole lot of armor and mission required equipment and such it is going to have mobility issues as well

[cosmicfish]

Originally Posted by tsofian

The Hemmet is a truck, to the best of my recollection it doesn't have any armor at all. It is reasonably mobile, for a truck, but once you load it down with a whole lot of armor and mission required equipment and such it is going to have mobility issues as well

No, it doesn't have any armor, and adding some will impair it a bit, depending on how much it weighs compared to the normal cargo load. But it is designed to go anywhere the army goes, and that means it can handle most terrains and situations. The prototype HML's were designed to operate on bases and in flatlands, and there are not many places in the US where you can drag a hundred foot trailer or that can accommodate such a low ground clearance, both of which were design requirements for launching the missiles and surviving a nearby nuke strike.

The HML is cool, but it is a very specialized vehicle designed for a very narrow mission, and outside that mission it is completely impractical.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by tsofian

The Hemmet is a truck, to the best of my recollection it doesn't have any armor at all. It is reasonably mobile, for a truck, but once you load it down with a whole lot of armor and mission required equipment and such it is going to have mobility issues as well

Originally Posted by cosmicfish

No, it doesn't have any armor, and adding some will impair it a bit, depending on how much it weighs compared to the normal cargo load. But it is designed to go anywhere the army goes, and that means it can handle most terrains and situations. The prototype HML's were designed to operate on bases and in flatlands, and there are not many places in the US where you can drag a hundred foot trailer or that can accommodate such a low ground clearance, both of which were design requirements for launching the missiles and surviving a nearby nuke strike.

The HML is cool, but it is a very specialized vehicle designed for a very narrow mission, and outside that mission it is completely impractical.

There is a uparmor kit for the Hemmet since 2005. This doesn't affect the carrying capacity much, it is a 10 ton truck.

[tsofian]

I thought the armor kit effected the center of gravity badly and lead to the vehicle becoming even more role prone that it was originally (Which I don't think was nearly as bad at Hummers). I never drove a Hemmet, but did drive the BIDS version of the Hummer, which had a huge laboratory box on the back and those things were bears.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_...Tactical_Truck

I think a lab version of the Hemmet is going to have some issues. The vehicle is a ten ton truck but I think the armor kit only covers the cab, not the payload area. I have seen some gun trucks that have armor on the payload areas but that basically takes up the whole weight of the payload and doesn't leave much for anything else.

In adddition the Hemmet isn't NBC sealed. The HML is all about surviving in a post strike environment. It will certainly have a harder time climbing hills but a lot depends upon the trailer. The HML trailer is designed to house, protect from a nearby nuclear strike and then launch a 30,000 pound ICBM.

With either the Hemmet or the HML the payload will need to be fully custom. I think that a lab doesn't need to be as long or as heavy as the missile trailer was.

YMMV

[tsofian]

Originally Posted by cosmicfish

So why don't we design bombers to imitate the ruggedness of the Space Shuttle? Which was killed by a piece of frozen foam?

From what I can find (in particular the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists), the HML was designed to survive specific hazards and operate only on military bases and very flat areas.

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists is an interesting and very biased source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet...mic_Scientists The group that publishes it is against all nuclear weapons as well as most other nuclear technology and other emerging technologies as well. The likelihood of them publishing a favorable report on any piece of nuclear hardware is fairly remote. Their goal is to discredit all nuclear weapons programs and the use of propaganda is one way they attempt to sway public opinion

Just as a data point the Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck (HEMTT) has a 515 Hp power plant, eight wheel drive and a total all up weight with the B armor kit of 109.000 pounds. The HML has 1,200 horses and also eight wheel drive and an all up weight of 239,000 pounds or 211 pounds per horse power for the HEMTT and 115 pounds per horse power for the HML. I would say that while towing a ICBM the HML is probably pretty limited but I can't see why the tractor alone would be less mobile than a HEMTT.

Also sealing a vehicle against NBC threats requires a lot of work. The system must not only be sealed but it must also be equipped with an air cleaning and handling system that will ensure that contaminants are filtered out and the air is usually at overpressure to assist in keeping the bad stuff on the outside.

[cosmicfish]

Originally Posted by tsofian

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists is an interesting and very biased source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet...mic_Scientists The group that publishes it is against all nuclear weapons as well as most other nuclear technology and other emerging technologies as well. The likelihood of them publishing a favorable report on any piece of nuclear hardware is fairly remote. Their goal is to discredit all nuclear weapons programs and the use of propaganda is one way they attempt to sway public opinion

If you like there are also GAO and DoD reports that mention not only the difficulty in finding areas capable of supporting the HML's operations but also the expense of adding roads for them to operate on. Everything in my engineering training and experience, and everything I see about this vehicle combine to tell me that this vehicle was not ever intended to be any more than nominally off-road, and that it would be unable to operate in any but a small fraction of the post-apocalyptic US.

Remember, the challenge for this technology was getting something that would haul around the missile at all. One of the first things sacrificed was "go anywhere" mobility. They didn't need that, this was always intended to operate in the same kinds of places missiles were already based, and those places by and large had lots of flat land and often roads.

Originally Posted by tsofian

Just as a data point the Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck (HEMTT) has a 515 Hp power plant, eight wheel drive and a total all up weight with the B armor kit of 109.000 pounds. The HML has 1,200 horses and also eight wheel drive and an all up weight of 239,000 pounds or 211 pounds per horse power for the HEMTT and 115 pounds per horse power for the HML. I would say that while towing a ICBM the HML is probably pretty limited but I can't see why the tractor alone would be less mobile than a HEMTT.

Because power is not nearly the only factor in off-road maneuverability. Among many others there is also ground clearance, the HML's biggest problem. Looking at pictures it looks like it has less than 8" of ground clearance, and in a vehicle as long and as wide as this thing even hard, gentle terrain will hit the breakover angle while softer or slightly rougher terrain will just grind it to a halt. Plus, the thing is so danged wide.

Originally Posted by tsofian

Also sealing a vehicle against NBC threats requires a lot of work. The system must not only be sealed but it must also be equipped with an air cleaning and handling system that will ensure that contaminants are filtered out and the air is usually at overpressure to assist in keeping the bad stuff on the outside.

And yet every Morrow vehicle already has NBC systems that meet the exact same standard that you would need for Science One. If the SK-25 can meet the spec, then it is not that hard to achieve.

[tsofian]

Can you link to those sources? I'd like to have them for my reference. Thanks!

The biggest issue might be the trailer. The MP trailer will be a home-brew design for certain, but it could certainly be much shorter and weigh less then the missile transporter/erector/launcher. The tractor itself, with a different trailer may well have much better mobility

[cosmicfish]

Originally Posted by tsofian

Can you link to those sources? I'd like to have them for my reference. Thanks!

Here are a few I could recover:

http://www.gao.gov/assets/150/142998.pdf
http://digitalcollections.library.cm...le&item=712384

Remember that details on this kind of thing are not going to be found on unclassified sites even now.

Originally Posted by tsofian

The biggest issue might be the trailer. The MP trailer will be a home-brew design for certain, but it could certainly be much shorter and weigh less then the missile transporter/erector/launcher. The tractor itself, with a different trailer may well have much better mobility

There is no doubt that the trailer is the worst part, but even for the prime mover by itself significant improvements in off-road capability would have rendered it much more vulnerable to the nuclear blast it was designed to survive. Even looking at the pictures the prototypes look like they would have trouble clearing a curb.