SPRINT ABM - Zero to Mach 10 in 5 Seconds!

What Hacker News said

Cites arethuza · 2013-02 · on “Only Apple and Google are skating to where the puck is going”

This video of the Sprint ABM missile (0 to Mach 10 in 5 seconds!) shows it intercepting a ICBM RV in a test - given the speed of the RV it does look like the missile is aiming where the RV is going to be rather than where it is - and this is from the 1970s: [this video]

Cites arethuza · 2014-03 · on “The Patriot Missile Failure”

This clip of a Sprint ABM test gives some idea of how incredibly fast ICBM RVs are - it makes the 0-Mach 10 in 5 seconds Sprint look like it is hardly moving: [this video]

Cites arethuza · 2017-12 · on “Did American Missile Defense Fail in Saudi Arabia?”

Here is a video of the awesome Sprint ABM missile - (0 to Mach 10 in 5 seconds) - it includes a near miss of an ICBM RV and the RV makes the Sprint look slow : [this video] Edit: Sprint was meant to defend against ICBMs - but the idea is the same, ballistic missile warheads are going very fast and really aren't that big.

Cites ridgeguy · 2018-02 · on “Space catapult startup SpinLaunch comes out of stealth”

Actual numbers, haven't tried to calculate. But the heat load due to atmospheric friction would be immense and immediate. The US built an antiballistic missile system that included a missile called Sprint [1]. It accelerated at 100G and developed temperatures of over 3000°C less than 5 seconds after launch. A video here [2]. It's a formidible engineering challenge to make a vehicle and payload that will survive such a difficult flight regime with commercially attractive economics. At this point, I don't understand SpinLaunch's advantage over earlier projectile systems (Gerald Bull) or current launchers like SpaceX. This will be interesting to follow. [1] [LINK] [2] [this video]

Cites jjoonathan · 2018-07 · on “Plasma, the Mysterious and Powerful Fourth Phase of Matter”

Here is a US missile maneuvering at mach 10 to intercept a RV going at mach 30. In 1972. [this video] Russia loves to brag about weapons that can overcome US defenses because people for some reason have forgotten that the top-level strategic "defense" is not an impenetrable wall of interception systems -- which literally no nation on earth has the budget to effectively maintain, even the US, because the economics of intercept are terrible -- but rather the policy of mutually assured destruction. This has been the case throughout the entire planning cycle of nearly every piece of hardware in use by the US armed forces and it will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future.

Cites bediger4000 · 2019-06 · on “Four Mars missions are launching next year”

It's worthwhile watching the launch of the Chinese Long March vehicle: [LINK] They appear to shoot the entire vehicle out of a cannon-like container, then air-ignite the booster. I can't think of another launch vehicle that does this. The US did this sort of launch for the Sprint anti-ballistic missile: [this video]

Cites papermachete · 2019-12 · on “Russia deploys Avangard hypersonic missile system”

The USA has had Mach 23 ICBMs [1] and Mach 10 anti-ICBMs [2][2.2] since the 60s and 70s respectively. The Sprint rocket actually glows white hot because of its high speed. [1] [LINK] [2] [LINK] [2.2] [this video]

Cites PhantomGremlin · 2019-12 · on “Russia deploys Avangard hypersonic missile system”

There is a long history of using nukes to intercept missiles. Here's one of the USA's (ancient) efforts:[1] Both missiles [long range and short range] used nuclear warheads, and they relied on destroying or damaging the incoming warhead with radiation rather than heat or blast. The technology was quite impressive for its time. A Youtube video is titled "SPRINT ABM - Zero to Mach 10 in 5 Seconds", with a caption in the video pointing out "white hot skin". [2] [1] [LINK] [2] [this video]