Post by: Manedwolf on October 03, 2008, 07:10:49 AM
Quote
Cost to recover rocket booster: $5.6 million
Oct 03, 2008 - 04:05:25 CDT
By JAMES MacPHERSON
Associated Press Writer
The military says it cost $5.6 million to recover an overturned truck carrying an unarmed missile booster rocket in northwestern North Dakota.
The Air Force blamed "driver and safety observer error" for the July 31 incident. The truck carrying the booster for the unarmed Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile tipped over on a gravel road while being transported from the Minot Air Force Base to a launch facility 70 miles southwest. Two airmen were in the truck, which was accompanied by a security convoy.
"There were no injuries and the accident posed no danger to the public," the Air Force said in a statement.
The rocket booster and truck remained at the side of the road until Aug. 10, while investigators assessed the crash site.
Air Force spokeswoman Maj. Laurie A. Arellano said the recovery cost of $5.6 million included damage to the truck and its cargo.
"Inadequate gravel road training programs and the inability of 91st Missile Wing engineering personnel to accurately determine the safe load-bearing width of gravel roads along designated routes also contributed to the accident," the Air Force statement said.
The Air Force said the booster rocket is 66 feet long and weighs 75,000 pounds while the vehicle, trailer and rocket booster weighed more than 70 tons.
"While preparing to make a left turn, the driver and safety observer maneuvered the loaded tractor-trailer beyond the right edge of the reinforced gravel roadway and shoulder," the Air Force statement said.
"Basically, the procedure for large trucks is that they're supposed to drive in the middle of the gravel road," Arellano said.
Arellano did not know Thursday if any airmen had been sanctioned.
Oct 03, 2008 - 04:05:25 CDT
By JAMES MacPHERSON
Associated Press Writer
The military says it cost $5.6 million to recover an overturned truck carrying an unarmed missile booster rocket in northwestern North Dakota.
The Air Force blamed "driver and safety observer error" for the July 31 incident. The truck carrying the booster for the unarmed Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile tipped over on a gravel road while being transported from the Minot Air Force Base to a launch facility 70 miles southwest. Two airmen were in the truck, which was accompanied by a security convoy.
"There were no injuries and the accident posed no danger to the public," the Air Force said in a statement.
The rocket booster and truck remained at the side of the road until Aug. 10, while investigators assessed the crash site.
Air Force spokeswoman Maj. Laurie A. Arellano said the recovery cost of $5.6 million included damage to the truck and its cargo.
"Inadequate gravel road training programs and the inability of 91st Missile Wing engineering personnel to accurately determine the safe load-bearing width of gravel roads along designated routes also contributed to the accident," the Air Force statement said.
The Air Force said the booster rocket is 66 feet long and weighs 75,000 pounds while the vehicle, trailer and rocket booster weighed more than 70 tons.
"While preparing to make a left turn, the driver and safety observer maneuvered the loaded tractor-trailer beyond the right edge of the reinforced gravel roadway and shoulder," the Air Force statement said.
"Basically, the procedure for large trucks is that they're supposed to drive in the middle of the gravel road," Arellano said.
Arellano did not know Thursday if any airmen had been sanctioned.
http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/2008/10/03/news/state/165944.txt
Post by: yesitsloaded on October 03, 2008, 07:12:57 AM
Quote
"While preparing to make a left turn, the driver and safety observer maneuvered the loaded tractor-trailer beyond the right edge of the reinforced gravel roadway and shoulder," the Air Force statement said.
"Basically, the procedure for large trucks is that they're supposed to drive in the middle of the gravel road," Arellano said.
So more or less they had an incompetent driver that ran off the road. Happens every day, just not with PARTS OF A FREAKING NUCLEAR MISSILE. "Basically, the procedure for large trucks is that they're supposed to drive in the middle of the gravel road," Arellano said.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 03, 2008, 07:14:27 AM
Quote
"While preparing to make a left turn, the driver and safety observer maneuvered the loaded tractor-trailer beyond the right edge of the reinforced gravel roadway and shoulder," the Air Force statement said.
"Basically, the procedure for large trucks is that they're supposed to drive in the middle of the gravel road," Arellano said.
So more or less they had an incompetent driver that ran off the road. Happens every day, just not with PARTS OF A FREAKING NUCLEAR MISSILE. "Basically, the procedure for large trucks is that they're supposed to drive in the middle of the gravel road," Arellano said.
Well, it wasn't carrying a warhead. Just a very large, expensive and heavy missile. It looks like a training failure at first glance.
Post by: yesitsloaded on October 03, 2008, 07:18:34 AM
Post by: never_retreat on October 03, 2008, 08:11:50 AM
Post by: Firethorn on October 03, 2008, 08:21:51 AM
With a GVW of 70 tons they need a professional rigging company not an Air force motor pool-man.
And you do realize that they've been doing this with USAF motorpool people for decades, right? They manage to do it with only the occasional incident. Average incident rate is something like once every 20 years.
Happened to talk with a guy involved with the last one - he got a decoration for diverting some cranes in the same area to stabilize the vehicle, preventing further damage until they could assess and recover.
But yeah - before letting anybody drive these vehicles they should get their CDL or equivalent training.
Post by: Gewehr98 on October 03, 2008, 10:07:33 AM
Unfortunately, it's also more newsworthy.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 03, 2008, 10:09:13 AM
Yup, the USAF incident rate is much lower than commercial vehicles.
Unfortunately, it's also more newsworthy.
Unfortunately, it's also more newsworthy.
I think it was that whole "missile" thing that brings about the MSM playup and resulting embarassment. That, and it was a rather expensive mistake.
I kind of rolled my eyes at one of the stations that called it a "nuclear missile" for ratings. No, sorry, a Minuteman III booster is not in and of itself a nuclear missile. A Titan could either be a nuclear ICBM or loft a Gemini, they're not a nuclear missile unless it's got a warhead...
Post by: RevDisk on October 03, 2008, 10:16:30 AM
Yup, the USAF incident rate is much lower than commercial vehicles.
Unfortunately, it's also more newsworthy.
Unfortunately, it's also more newsworthy.
Well... Damn near anything but 'zero' is a worrisome incident rate when you're dealing with ICBM's.
Post by: Hawkmoon on October 03, 2008, 01:55:39 PM
Quote
"Basically, the procedure for large trucks is that they're supposed to drive in the middle of the gravel road," Arellano said.
FAIL
Post by: Gewehr98 on October 03, 2008, 03:20:58 PM
Think "Really Big Roman Candle", otherwise.
Post by: MillCreek on October 03, 2008, 03:40:11 PM
Post by: seeker_two on October 03, 2008, 05:08:09 PM
It's not really an ICBM until the "package" is installed on top.
Think "Really Big Roman Candle", otherwise.
Think "Really Big Roman Candle", otherwise.
...and we all know nothing can go wrong when you mix a bunch of young guys and Roman Candles....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aj4jxuN1ugc
...definitely NSFW....
Post by: Boomhauer on October 03, 2008, 05:37:11 PM
Post by: txgho1911 on October 04, 2008, 11:30:45 PM
Took the corner a little to wide.
Post by: Gewehr98 on October 04, 2008, 11:38:56 PM
Quote
Reading this thread begs the question: exactly when is the warhead installed on a land-based ICBM? Is the booster placed into the silo and the warhead then installed? Or are boosters with warheads routinely trucked about, and this was just a situation of no warhead on the booster?
Hear that?
That's the sound of crickets chirping.
I doubt you'll find any open source of that info, and if you find somebody who knows, I guarantee they won't tell you, either. :-X
Post by: Manedwolf on October 04, 2008, 11:39:48 PM
I think that's an error of some kind... because I do. I am certainly not going to change anyone else's to test it, unless someone wants to post something specifically to see if I can change and save it. Wierd.
Post by: Boomhauer on October 04, 2008, 11:44:30 PM
Hey, see if you can modify this post, Manedwolf...
(Edited by Manedwolf to test - It seems to make you a moderator for threads you started, yes! Someone turn that off before it causes a riot!) ;)
Post by: Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas on October 04, 2008, 11:44:52 PM
Checked an old thread I created. I can modify and delete my own post. That's it.
It's favoritism, that's what it is...
Post by: Boomhauer on October 04, 2008, 11:47:20 PM
Post by: MillCreek on October 05, 2008, 03:49:43 PM
A missile's lower three propulsive cylinders are shipped first in a special trailer. Following routine maintenance, these stages are inserted into their new silo by a large vehicle called a transporter-erector. Next, the missile's two post-boost control system pieces are moved separately to Malmstrom for maintenance and reassembly. This package includes the rocket engine and guidance system-the missile's "brains."
Last to go is the warhead, which must undergo a week of disassembly and a week of reassembly before it's inserted anew. Once the warhead is in place, the entire missile system must be tested and programmed. On average, Malmstrom says its teams can remove and insert one missile a week. At about 50 missiles a year, that means Malmstrom's great switcheroo should be complete by late 1997.
Post by: RevDisk on October 05, 2008, 06:30:38 PM
QuoteReading this thread begs the question: exactly when is the warhead installed on a land-based ICBM? Is the booster placed into the silo and the warhead then installed? Or are boosters with warheads routinely trucked about, and this was just a situation of no warhead on the booster?
Hear that?
That's the sound of crickets chirping.
I doubt you'll find any open source of that info, and if you find somebody who knows, I guarantee they won't tell you, either. :-X
Well, I don't think it's violating security to say that no, ICBM's are NOT transported with the warhead attached over normal roads. That's a bad idea. There are very strict procedures for handling, disassembly, transportation, assembly and readiness. Tis why the incident involving a certain B52 with six AGM-129A's, with 150 kT nukes installed, on the pylon was both odd and worrisome. It broke about half the rules involved with handling and transporting nuclear warheads.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 05, 2008, 07:55:47 PM
QuoteReading this thread begs the question: exactly when is the warhead installed on a land-based ICBM? Is the booster placed into the silo and the warhead then installed? Or are boosters with warheads routinely trucked about, and this was just a situation of no warhead on the booster?
Hear that?
That's the sound of crickets chirping.
I doubt you'll find any open source of that info, and if you find somebody who knows, I guarantee they won't tell you, either. :-X
Well, I don't think it's violating security to say that no, ICBM's are NOT transported with the warhead attached over normal roads. That's a bad idea. There are very strict procedures for handling, disassembly, transportation, assembly and readiness. Tis why the incident involving a certain B52 with six AGM-129A's, with 150 kT nukes installed, on the pylon was both odd and worrisome. It broke about half the rules involved with handling and transporting nuclear warheads.
I think that one was, as I'd heard, made worse by the fact that the crew did NOT know what was on their wings.
And that one of the things done if the aircraft loses enough engines to make it necessary, or if there's an electrical fire out there, is a pylon jettison.
I am sure the recovery crew would like to know what might be broken open where that impacted, if so.