Talk:LGM-30 Minuteman

message: https://www.brookings.edu/what-nuclear-weapons-delivery-systems-really-cost/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Symon777 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Price

message: Should it be mentioned that during the terminal phase, when it has a speed of 7 Km/s that the weight of 36,030 KG would mean it has a kinetic energy level of approximately 882 Gigajoules (882,735 Megajoules)?
:That's not correct math... Only the third stage (burnt out, without any propellant left) and the MIRV bus reach that velocity.  And the kinetic energy of the bus and burnt out third stage aren't useful or relevant - they will burn up in the atmosphere.  Kinetic energy of the actual warhead mass might be somewhat useful, for example if you were thinking of kinetic energy / non-nuclear warhead options, but that value isn't a normally quoted value in industry or analyst writeups.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should it be mentioned 

message: Other missile's pages have the exact name (like LGM-118A Peacekeeper) as page title. Titles like "Peacekeeper (missile)" redirect there. Should this be changed here?
Ospalh 14:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page title 

message: Article says
    Most are capable of a near 100-Megaton blast.
But this sounds too big? Most warheads have a yield less than 0.5Mt.
Number of warheads, about 10??? So surely this figure should be more like
'5-Megaton' at most? Where does the 100Mt come from? 
131.111.48.116 19:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On Dec 31, an anonymous editor vandalized the article, adding that phrase, and nobody noticed until today when you did.  I have this article on my watch list but didn't catch it.  I have fixed the vandalism.  The largest single warhead on a Minuteman would be the enhanced W87, at 475 kilotons.  The alternate combinations of three W78 warheads at 335 to 350 kilotons each, for roughly a one megaton total load, or three W62 warheads at 170 kilotons each for around a half megaton.  Georgewilliamherbert 01:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Since the Minuteman program depends on periodic launches from Vandenberg AFB over the Pacific Ocean, "environmentally friendly" is important, because the good people of Lompoc, California near Vandy are entitled to breathable air during and after those test launches. Apart from that, less-toxic first stages would probably beat the test stand and its equipment up less. loupgarous 09:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Query

message: F.E. Warren has been listed as having 200 birds, but only three Squadrons. It's been 30 years, but I recall that it's 50 birds to a Squadron, like Malmstron. So isn't there a Squadron missing?
As to above allegation of classified info, only someone that has signed the paper can be charged. If you get info from a public source, like Aviation Leak, er Week. You are off the hook.  Ralph 31Jan06
There are no Minuteman in Vandenberg AFB stationed. Vandenberg is today only a test site.
I am also a former MM3 missile mechanic.  The classroom discussion that discussed the stage termination scheme was unclassified, so I doubt that this is classified information.  In addition, this was freely discussed by the Minot Boeing on-site rep in open area discussion.
But, unless I have incorrect information here, I think that the thrust termination scheme as currently written is in error.  As I was taught, and as was supported by the tech rep, the method of third stage thrust termination is as follows:  at time of desired thrust termination, two events happen in close time proximity:  the third stage to PSRE linear charge detonates, which separates the third stage from the upper part.  At the same time (or close to it, I don't remember the exact timing) the six thrust termination ports also open.  Those were fired by linear charges and to make sure that the six opened at the same time, the cordite (or whatever it was, we always just called it cordite) were of the same length.  The net effect of this was to open another avenue for the hot gasses to exit, and as the total area of the six ports was more than the nozzle throat, the result was in effect a retro firing.  This not only effected a clean stage separation, but also served to back the third stage away from the PSRE/guidance section/payload bus.  And, as is currently stated, this also served as a method of exact thrust termination, obviously very important with the mission involved.
Anyhow, that is how the training was presented and also how the tech rep said it worked.  I've long since tossed my training manuals (which I think may have also agreeed with this) so cannot give a hard document for the above.
Comments?
MacMullen_e chiming in...
341st E-Labian here.  Malmstrom during late '70-early '80 did have 200 missiles assigned to the 10th, 12th, 490th and 564th missile squadrons.  The  564 was the only MM-III during those years which made our jobs interesting as the 341st was the only base to work with both, at the time, weapon systems.  The 564th is now de-commissioned and the remaining three squadrons are loaded with MM-III.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macmullen e (talk • contribs) 02:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Various

message: You are correct about the classification level on the thrust termination ports.  I spoke with a representative of the OSI, and he confirmed that it was not classified information. On another note, Why, if the technology is not clasified, didn't they use TT ports on the shuttles solid boosters? It would provide a safety feature in case of accidental ignition during main engine tests as depicted in the Space Camp movie. 
70.180.55.248 22:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because in flight, the SRB's "drag" the ET behind them, after thrust termination they would shift to "hanging" off the ET and the resulting shift in structural loads would shred the ET and toss the Orbiter into the airstream where it would break up.  (Which is essentially what happened to Challenger.)  NASA looked at using a solid motor mounted to the Orbiter to power it clear, but even if it was used for final orbital insertion, it was too heavy.) 2601:8:9380:CCA:6DEF:C3FA:BAB2:9E6C (talk)   — Preceding undated comment added 05:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply

message: In the paragraph titled Minuteman III (LGM-30G), there are a couple of items that should be corrected.  The picture from the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum shown is the complete NS20 guidance system, not the HDC-701 computer.  Starting at the top center of the picture and moving clockwise the major components one can see are the Gyrostabilized Platform, the D37D computer, the P92A Amplifier, and the Missile Guidance Set Control.
While Honeywell was indeed a second source to Autonetics for development of a computer, the Honeywell HDC-701 computer was never fielded and the D37D remained the NS20 guidance system computer until upgraded by the Guidance Replacement Program.  In fact, obsolete electronics and increasing failures of the D37D, especially the wet slug tantalum capacitors, were a primary justification for approving the Guidance Replacement Program.Sscbm (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minuteman III LGM30G 

message: "The Single Reentry Vehicle (SRV) modification allows .." is cryptic. Has this been applied to all Minuteman IIIs, or what is the status of this program?--Patrick (talk) 08:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: SRV status

message: There are four dates in the page for the retirement of the MMIII - 2020, 2025, 2030, and 2040.  Only one of these - 2020 - can I independently verify from a reputable source.  As a USAF employee who frequently reads "USAF magazines", I know that the USAF plans on keeping the MMIII in service well beyond 2020 however I can't find anything that officially says that.  The overall point is that you can't have four dates in the same article - it looks stupid - so someone needs to make a decision and do the edits/deletions.  I'd do it, but I'm tired of being yelled at when making wholesale deletions like this.
Ckruschke (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:   End Of Service Life 

message: The photograph identified as a Minuteman III in its silo appears to be mislabeled.  Minuteman III has an ogival payload fairing.  Minuteman III is also not a constant diameter.  I believe the photo is a Peacekeeper ICBM, one of 50 that had been placed in Minuteman silos for a few years.  Reading the reference material on the photo tends to suggest the photo was intended to be more about the person in it than about the missile.  I believe the missile was just misidentified because it was in a Minuteman silo.  Minuteman III fairings are painted, unlike the bare metal fairing of stacked cones in the photo.  The fairing and constant diameter are characteristic of Peacekeeper, not MM III.  I think this would be worth checking.Magneticlifeform (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peacekeeper mislabeled as Minuteman III 

message: I have seen the accuracy listed in the infobox change a few times. Once it was 120 meters, then it was 150 meters and now it is 200 meters. All Minuteman III missiles have the NS-20 guidance set, right? Does anyone know what the accuracy of this is? Moonshot926 (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: With modern methods, the accuracy is about + or - 1 meter and, hence, not important.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.109.117 (talk) 11:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The last open-source published figure I've read for Minuteman III RV accuracy is plus or minus 5 meters, which is still quite good enough to dig a buried ICBM or LCC out, or demolish any other enemy object we really wish destroyed within 30 minutes or less. loupgarous 08:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the real accuracy of Minuteman III? 

message: Due to the location of the launch silos, any foreseeable use of the Minuteman force would have them overfly Russia, even if targeted at other countries. 
How is that not relevant? Hcobb (talk) 13:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter because nowhere in the article is it asserted we don't intend for the entire throw weight of our Minuteman force not to land on Russian targets.  No section on this article addresses targeting of the Minuteman force at all.  I add that Russia is the single most probable nuclear threat to the United States of America, and has threatened to use nuclear weapons on the US homeland or above it in an EMP creation mode if we just placed ABMs in the Czech republic or Poland. loupgarous 08:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russia appears zero times in this article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on LGM-30 Minuteman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080527152805/http://atk.mediaroom.com:80/index.php?s=press_releases&item=392 to http://atk.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=press_releases&item=392
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on LGM-30 Minuteman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130602132630/http://csis.org/images/stories/poni/090827_unique_characteristics_icbm_slbm_systems.pdf to http://csis.org/images/stories/poni/090827_unique_characteristics_icbm_slbm_systems.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140413142844/http://blogs.fas.org/security/2014/04/newstartsilos/ to http://blogs.fas.org/security/2014/04/newstartsilos/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The reference for the price (listed as "$7 000 000") seems to be wrong, as the reference page states a price of $7 *billion* to upgrade 450 missiles, and assuming all that is used for purchasing the new ones (probably incorrect, but should give a rough idea), you get around 15.5M per missile. 82.27.65.117 (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Price may be incorrect 

message: There's a sidebar that includes this: " 7. The RVs and chaff re-enter the atmosphere at high speeds and are armed in flight." This seems to suggest that RV arming occurs after separation, which seems questionable. But it also implies that ... chaff is armed, which ... also seems questionable. 2601:58B:D80:6C60:5843:FBAC:843:8B0F (talk) 11:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arming questions