Pat Flannery wrote:
John wrote:

That pictures seems to show a land launch from Launch Complex 25 at
Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, which might . . . I emphasize might
. . . suggest that the initial non vertical climb is how the vehicle
is designed to perform . . . interesting *S*

Blue skies




That's what I thought also.
This photo of another land launch, shows the same antenna in the
background, although this time the missile is ascending vertically:
http://www.bomb-shelter.net/images/s...ub_missile.jpg
You really want to see one starting at a angle, check this photo:
http://www.spacegatewaysupport.com/i...trident4sm.jpg
This one, on the other hand, seems to be going more vertical as it
climbs: http://www.sciprods.com/images/trident_ll_02m.jpg
I think I know what's going on here; If you are attacking a target
that's well under the missile's maximum range, you don't have to worry
about getting the optimal trajectory for low air drag, but can fire it
on a depressed trajectory so that it stays fairly low in altitude and
can get nearer its target before detection by enemy radar, making any
attempt to intercept it more difficult.
That's probably what the inclined launches are testing; they're trading
altitude and range for speed, and operating more like a field gun than a
howitzer.

Pat
\
Pat,

The second pic seems to support Henry's thought that what we have been
seeing is a transient and that as the missle climbs it pitchs to a more
typical vertical ascent. I saw one or two of these from a long way off
.. . . and more importantly . . . a very long time ago . . . and to be
honest and I simply cannot remember what they looked like.

Now STS-1 . . . that I will always remember . . . after a steady diet
of Titan II's and Saturn V's, I remember being amazed at how fast the
shuttle left the pad (in a comparative sense)

Take care . . .

John