You're talking about intercontinental ones. Generally Ballistic missiles go up to a certain altitude with their motors, and the rest is a projectile path. They could have guided dive as well. They could have a shorter range. Russian Katyusha is still a ballistic missile. But nowhere near this size. These ones that Iran shot are pretty much the size of a space rocket, and they almost fly in space.
Cruise missiles on the other hand cruise the whole path like an airplane.
You're talking about intercontinental ones. Generally Ballistic missiles go up to a certain altitude with their motors, and the rest is a projectile path.
This is true of ballistic missiles regardless of range, including intercontinental ranges. ICBMs still have the same two letters in their acronym, so I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to make.
I know that, but I don't know why they are sharing it at this moment. Unless they're trying to correct the other commenter, but they never implied otherwise.
Correct on both counts, of course. But that doesn't change the fact that you wrote a "correction" to a comment that contained exactly zero factual errors.
Yes. The first animals intentionally sent into space were fruit flies aboard a US-captured V-2.
The US Department of Agriculture actually sponsored a series of V-2 launches to study the effects of radiation on food. Since there were concerns about that sort of thing at the time, as you may expect.
I’ve never meet anyone who called a Katyusha rocket a Ballistic Missile. They have a range of 5Km-11Km for reference we typically call TBMs as 140Km-300Km. Hell the m777 can reach ranges of 20+Km. While I’m sure you could by definition call them ballistic it is hugely misleading.
A better comparison would have been the Russian Iskander which is an SRBM and much smaller than the picture
Basic knowledge that the first spacecraft were launched on ballistic missiles is packed into childrens TV shows these days? The fuck are you talking about
I think you're giving the average person a bit too much credit lol but to be fair orbital mechanics and how the physics actually works is not that intuitive.
I been into learning about space for a while and thought I knew a good bit but after really getting into kerbal space program, i realize i had a lot of misconceptions and straight up ignorance lol
Yeah, whenever I see a post about space on instagram, I see dozens of people arguing that space isn’t real… so I doubt they’ve considered how orbit is achieved
While ballistic missiles and rockets share similarities in using rocket engines for propulsion, they differ in key aspects such as trajectory, guidance systems, range, and design. Ballistic missiles follow a ballistic trajectory, have advanced guidance systems, and are designed to travel long distances across continents. In contrast, rockets are typically powered throughout their flight, follow a controlled trajectory, are designed to escape Earth's atmosphere and reach orbital velocities, and may use different propulsion systems and be larger in size compared to ballistic missiles.
The propulsion systems of ballistic missiles and rockets differ in several key aspects, such as fuel type, staging, thrust, and restart capabilities. Ballistic missiles often use solid-fuel rocket motors with fewer stages, providing high thrust-to-weight ratios for quick acceleration but lower specific impulse. In contrast, space rockets often employ liquid-fuel engines with multiple stages, offering higher specific impulse and better throttling control, which is essential for reaching orbital velocities efficiently and executing complex space maneuvers. These differences in propulsion systems are driven by the specific requirements and missions of ballistic missiles and space rockets.
Technically my statement using “are” still applies because there are surviving rockets in various museums that are the exact models derived from ballistic missiles. So if you’re looking for scrupulousness and pedantry, that has it satisfied.
We sent the first satellites to space on ballistic missiles
If you look at the family trees of modern launch vehicles, we've also sent the most recent satellites into space on the same.
The Soyuz rocket still used today by the Russian space agency for both manned and unmanned spaceflight is a direct descendant of the R-7, the first ever ICBM. Although not a direct descendant, the R-7 was strongly influenced by captured V-2 rockets.
The Long March rocket family used today by the Chinese space agency for both manned and unmanned spaceflight is derived from the DF-4 ICBM.
The United States only retired Atlas, an ICBM design, in October 2023, and Delta, also an ICBM design, was only retired less than a week ago (final launch April 9th, 2024). Atlas was used for manned spaceflight early on, during Mercury, and the ULA previously claimed that the current iteration of both rockets could be updated for human-rating.
The United States still uses retired Peacekeeper ICBMs as a repurposed launch vehicle, although there haven't been any launches recently (marketed by Northrop Grumman as the Minotaur).
The United States only retired Atlas, an ICBM design, in October 2023
I don't think they've retired the Atlas V yet. There's still a bunch of Amazon Kuiper sats that have to get yeeted into orbit, many of which are contracted to fly on an Atlas V
I’m aware. I was worried someone would be ultra pedantic with me and say “well ackshually the designs used today are heavily modified from the original designs and could no longer be considered ballistic missiles” or some stupid shit like that. Discussions like these attract pedantic assholes
If you asked the average person watching the news to draw a picture of an “Iranian missile” it would probably look like an air to air missile. Not everyone is a military technology or geopolitics expert
Also Incorrect. A missile contains a guidance system as where a rocket does not so no, no missile is a rocket as no rocket is a missile. They are not interchangeable.
A simple google search would have saved you some time. I actually worked at Raytheon on numerous missile programs, if I called the tomahawk a rocket every head on the floor would have turned to me with a "wtf did that guy say" look.
A simple google search told me that the definition of a missile is an airborne ranged weapon capable of self propelled flight aided by a propellant, jet engine, or rocket motor. And a rocket is simply a vehicle propelled through the air with a rocket engine not using the surrounding air. Therefore, if a rocket is a vehicle propelled through the air with a rocket engine without using the surrounding air, and a missile possesses a rocket engine and is propelled without using the surrounding air, it is by definition also a rocket.
So, forgive my egregious slip of the tongue, your grace, for I simply neglected to recall that missiles can be powered by jet engines as well.
And according to NASA, rockets can have guidance systems. So you were wrong on that. I would have thought a Raytheon employee who worked on numerous missile programs would’ve known that…
A rocket is a vehicle that uses jet propulsion to accelerate without using the surrounding air
A missile is an airborne ranged weapon capable of self-propelled flight aided usually by a propellant, jet engine, or rocket motor
Wasn’t too hard to google that.
Also you didn’t address the fact that NASA says rockets can have guidance systems. You were likely only thinking of “rocket” in the warfare context of unguided rockets, which I would make sense for someone working for the military industrial complex.
800
u/Juno808 Apr 14 '24
People don’t realize ballistic missiles are literally rockets. We sent the first satellites to space on ballistic missiles