Not bloody likely. The Stinger could hit the shuttle, but unless you nailed a control surface or the landing gear, you’re not going to cause a crash landing. Remember that the Shuttle glides the entire way down to earth, so its belly, nose, and leading edges (all covered with thick thermal tiles) are white-hot while the thin topside skin is relatively cool. There are no vulnerable engines to cripple, and the cockpit is a very small fraction of the total length, so you’re not likely to randomly take out the pilot(s).
If the Stinger is proximity-fuzed, you could absolutely get lucky and blow out a tire or take off a wingtip, but the likelihood of hitting and killing are two very different numbers.
And plus per **jjiimm’s ** post if you can get with three mile that’s within range and not suicidal (ie you wouldn’t get killed by the blast. What the security guys might do to you is perhaps another story).
How hot are they after the shuttle is gliding through the atmosphere? I saw a demonstration of the properties of the tiles on a documentary, someone took a blow torch to one, then picked it up again after a few seconds. Are they really white-hot?
Flight time might be couple of seconds, but first you need to lock guidance system on target. Which take another couple of seconds. And better to do this before shockwave from the shuttle launch reach your position. And even if we take only hypothetical clear conditions, time window of 15 seconds is damn short.
Your target is constantly gaining altitude and speed. Trajectory of missile launched from ground position and following it would be rather hyperbolic, with final part of shuttle flying straight up and stinger chasing it also almost straight up.
Also cite on 200m killing range? Seems too big for 3kg fragmentation warhead.
Well, I don’t know. But I doubt that you can be sure that proximity fuse can’t be, for example, tripped by blast from engines say, 200m away… Or damaged/jammed enough to not work at all. These are not conditions it was designed to work.
What about using one of those .50cal antimateriel rifles just seconds before liftoff to put a hole in a solid rocket booster or damage the heat shield?
I would say that though it is possible it’s not likely. The stinger would see the hot exhaust, that would get way too big for it’s sensor way too early, possibly trying to switch to image recognition way too early and unable to get a lock on anything. Also the stinger is designed to hit a very slow moving target (basically standing still), the speed of the space shuttle and it’s acceleration would throw it off, causing it to chase the exhaust. At which time all the missile would see is the exhaust only, the shuttle should be totally obscured by the exhaust at this time.
The stinger would be totally blinded as it approached the ultra hot exhaust and image recognition would be totally useless. The speed of the exhaust would easily deflect the missile, the temperatures caused by combining O2 with H2 under extreme pressures would be way beyond the ability of the stinger to handle. This would result in one of 3 conclusions, the missile deflected by the exhaust in a useless trajectory, possibly blind, the missile would break up due to turbenance and different pressures, or it explodes in the exhaust stream which could cause porblems, though the explosion would have to push parts through the ‘controlled’ and much larger and constant explosion that is propelling the shuttle forward.
If only the shuttle launch had some sort of countdown thingy to let you know when it’s going to launch, eh?
Have you checked out **beowulff’s ** cite above? It’s perfect. As soon as the engines start up you aim. This takes six seconds. Then you have 1.4 seconds till launch, then you have 2 seconds till the stinger hits mach 2, and (not allowing for the distance covered in those two seconds) from three miles there is 8 seconds till the stinger reaches the shuttle.
At that point the shuttle has gone only half a mile and is doing only 250 mph or about mach 0.3. If you were late, you have a margin.
If you want more of a margin, you just start your aiming process based on the countdown at T-6 (or whatever) before liftoff.
You really haven’t started to get to grips with the relative speeds and distances involved here. If the missile start 3 miles out and hits the shuttle as above the trajectory will be nowhere near as you say, since the shuttle will have gone only half a mile up. Plus the missile will be travelling about 7 times the speed of the shuttle. Sure, the missile will presumably travel a curve, but no way is your last phrase correct.
And you are assuming that the missile is dumb and just flies at its target blindly and does no anticipation. Per same cite as above:
Your assumption seems to be that a stinger that is specifically designed to be able to track and hit fighters pulling 8g deliberate avoidance manouevres can’t hit a shuttle that is orders of magnitude larger, moving like about 10 times slower, in a straight line?
What do you base that on?
To get to mach 2.2 in 2 seconds the stinger must be designed to pull about 360G and still be functional. Think about how robust it must be to withstand that.
Here’s something else to think about: sitting atop the shuttle and booster engines are a bunch of people and a load of delicate equipment. They are not getting blasted, damaged or jammed by those engines and they are *attached * to the damn things. I have no doubt that from the end of the shuttle downward is hell on earth when those engines are firing, but from the side is different.
Again, I don’t know if a stinger would be capable of hitting the shuttle as it takes off, but you seem to be doing a whole lot of not obviously justified assuming.
I don’t think so. Before launch, there is no heat signature to lock onto, so I doubt you could start the tracking sequence until the engines have ignited.
Engine ignition occurs in two stages, the first being the liquid and then the solids.
NASA:At T-6.6 seconds the ignition sequence for the three main engines begins. The three Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs) are positioned in the aft portion of the orbiter’s fuselage. Every 120 milliseconds another engine ignites in the order 3-2-1. If one or more of the three SSME’s do not reach 90% of their rated thrust by T-3 seconds, all SSME’s are shut down automatically and the launch sequence is interrupted. At T-O seconds the Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) are ignited. The lift-off of the Space Shuttle occurs almost immediately because of the extremely rapid thrust build-up of the SRB’s.
I’d think if you’re within the prescribed range you fire your Stinger as soon as the liquids ignite and you’ve got a signature to lock on, a constrained heat target and a still slow moving target.
I don’t want to start some kind of piss contest. All I wrote is that you’d have “few seconds” of time window. Which - by all facts above - is true. Whether it is even possible for Stinger to lock on shuttle still on launchpad - I don’t know. But I know it’s nothing like targets that are supposed to be taken down by Stinger. I guess we need some expert voice here. Stranger on the Train, are you somewhere?
No. But I assume that it’s not designed to intercept targets that are rapidly accelerating and gaining altitude at the same time. Not exactly trajectory it’s programmed to predict.
Again. Helluva big thing rapidly accelerating straight up and emitting absurdly strong heat signature is nothing like military airplane (even maneuvering) in level flight. This is NOT target that Stinger was designed to hit. I seriously doubt that it’s as trivial difference as you seems to think it is.
I think that you are doing at least as much unjustified assuming.
You misinterpreted the text. That minimum effective range of 200m is not kill radius. That just means it can’t hit target that is closer than 200m.
A .50 caliber BMG round could probably punch a hole through the thin maraging steel cases, and it might fracture the propellant, but I don’t think that would destroy the booster itself, unless the damage is enough to cause result in a thru-grain crack or significant delamination between the liner and propellant. (There is a remote chance that the shock of impulse might cause the propellant Those a big freaking motors with Class 1.3 propellant (relatively shock insensitive) and any small overpressure impulses, especially later in flight when the chamber has burned outward are probably lost in the noise. Remember that Challenger didn’t “explode”; a blow-by facing the External Tank through the o-ring seal caused a jet of hot gas to cut into the ET, resulting in leakage in the LH2 tank which resulted in a chain of actions where the struts failed, LH2 and LO2 leaked and combusted, and the actual Orbiter broke up from aerodynamic forces. There was a big flash of combusting propellant at relatively low pressure, but Challenger’s demise was from structural failure, not explosion. A hole through the LH2 tank might be a problem, depending on where it was, but there is a certain amount of leakage that occurs anyway, and you’re not going to a unnoticeable portion of fuel through a 0.50" hole in a few minutes. A hit to flight termination ordnance would be a bad day for someone, but that would be a very lucky shot.
Now, a hit against the filament wound case (FWC) SRBs intended for the “Blue Shuttle” program (Air Force-operated shuttle out of “Slick Six” at Vandenberg AFB, indented for once-around polar orbit launches) would be another story. Damage to one or two layers of fiber, even locally, or unpressurized crazing of the case matrix could result in a pressure egress and or zip failure of the case (which is just about like what it sounds). However, Blue Shuttle was canceled before first launch because of the Challenger incident (after ~$4.5B spent to refit SLC-6) and the FWC-SRBs never flew.
Plus, 3 kilometers would be at outside range for a .50 BMG, even on a target as large as the SRB. A lucky shot might catch it on the ground; it’s unlikely you could hit it in the air. Better chance of hitting it with a large anti-aircraft gun, but as the tendency toward guided missiles has demonstrated, AA guns aren’t particularly effective in knocking aircraft out of the sky.
To address the o.p.'s question, a Stinger might be able to do damage if you hit it early in flight (in the first few seconds) by damaging one of the Shuttle Main Engines or shrapnel striking the ET, but you’d have to be immediately downrange in order to get a shot at it, and you would have only a window of a handful of seconds where you could hit it before it would be out of range. Also note that the STS almost immediately rolls onto its back (i.e. top of the Orbiter facing the flight path and turning toward the ground) in order place the delta wing in the best orientation to handle aerodynamic forces. A close strike to the SRB might do enough damage to shred the case and cause the motor to rupture, but the bright plume of the SMEs it probably doing to attract a heat seeking missile. The STS would be a sitting duck for a larger interceptor, however, like the Patriot Advanced Capability or the SA-11 or SA-17 (although, again you’d need to be immediately downrange and you’d have only a score or so of seconds to make intercept). A boost- or mid-course phase ballistic missile interceptor would be more generally useful, but these are in the province of major military powers.
I would agree with Jurph about the likelihood of critically damaging the Orbiter on return; it’s gliding dumb and by the time you’re in range for a Stinger the thermal protection has long ceased to be useful. You could do some serious damage if you hit it–tens of millions of dollars of labor to repair TPS alone–but it would be a lucky shot to hit some vulnerable point or the landing gear. Plus, that sucker is moving fast right up to landing. The Stinger isn’t really designed to hit supersonic objects; it’s really intended as man-portable (or light vehicle mountable) point defense against ground attack craft and helicopter gunships. It was very effective against Hind-24 gunships and transports in Afghanistan, but you wouldn’t use it effectively against a high altitude or transonic target.
I’m curently watching a shuttle countdown on NASA TV in Quicktime window on my laptop while I work. I’ve got this mental image of a guy squatting in the swamp with a laptop and a Stinger eagerly following this thread while an alligator slowly sneaks up behind him.
But the real question here is, what happens if the guy firing the stinger is running backwards on a giant treadmill?
The stinger is a fast missile designed to hit slow targets (compared to itself). Low flying aircraft usually means takeoff and landings which is at very low speeds. The shuttle OTHO is accelerating much faster then such a missile needs to be designed for, also heading straight up, which also is not something that would seem needed to program it for.
I’m not saying that a stinger couldn’t be designed to take out the SS, just that right out of the box I don’t give it much of a chance.
