Not my field of expertise. But aren’t icbms and space rockets kind of the same tech?
276
sharkbait-oo-haha6 days ago
+246
Yep.
Not even "kinda" just straight up the same thing with a different payload.
246
think_im_a_bot6 days ago
+41
Generally, you try not to aim your manned rockets at ground targets too.
41
HighPriestofShiloh5 days ago
+25
Sure you do. It’s usually a landing pad a or body of water that is your target. But you still want to be reasonably accurate.
25
church-rosser5 days ago
+18
throw yourself at the ground and miss
18
AlwaysUpvotesScience5 days ago
+10
it's the second part, the missing, that proves difficult.
10
HighPriestofShiloh5 days ago
+15
Now you are talking about the orbit.
15
WatRedditHathWrought5 days ago
+5
The late Arthur Dent.
5
Farnsworthson4 days ago
+6
"Late, as in the late Dent Arthur Dent.
"It's a kind of threat, you see. I never was terribly good at them."
- Slartibartfast, Lost Planet of Magrathea
6
GroupSoliloquy6 days ago
+88
100%. The space race was really a way for two nations to flex their ICBM capability without escalating to outright conflict. Sure, the US put a man on the moon for science, but Russian Intel just heard " we can put nukes in orbit around the moon, what do you have?"
88
Override96366 days ago
+7
Yep, the R7 rocket that launched Sputnik was essentially a retooled ICBM.
7
panorambo6 days ago
+3
We could flip this the other way, if we go by the numbers and people affected -- the ICBM development was just a way for two nations to put a man on the Moon, and once the U.S. did it, Soviet Union not loving getting the second place, just kind of lost the taste for it. The ICBMs were just a "bonus" :-) There's now the 3. generation of astronauts that in no small became astronauts having been influenced by the likes of Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and NASA in general. Maybe even Tereshkova, what do I know. So there's that too.
3
Notios6 days ago
+19
The difference is ICBM development would have happened regardless of whether there was a scientific by-product, but not vice versa
19
panderingPenguin6 days ago
+10
You could flip it. But that would be historically inaccurate. The motivation for funding the programs was absolutely ICBMs.
10
scytob6 days ago
+5
we could but that would be wrong, operation paperclip wasn't about putting men on the moon, it was about getting the know how for all sort of military applications including bombs
5
sthlmsoul6 days ago
+15
That and satellite launch capabilities.
15
8andahalfby116 days ago
+9
Partially. On the one hand, a lot of the guidance and upper part technology is similar. As for the lower part, the military mostly uses solid fuel rockets while dedicated space rockets increasingly shift to liquid fuel, with solids sometimes used as disposable side boosters.
You can put something in orbit with solid fuel rockets, but you get exactly one shot, and there is no real opportunity for reuse (space shuttle SRBs were nearly rebuilt from the ground up every launch which is why Artemis SLS gave up on recovering them).
The article doesn't specify what kind of rocket this is beyond it being suborbital, but since Ukraine used to build the lower stage of Antares for Northrop Grumman, an orbital rocket is absolutely within their capabilities.
Sadly, I imagine that survival is a higher priority and this is something designed to hit surface targets. Hopefully after the war they can make something else.
9
Tharatan6 days ago
+2
Wasn't antares built using Soviet-surplus engines that were originally developed for their moon program? Interesting how it's once again coming full circle and Ukraine-based SSR programs are continuing to show why the region has been so valuable.
2
8andahalfby116 days ago
+3
Antares originally used NK-33s which were meant for the N1 moon rocket.
They had...issues, and were replaced by the RD-180.
The first stage was built by Pivdenmash and Pivdenne in Dnipro, Ukraine.
Looking back over their history again they used to make Zenit boosters. ICBM tech should absolutely be in their reach.
3
JerbTrooneet5 days ago
+2
And the RD-180 was derived from the Energia booster for the Buran, the Soviet answer to the Space Shuttle. Which happened because the Soviets were scared that the Space Shuttle could pluck their satellites from orbit with its cargo bay or just straight up be an orbital bomber.
Spaceflight history is a really interesting rabbit hole to go down in.
2
willstr16 days ago
+1
The US's Redstone (the rocket used for the Mercury program) was literally an ICBM with just a few modifications
1
Horat1us_UA6 days ago
+22
Kinda. And Ukraine had capabilities to build and launch both
22
RIPphonebattery6 days ago
+8
Kinda? The Mercury launches were done with a redstone missile initially.
8
DragoonDM6 days ago
+7
"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun.
7
1ns3rtn1ckn4m35 days ago
+5
Destination: The moon. Or Moscow.
5
raynorxx6 days ago
+2
And now you know why USA and Russia had a "space" race and all of a sudden China is now trying to go to "space" and the USA is now like we gotta go to the moon again.
2
Charybdis1506 days ago
+2
Sorta. There’s a lot of overlap and ICBMs have been used as space launch vehicles, but there are also differences when you get into the optimized designs for each (e.g., type of fuels, flight trajectory, etc).
2
DeathCabForYeezus6 days ago
+2
"Once the rockets are up, who cares where theycome down?
That's not my department!" says Wernher von Braun
2
sfifs6 days ago
+3
Most modern total war scenarios begin with a Nuclear EMP blast in near space
3
Unicorn_Puppy6 days ago
+1
Yes. The fundamentals of rocket science are interchangeable and don’t change based on whatever it is you desire to do with it.
1
Magma1516 days ago
+1
The soviets approach to rocket tech during the space race was to take their icbms and put sputnick where the warhead was.
1
SanDiedo6 days ago
+61
Ukraine is where most of the Soviet advanced tech was born. It remembers. Slava!
61
IntelArtiGen6 days ago
+41
These are not ICBMs ("InterContinental BM") yet btw, the range in the article is 500km. ICBMs have a range above 5000km. And they also aren't MRBMs (>1000km), they're SRBMs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-range_ballistic_missile
> A short-range ballistic missile (SRBM) is a ballistic missile with a range of 300 km (190 mi) to 1,000 km (620 mi)
41
jseah6 days ago
+29
I guess it doesn't need to go very far when they only have one target...
29
DFWPunk4 days ago
+1
It's a very big target with most of the things you want to hit much further away
1
itpcc6 days ago
+2
...but is it capable of bombing Moscow?
2
IntelArtiGen6 days ago
+5
Might be hard tbh. I mean they probably could in theory, but they say 500km. Moscow might be in range (the missile would be very close to the border which can be a bad idea), and if you extend the range you might lose in precision or payload. If they really want to do it as a symbolic attack, they probably could, but they'll use it in a more useful way I guess. And these missiles could also be intercepted if they target Moscow sadly.
5
JJJBLKRose6 days ago
+3
If you have a big enough payload I guess precision is less important.
3
willstr16 days ago
+1
Big enough payload or using an MSRV (essentially a shotgun of smaller nukes) would do the trick
1
spellstrike5 days ago
-10
If Ukraine is going to lose a war... what's to say they won't use up whatever their weapons they have to convince nearby countries to help them at gunpoint. London is only 1000 miles away from the border of Ukraine and probably doesn't have as much missile defense as moscow.
-10
batmansthebomb5 days ago
+4
>what's to say they won't use up whatever their weapons they have to convince nearby countries to help them at gunpoint.
Basic common sense and military strategy.
4
willstr15 days ago
+1
Going scorched earth so that Russia gets nothing but an unusable pile of dirt makes more sense than threatening countries that have been mostly helping you (even if they definitely could have done more to help). Heck even going as far as threatening to blow up Chernobyl like a country sized suicide vest to "salt the land" would be a better (but still terrible) plan.
1
buldozr6 days ago
+173
You got to give some respect to Putin. He invaded Ukraine in 2014 as a corruption-ridden poor country with an army that was barely holding together. He will go away leaving Ukraine a space-faring power with a nuclear deterrent.
173
trow_eu6 days ago
+66
They invaded because we stood our ground and didn’t allow them to transform us from a poor corrupt democracy (which we still are, progress is too slow) with a puppet leader to another autocratic puppet state.
66
30yearCurse6 days ago
+27
From what I have read Western nations were involved in rebuilding UKR military to match NATO standards, Including moving decision making down from centralized command structure to what ever the term in Western military parlance.
The heroic actions of UKR stand by themselves,
27
trow_eu6 days ago
+36
Guidance and support helped greatly, but the irreplaceable ingredient was all us - the will. Volya. The word hidden in our coat of arms.
36
buldozr6 days ago
+6
"Freedom" and "will" in the same word.
6
[deleted]6 days ago
[deleted]
0
Stefouch6 days ago
+12
Ukraine's military pre-2014 was a bad. But since the invasion of Crimea, they trained with NATO a lot before the 2022 invasion.
12
NecessarySudden6 days ago
+3
Just keep Trump looking away, being busy with Hormuz strait
3
DeadJango6 days ago
+4
Mark my words Ukraine will be a super power after this is all set and done.
4
Any-Interaction60665 days ago
+1
Just said this to myself before reading your comment. Such untapped potential once again being explored.
1
buzzbros20025 days ago
+1
Russia keeps this up and Ukraine may be the ones to figure out how to pull off the 'Rods from God'.
1
cosmicrae6 days ago
+13
Space launch could have been for reconnaissance, for long distance communications, or potentially for something called [FOBS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment_System). The last one would have been an absolute game changer.
13
Explorer3356 days ago
+7
They wouldn't even need FOBs for a credible deterrent. The bulk of the Russian targets that are even worth hitting are within 1000 miles of Ukraine. That gives you everything from Saint Petersburg, to Moscow, to Sochi, along with the bulk of the population and manufacturing.
7
Super-Season-34886 days ago
+9
Wow!
"In addition to the space launches, Venislavskyi said Ukrainian intelligence had completed another unusual mission—launching a rocket carrier from a transport aircraft at an altitude of around 8 kilometers (5 miles).
“This was done for the first time on the European continent and only the second time in world history. The United States first achieved this in the mid-1970s. But our launch altitude is a record,” he said.
According to the lawmaker, the system could evolve into an “airborne spaceport” in the near future. Launching rockets from the air reduces the energy needed to pass through dense layers of the atmosphere, significantly increasing both range and strike efficiency"
9
lucidwray5 days ago
+2
That second paragraph is a little strange to me. Which launch system are they talking about from the 1970’s? Pegasus was in the 90’s. ASM-135 was in the 80’s. LauncherOne was in the 2020’s. What else is there? If we’re not talking orbital then we also have to include SpaceShipOne I would expect.
2
romanmaloshtan5 days ago
+2
The US did experiment with launching ICBMs (Minutemen I rockets) from C-5 Galaxy in the 1970s. The rocket motor did ignite after the rocket itself was dropped from the plane, but as I understand the rocket did not leave the atmosphere.
2
hypercomms20016 days ago
+12
Ukraine has considerable expertise in space as well as launch vehicles, for example example it was a key partner in Sea Launch that used the **Zenit-3SL** rocket.
12
NecessarySudden6 days ago
+15
A lot of Gagarin posts on listnook lately who had same faith as a dog launched earlier. But nobody celebrating Korolev, ukrainian spacecraft designer from Zhytomyr who made missiles for that launches.
15
Wooden_Researcher_366 days ago
+6
My dad was instrumental in engineering the module that pressurized the rockets on Sea Launch.
6
hypercomms20015 days ago
As an engineer, and now a software test analyst… I am jealous!!!
0
badcatdog426 days ago
+19
So ICBMs.
19
F0_17_206 days ago
+3
These were certainly closer to sounding rockets then ICBMs or orbital launches.
3
One-Engineering-45056 days ago
+4
I mean, many of the soviet rocket scientists came from Ukraine. So, I'm sure they could do it again.
4
KriosXVII6 days ago
+2
Sounds a bit optimistic, this might be just a ballistic missile test shot straight up or an ASAT missile test. Which is pretty cool but not what people would expect when you say space launch, which would be maybe at least lauching a satellite in lower orbit.
2
Grouchy_Boot_68196 days ago
+1
could this be used to take out satellites?
1
The-Great-Mullein4 days ago
+1
I wonder if these quietly made putin shit his pants?
68 Comments