Sea-Launched Rockets for ICBMs and Satellites

IOTL, there have been a number of proposals for rockets launched directly from the ocean. SLBMs are close to that, though most use a charge of compressed air to breach the surface before ignition. However, the Seabee, a modified Aerobee sounding rocket, was fired successfully in the ocean, as were a number of other USN sounding rockets. In 1980, the captain who managed that USN program proposed that the Minuteman series of missiles should be deployed at sea.

The advantages of such ocean launch are that there is no limit on the size of the floating rocket (Sea Dragon was the most notorious proposal for such a vehicle), that it eliminates the need for a launch pad, and that anyone with a boat can launch such a rocket from anywhere in the ocean to any orbital inclination. This would vastly increase the number of possible launch sites for orbital launch—for example, the US would not be dependent on Vandenberg AFB for polar launches if it had a floating satellite launcher. Israel, as another example, could launch from a ship in the Atlantic, avoiding issues with overflights of its neighbors. Britain would not rely on Woomera if it pursued a space program. The benefits to rocket size are also notable—the reason the US pursued segmented solid motors was that the USAF was reluctant to commit to barged delivery of monolithic solids to VAFB. With a floating launch (and, presumably, a world where the USN dominates American space launch), they could fire arbitrarily large monolithic rockets anywhere in the ocean.

So what would it take for sea-launched rockets to become the face of both military rocketry and space launch, with a POD anywhere in the twentieth century? A world without launch pads, so to speak?
 
Brilliant idea...

...The next challenge for SpaceX, perhaps?

I know that Bono and Gatland came close to it with their Rombus spacecraft concept. SpaceX's BFR might very well evolve into a sea-launched unit, which has starred in a number of British-written 1960s books. Torchships, for example. Heinlein is the only US author I read who had that idea in 'Farmer In The Sky.'
 
Would this make a first strike less likely, since you could plausibly move your fully-intact second strike capacity? Trying to figure out how this would affect nuclear strategy.
 
Would this make a first strike less likely, since you could plausibly move your fully-intact second strike capacity? Trying to figure out how this would affect nuclear strategy.

Not much, that 2nd strike capability can be whacked by any nations nuke or diesel attack subs, cruise missiles, smart munitions...
 
Polish Eagle wrote:
IOTL, there have been a number of proposals for rockets launched directly from the ocean. SLBMs are close to that, though most use a charge of compressed air to breach the surface before ignition. However, the Seabee, a modified Aerobee sounding rocket, was fired successfully in the ocean, as were a number of other USN sounding rockets. In 1980, the captain who managed that USN program proposed that the Minuteman series of missiles should be deployed at sea.

The advantages of such ocean launch are that there is no limit on the size of the floating rocket (Sea Dragon was the most notorious proposal for such a vehicle), that it eliminates the need for a launch pad, and that anyone with a boat can launch such a rocket from anywhere in the ocean to any orbital inclination. This would vastly increase the number of possible launch sites for orbital launch-for example, the US would not be dependent on Vandenberg AFB for polar launches if it had a floating satellite launcher. Israel, as another example, could launch from a ship in the Atlantic, avoiding issues with overflights of its neighbors. Britain would not rely on Woomera if it pursued a space program. The benefits to rocket size are also notable-the reason the US pursued segmented solid motors was that the USAF was reluctant to commit to barged delivery of monolithic solids to VAFB. With a floating launch (and, presumably, a world where the USN dominates American space launch), they could fire arbitrarily large monolithic rockets anywhere in the ocean.

So what would it take for sea-launched rockets to become the face of both military rocketry and space launch, with a POD anywhere in the twentieth century? A world without launch pads, so to speak?

Just so we're clear but the concept WAS studied in detail not once but twice over the last 40 years. The first time of course was initially as an alternative to launching them from submarines and the second for possible use with the Midgetman or some version thereof as an alternative to land basing.

While the concept for ICBMs had 'some' advantages with basing, maintenance, and affordability it had a number of very clear operational and utility Dis-advantages that ended up being unworkable. Note that this has zip to do with use as a launch vehicle but as we know OTL without some sort of military utility launch vehicles tend to be difficult at best to get to fruition.

In essence the main problem of sea-launch for military missiles is there is no ability to generate a 'stealth' platform as a submarine has. The "enemy" can and will be able to track your deploying ship very easily and it has all the vulnerabilities of any other surface ship. You can't have the transport ship by itself or you whole strike package can be wiped out with a single conventional torpedo or ASM. If you put it in a Task Force you just advertise it as a target that much more. Worse you missiles themselves are highly vulnerable when deployed due to the conditions of sea-launch itself. (One nuclear armed torpedo and your whole strike package is toast including the transport ship. A spread of conventional torpedoes and the missiles could be seriously damaged before they launch) You also need to be very sure where the missile is when it is launched so you can know exactly where it will hit. SLBMs were themselves considered 'second strike' weapons mostly because even with many modern Nav aids the Circular Error Probability was higher than land based, fixed site missiles. (GPS helps a great deal but no one expects GPS to be available during a nuclear war)

SLBM's are far better as military weapons than floating missiles.

Now, having said that lets look at some reason why they might be considered:

My thought is a more active "Navy" presence in a space program may promote such a concept for the very reason it will remove dependence on the Air Force which was in fact a significant issue with the Navy and its plans for the use of space. (See: http://edocs.nps.edu/2012/December/FromTheSeaToTheStars-2010ed.pdf)

The Navy was at the time the leading service for microelectronics but the Army had better rockets, meanwhile the Air Force had better DESIGNS for rockets and was the lead service for the US ICBM program. While the Air Force was desperately trying to gather all 'space' related activities under their control they in fact had little actually concept of what "space" could be used for. The main goal they saw was 'space' simply being an extension of current aerial activities such as bombardment, force projection and observation/reconnaissance. And in those cases mostly as a "manned" operation. The Navy on the other hand was much more interested in command, communications, and navigation uses as well as those the Air Force concentrated on but had little voice in part due to the its perceived 'failure' with the Vanguard program.

Now it can be argued, (I think convincingly) that Eisenhower deliberately hobbled the Vanguard program because he was worried about both goading the USSR into another 'arms' race AND expansion of the military into yet another area of operations. While he may have had some rather 'logical' reasons for such ideas in truth neither was supportable given the rather obvious focus of the USSR efforts and the nature of military conflict. But because that was his belief he therefore ran the Vanguard program on a shoe-string and actively focused efforts away from military space efforts to the point of being seen as 'out of touch' with reality over the issue once Sputnik went up. (It was no secret that the decision to go with Vanguard for the IGY satellite effort was made in order to both avoid any interference with the Air Force in getting the Atlas to operation and to avoid putting an "ex-Nazi" in very visible charge of the satellite effort. Further of course was that same "ex-Nazi" was rather obviously very 'ready' to orbit a satellite having been ready to do so since 1953-ish which would also be an issue if you want the Soviets to get there first)

Coupled with Eisenhower's belief in the ability to use "Massive Retaliation" with nuclear weapons and "covert" efforts through the CIA to offset a large military and the budget that would need the Air Force 'star' was very much in ascendance and both the Army and Navy's in decline by the time Sputnik went up. The panic over Sputnik and the assumed "Missile Gap" (which ironically recalled Eisenhower's own use of the bogus "Bomber Gap" against Truman eight years earlier) force Eisenhower to embrace the so called "Military/Industrial Complex" he so feared but in truth his overall support of the Air Force and strategic bombing, (Massive Retaliation) had already pushed military procurement and operations in that direct as it was very much the way the Air Force operated even by then. Both the Army and Navy had in effect been told that the Air Force being the only service to be capable of delivery of atomic bombs to foreign targets had rendered them both "obsolete" in modern conflict and the budgets of the time reflected this "fact" for all to see.

Of course Eisenhower had in fact 'inherited' such concerns and outlooks from the previous Truman administration who had been 'downsizing' the US military since the end of WWII. The budget of maintaining even a minimal WWII sized US military was ruinous and everyone knew it but Truman's 'budgeting' practice, (essentially prior to the Korean war everything domestic got paid first and what was 'left over' given to the military with most going to the Air Force to build up "strategic" striking power) along with the new Air Force's insistence that "Nuclear Strategic Bombing" could win any future war made a sort of sense enough to drive policy.

So you had the "Revolt of the Admirals" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolt_of_the_Admirals) as the Navy and Air Force fought over the vastly shrunk military budget. Couple that with later issues over long range rockets between the Army and Air Force (see: https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...-prosecution-that-lost-the-space-race/495659/) set up the situation where the Air Force WAS in fact the "primary" service of the US military and had an influence in Washington far out of pace with its actual capability or knowledge base.

The fact that the Korean war was only a 'bump-in-the-road' to this process is rather obvious if you review the history. (The only reason the Navy got an enlarged budget initially was the fact that Truman was 'embarrassed' to be told when he ordered a Naval blockade of Korea that his budget reductions had not left enough Navy ships to even attempt the job) And once Eisenhower got the US out of that conflict he immediately went right back to the same path in a supposed effort to 'contain' the military and the Defense industry it had spawned to fight that war.

And then came Sputnik and the "Missile Gap"...

What is needed is a POD that prevents the initial intercune fighting that broke out after WWII, which you might get if Dewey had in fact defeated Truman, but also avoiding Eisenhower's "New Look" which ended up going in the same direction that Truman had been going in the first place. Such might allow the Navy to have more leeway to develop their own space program which would in turn allow more flexibility in missile and space development rather than "just" being focused on the development of the SLBM.

Keep in mind that the Navy initially was highly interested in accuracy over range because the submarines by default would be closer to the USSR when used. At the same time the Army was interested in the same because their planned doctrine would require missile mobility to avoid pre-emptive strikes. The Air Force on the other hand was primarily interested in range over either accuracy or mobility and in fact had resisted initially all attempts to get them to develop either a medium or intermediate range missile at all.

Corditeman wrote:
I know that Bono and Gatland came close to it with their Rombus spacecraft concept.

Rombus actually launched from land. It DID feature a water filled launch platform but that was so the exhaust would shape the water to keep the acoustics of the launch from reflecting on the vehicle. It could in theory LAND on water using inflated footpads but that was highly unlikely to be possible, (or even survivable) given the vehicle design. It was suggested that Ithaca and Ithaca Jr could be launched from a converted nuclear aircraft carrier but again that's unlikely to the extreme even if the concept had been valid.

SpaceX's BFR might very well evolve into a sea-launched unit, which has starred in a number of British-written 1960s books.

Musk has stated in the past that 'rocket and seawater don't mix' despite landing on a seagoing barge. I believe it's been pointed out that this isn't true but then again he quite often doesn't hear what he doesn't want to hear so... Which stories are those out of curiosity?

Torchships, for example. Heinlein is the only US author I read who had that idea in 'Farmer In The Sky.'

I think you're conflating two different stories. "Farmer in the Sky" had a torchship but the passengers boarded it in orbit around the Moon. Meanwhile the Torchips "Lewis and Clarke" from "Time for the Stars" lifted off from the Pacific Ocean along with a dozen others.

Creighton wrote:
Would this make a first strike less likely, since you could plausibly move your fully-intact second strike capacity? Trying to figure out how this would affect nuclear strategy.

Too visible and easy to track when compared to a submarine which is why it wasn't considered viable for military use OTL.

Randy
 
Your corrections noted...

...If 'Time for the Stars' was the one with mindreading generations on Earth and the torchships, then that may be what I recall after all these years.

Yes, Ithaca and Rombus on splashdown is correct. I still have Bono and Gatland's book somewhere in the attic.
 
Brilliant idea...

...The next challenge for SpaceX, perhaps?

I know that Bono and Gatland came close to it with their Rombus spacecraft concept. SpaceX's BFR might very well evolve into a sea-launched unit, which has starred in a number of British-written 1960s books. Torchships, for example. Heinlein is the only US author I read who had that idea in 'Farmer In The Sky.'
And later, remember 'Doombolt'?
In my EDCverse a version of the Sea Dragon BDB concept becomes a common launch system. But then EuroFed and others had a fair bit of orbital infrastructure to support.
 
And I didn't finish up that post it seems. (Missed getting to the part where the Navy finds a use :) )

Essentially when the "space race" started the Navy was highly interested in several possible satellite uses that frankly the Air Force was not. Due to the Air Force being given the "tasking" of space launch along with the general push for "joint" programs OTL meant that a lot of the specific capabilities that the Navy wanted to investigate and/or develop were marginalized or delayed due to differing priorities of the Air Force. So...

First and foremost the Navy needs a 'win' in the Vanguard column. This should be pretty "easy" to manage with any increase in funding and/or support. (There's going to be problems of course but actually having the budget and support for several test launches and more rigorous QC checks would go a long way towards avoiding a spectacular public failure) It would also help if the rather 'artificial' barriers to military space are lifted but that would require someone other than Eisenhower to be in charge. Which also brings up whether whoever this is will still be concerned about letting the Soviets go first or not. (And if NASA exists or not)

From there it should be arguable that the actual Navy requirements, (command, control, communications and navigation) are enough of a priority that the Navy can and should have a separate satellite program. (OTL the Air Force was vaguely interested but not enough to actually devote funding or support which is rather 'odd' considering how much an obvious benefit this would have been to their own operations. My take is that there was still significant "bad blood" left over from the "Revolt of the Admirals" and the on-going conflict with the Army over long range missile development that "Not Invented Here" was a maxim to the Air Force development programs. Couple that with the general lower favor the Navy had managed to inflict on itself with the "Revolt" and "USS America" PR fight they really had little political capital to spare and Vanguard's failure...)

Something I've gathered notes for to support an alternate-history version of "From the Sea to the Stars" is the Navy suggesting and being granted the use of the "left-over" Navaho boosters for 'advanced satellite and missile research' utilizing 1/2 scale reentry bodies of various types including capsule and M1 type lifting bodies. The Air Force of course howls but as these are not 'orbital' capable and the Navy is graciously "helping" the Air Force... This gives the Navy its own 'launch' program and a working relationship with North American Aviation. This in turn allows that when NAA gets the contract for the "Little Joe" booster they can pitch a possible satellite launcher based on it to the Navy instead of the Air Force. (Granted it won't use the Minuteman upper stages but Polaris probably) I can see this being combined with the idea of 'sea-launch' which would grant a huge flexibility to such operations and would suite the Navy needs greatly.
(Mentioned this concept here: https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...re-a-moon-landing.407175/page-4#post-14076604)

The fact that such launches have little direct military value is probably a plus in this case. Maybe double-down with Project Pilot, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOTS-EV-1_Pilot) actually being a partial success and the Navy has saved the US's "honor" over Sputnik...

Randy
 
Top