New Russian missile explodes during test
According to orbital imagery, it appears that a new Russian missile that has been under development for more than a dozen years but has not yet completed a full test flight, exploded sometime between September 20th and September 21st during a test launch.
Satellite images from Planet Labs of the Sarmat’s Yubileinaya launch silo in Plesetsk posted on Sept. 21, 2024, showed a major crater left by an apparent rocket explosion, along with multiple fires just east of the site. The fires were also confirmed by NASA’s satellite-based Fire Information for Resource Management System, FIRMS, within 24 hours of Sept. 21, 2024. At least four fire engines speeding to the facility were also discernable on satellite images, confirming that these pictures had been taken immediately after the incident on September 21.
The rocket’s development — which claims will be far more capable than its present missiles — appears to have been plagued with problems and delays. It is also a strange missile, in that it is liquid-fueled, something that western militaries abandoned for missiles more than a half century ago. Solid-fueled missiles are simpler and can be stored ready-to-launch for long periods. Fueling and launching a liquid-fueled rocket quickly is not really practical during a wartime emergency.
The support of my readers through the years has given me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Four years ago, just before the 2020 election I wrote that Joe Biden's mental health was suspect. Only in this year has the propaganda mainstream media decided to recognize that basic fact.
Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Even today NASA and Congress refuse to recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are five ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation:
5. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above. And if you buy the books through the ebookit links, I get a larger cut and I get it sooner.
According to orbital imagery, it appears that a new Russian missile that has been under development for more than a dozen years but has not yet completed a full test flight, exploded sometime between September 20th and September 21st during a test launch.
Satellite images from Planet Labs of the Sarmat’s Yubileinaya launch silo in Plesetsk posted on Sept. 21, 2024, showed a major crater left by an apparent rocket explosion, along with multiple fires just east of the site. The fires were also confirmed by NASA’s satellite-based Fire Information for Resource Management System, FIRMS, within 24 hours of Sept. 21, 2024. At least four fire engines speeding to the facility were also discernable on satellite images, confirming that these pictures had been taken immediately after the incident on September 21.
The rocket’s development — which claims will be far more capable than its present missiles — appears to have been plagued with problems and delays. It is also a strange missile, in that it is liquid-fueled, something that western militaries abandoned for missiles more than a half century ago. Solid-fueled missiles are simpler and can be stored ready-to-launch for long periods. Fueling and launching a liquid-fueled rocket quickly is not really practical during a wartime emergency.
The support of my readers through the years has given me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Four years ago, just before the 2020 election I wrote that Joe Biden's mental health was suspect. Only in this year has the propaganda mainstream media decided to recognize that basic fact.
Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Even today NASA and Congress refuse to recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are five ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation:
5. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above. And if you buy the books through the ebookit links, I get a larger cut and I get it sooner.
Not a bad thing that a liquid fuel rocket takes longer to launch than solid fuel. Gives additional time to re-consider the folly of nuclear war.
Liquid fuel still has an edge for a heavy lift rocket. Sarmat is supposed to have a 10 ton payload. Not saying any of that is a good idea.
Shallow Minded reader remember that for ICBMs you have at BEST 30 minutes to respond. For certain SLBM situations you may have less than 15 minutes to respond. And that depends on your satellite and radar facilities noting the launch, which is not a given with Russia’s diminished capacities. There are other issues, the fuels used are often Hypergolics which tend to be toxic and rather annoying to handle (See our old Titan II and accidents like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Damascus_Titan_missile_explosion ). Often the the tanks need to be pressurized with something (say Nitrogen) as they are usually structurally critical to the missile. In addition there may be limits to the number of times the fuel can be cycled. There are reasons we and the then Soviets went to solid fuel for our strategic responses in the 70’s/80’s. As far as I know none of those have changed. Why you would do this for your strategic reserve is baffling and hints the processes and capbilities in Russia are radically changed/diminished.
Fueling time is less of an issue if you intend to be the one to launch first.
Just saying.
The Russians don’t expect to be subject to a first strike, so they don’t need to be able to react instantly.
It’s worth considering as a possible explanation that certain *other* current. ongoing activities of the Russian government may be sponging up most of Russia’s solid rocket propellant manufacturing capabilities at present…
I think the logic is that it’s the submarine launched missiles that are your “reaction force” that need to be always ready to launch in reaction to incoming fire. The land based missiles are just a threatening stick to wave around so the fact that they take a while to prepare has little meaning.
The only ICBMs that had to be fueled immediately before launch were the USSR’s R-7 – the direct ancestor of today’s Soyuz – and the US’s Atlases and Titan 1s. These earliest ICBMs had kerolox engines and were in service – as ICBMs anyway – for only a short time. We and the Soviets both switched to missiles using hypergolic propellants – which can be left fueled for extended periods and quickly fired at need. Hence the term “storable propellants.” The US almost as quickly moved again to solid fuel for most of its ICBMs, but kept the already-deployed storable propellant ones too. These latter were retired in the 80s. The Soviets had problems with solid fuels and never relied on them for more than a fraction of its nuclear deterrent.
The Sarmat seems to be a Russified version of the most recent (more than three decades back) model upgrade of the Ukrainian-built R-36 with a good press agent. A number of the original R-36s were used as satellite launchers under the name Dnepr for a time. Many of the original R-36s are, in theory at least, still in service. How much they can actually be counted upon in a pinch is one of those 64 billion ruble questions to which even the Russians probably have no solid answer.
Russian maintenance of other portions of its strategic nuclear arsenal since the end of the USSR has not been impressive. The Dnepr had about a 5% failure rate in satellite launcher service. Any still-deployed R-36s are likely far iffier than that.
Much of the erstwhile Soviet fleet of ballistic missile submarines, for example, is now gone – and their missiles with them – and only a handful of replacements of questionable capability have been completed in the post-Soviet era. The Russian land-based ICBM force is probably similarly diminished and hollow – perhaps fewer than 100 servicable missiles remain after decades of cannibalizing some to keep the rest going. But I doubt we have any better an idea of just how much that is so than do the Russians. We’re good at finding out things the Russians know, but no intelligence apparat can get answers to questions even one’s enemies don’t know.
Even with time to do some working up – and the Russians have had over 2-1/2 years since invading Ukraine – I don’t think the Russians any longer have enough suitably reliable ICBMs to hazard kicking off a nuclear exchange – especially not with the entirety of NATO.
SS-9 Scarp city-busters became Tsyclone, SS-18 Satans (Voyevoda?) Dnepr.
Sarmat was made from the start to also take satellite payloads like our Titan II modifications.
Sarmat has a solid kicker charge that pushes it up and out. SLBMs had ampulized hypergolics and the second stage nozzle immersed in the propellant tank of the first–staging by cutting the missile in half via primacord or something.
It took until the end of the Cold War to get a Minuteman/Midgetman equivalent in TOPOL-M which is their START smallsats launcher.
OTOH the Brits last two test launches of Poseidon’s from their boomers failed.
There’s the second half of the equation which is just how many of the Russian nuclear warheads will actually work?
Nukes require regular maintenance. They can’t just be stored in a bunker for years on end or sit on top of an IRBM, ICBM, or SLBM without regular maintenance. There’s a list of testing and maintenance that has to be done regularly in order to make sure the warhead goes ‘BOOM’ rather ‘fizzle’ if/when the time comes.
Mr Borgelt I don’t think the UK ever used Poseidon missiles. They went straight from Polaris to Trident, The current 4 Vanguard class SSBN use Trident II (D5?) and have been the UK’s only strategic nuclear force since the mid 90’s when they took their last free fall weapons out of service.
As someone noted yes if you intend to first strike the fueling requirement is less of an issue. But also as noted these are likely hypergolic fueled so can sit active for long periods. The main issue is the maintenance of these beasts. It is complicated and exacting, not like traditional soviet/Russian weaponry that was as simple as possible and will stand up under limited/poor maintenance.
Honestly I can’t imagine why once you have the Topol/Topol-M solid fueled weapon why you’d ever want to go back to liquid/hypergolic fuels for strategic weapons. It’s range is sufficient at 6800 NM (less than LGM-30 Minuteman III at 8700 NM but better than the Minuteman I/II). It can carry a 1 megaton warhead so throw weight seems enough, CEP is 200 M. Looks like this is a boondoggle to keep some sector of the military industrial complex happy/busy that NEVER happens in the US :-) .
My late uncle had the distinction of selling this to the US government.
https://www.nasa.gov/image-article/vanguard-rocket-test/
let’s ask the internet…
Trident Missile Test Fails
Sky News, Feb. 2024
https://youtu.be/g7qj5iwKMBU
2:26
The Soviets liked and stuck with storable hypergolic propellants, a la Titan II, the Apollo SM and LM Ascent engine, and virtually every RCS system ever made. Storable hypergolics in the ICBM field have response times similar to, if not quite as fast as, solid rockets. Why the Russians/Soviets have stuck with hypergolics has always been a bit of a mystery – even their new SLBMs continue to make use of them, which is something the USN would never have allowed for safety reasons. The Russians/Soviets have never built massive solid boosters similar to Titan III/IV or the SRBs used on Space Shuttle/SLS. They may lack the technology to make such large solid motors.
And, the Russians/Soviets have long had a requirement for ICBMs with truly massive throw weight, going back to the SS-9. Their warheads/RVs tend to be a bit heavier than equivalent American warheads, but they’ve also kept very large yield weapons in use longer than anyone else (which weigh much more than lower yield devices). They have 5-7 ton RVs with yields on the order of 20-25MT that are beyond the weight capabilities of their solid rocket industry, so they stick with the hypergolic liquids they know so well.
So, while no one knows for certain, the Russians probably continue to use large storable hypergolic liquid engines on their ICBMs and SLBMs because the down-sides in terms of response time are marginal, and the up-sides for them are quite substantial. Plus, it’s a technology they’ve obviously mastered, so why change, especially when they seem to have difficulties with solid motors?
Yeah, sorry, Trident, not Poseidon.
ICBM reliability of 95% would be really good. It doesn’t matter much. Just build and launch more of them. This is how the military thinks