Genie air-to-air rocket

[ghrocketman]

I would like to know if anyone has successfully built and flown a Scale or Semi-Scale version of the USAF's Genie nuclear-tipped Air-to-Air unguided interceptor rocket.
If so, what scale and power ?

[mwtoelle]

A BT-101 version was entered by Tom Hoelle(sp?) in the 1978 WSMC. I'm not sure what motor he used. Since it was entered in S7 (scale), I would think it was at least D12-powered. Back then, the weight limit was 500g instead of 1000g. I don't know much else about the model.

[CF-105]

I've been tempted to, over the years. It's not that big, even at 1:1 scale.

[sodmeister]

They have one at the Western Canada Aviation Museum where I live ,it would be a great scale build ,no doubt.Always wanted to do one up ,this may sow the seed.I should get out there and check it out.

paul

[CF-105]

Yeah, there's on at one of the aviation museums in Halifax too. I have a bunch of photos.

There's something "Genie-ish" about the Loc Mini-Magg... I've toyed with the idea of kit-bashing one.

[sodmeister]

Yeah, there's on at one of the aviation museums in Halifax too. I have a bunch of photos.

There's something "Genie-ish" about the Loc Mini-Magg... I've toyed with the idea of kit-bashing one.

That could be a very good start ,and 5.5 BT...love it !!

[Pem Tech]

They have one at the Western Canada Aviation Museum where I live ,it would be a great scale build ,no doubt.Always wanted to do one up ,this may sow the seed.I should get out there and check it out.

paul

Yes it would!
ANd even better if you could post an image or 50.
:rolleyes:

[sodmeister]

Yes it would!
ANd even better if you could post an image or 50.
:rolleyes:

I`ll try to get out there over the holiday season with the camera and tape measure.They had it parked next to an F-101 Voodoo (what a cool looking plane)
They also have a BlackBrant on display, but not sure what type ,as it`s been a few years since I`ve been.

WOW....I getting pretty stoked to get out now :kill:

Will keep you posted Layne !

Paul

[CF-105]

If it's the Black Brant that used to be on display at the Winnipeg planetarium, it's a BB IV. Was a required stop any time we were there visiting relatives, back in the 70's & 80's.

Here's a shot I took in '99 of the "blivet" at the Atlantic Canada Aviation Museum, outside Halifax. It's big on purpose, for anyone wanting the details.
(glad to know the motor was inert... what about the warhead?! :) )

[sodmeister]

Could you imagine using that thing to blast Soviet bomber groups out of the air.Ahhhhh...the nuclear blast answer to guided missiles :y:

CF-105 ; I think you are right about it being a BB IV .


Paul

[rstaff3]

I saw one in the Atomic Energy museum in Vegas. Recently, I ran across some cool videos. http://rocketdungeon.blogspot.com/2010/10/i-dream-of-genie.html

Somebody, please build one!

[bradycros]

Boom.

[rstaff3]

I seem to remember that someone towed an actual inert round to one of the national launches a few years back. Anyone for an AMC conversion contest (Actual Missile Conversion)?:y:

[sodmeister]

I seem to remember that someone towed an actual inert round to one of the national launches a few years back. Anyone for an AMC conversion contest (Actual Missile Conversion)?:y:

I remember seeing that in one of the rocketry magazines.


Paul

[sandman]

I seem to remember that someone towed an actual inert round to one of the national launches a few years back. Anyone for an AMC conversion contest (Actual Missile Conversion)?:y:

There was one on a wooden trailer at NARAM 43 next to the food vendor.

[rstaff3]

There was one on a wooden trailer at NARAM 43 next to the food vendor.

When I first read this response, I thought you said there was wooden one there. I almost asked if you turned it. Must be past my bedtime :rolleyes:

[sandman]

Dick, go to sleep and we'll talk in the morning...good night.:rolleyes:

[powderburner]

Ahhhhh...the nuclear blast answer to guided missiles


IIRC, it was only atomic, not quite nuclear.

Still made a big smoking hole in the sky, though....
(Brings to mind a line from a famous movie: "Run away!, run away!")

[powderburner]

I should get out there and check it out.


I'll spring for gas money if you'll go take a gob of pix

[cjl]

IIRC, it was only atomic, not quite nuclear.


There really isn't a distinction between atomic and nuclear explosions...

They're the same thing...

[powderburner]

Einstein is turning over in his grave.

[cjl]

Einstein is turning over in his grave.

There very definitely is a difference between fission and fusion.

Atomic and nuclear can both imply either though.

(In other words, a hydrogen bomb is also an atomic bomb, and is also a nuclear bomb. A fission bomb is also an atomic bomb, and is also a nuclear bomb)

[RoyAtl]

I seem to remember that someone towed an actual inert round to one of the national launches a few years back. Anyone for an AMC conversion contest (Actual Missile Conversion)?:y:

Yes, there was one all week next to the food concession at NARAM 43 in Geneseo, NY. I have pictures.
`

[sodmeister]

I'll spring for gas money if you'll go take a gob of pix

No need ,it`s only 20 mins. away;)

I was laughing when you said "run away...run away..." I was reading about one of the few tests they did to prove it safe for those on the ground.They launched one ,and after motor burn out it was detonated.Below on the ground there were a couple of "volunteers" standing there.Afterwards they commented "see ,it`s safe...we`re just fine".:eyepop:

Ah ,the good old days ,when men were men and test rats were left in their cages.

Paul

[Pem Tech]

If it's the Black Brant that used to be on display at the Winnipeg planetarium, it's a BB IV. Was a required stop any time we were there visiting relatives, back in the 70's & 80's.

Here's a shot I took in '99 of the "blivet" at the Atlantic Canada Aviation Museum, outside Halifax. It's big on purpose, for anyone wanting the details.
(glad to know the motor was inert... what about the warhead?! :) )

Excellent shot....
Many thanks

[Pem Tech]

Einstein is turning over in his grave.


Probably, but not for the reasons implied.
:D

CJL is correct, the term "Atomic Bomb" was used to denote fission devices but fission devices do, in fact, rely on releasing energy by splitting nuclei. Thus, a fission device is a nuclear device.
Fusion devices also rely on nuclear reactions, but the combining of nuclei. A fission device must be used as a trigger to generate the enormous temperatures needed for the reaction, thus the term "Thermonuclear".

"Atomic bomb" is a simplistic, inaccurate term as both types of devices are nuclear devices. So, basically it all comes down to fission or fusion devices, until we come up with a better way of blowing ourselves up.

[sodmeister]

Should we not have consulted George W on this one........or at least to hear him say "nukelar"


Paul

[Pem Tech]

Should we not have consulted George W on this one........or at least to hear him say "nukelar"


Paul

*SNARK*
I thought it was more of a "nuklar".
;)

[rstaff3]

Yes, there was one all week next to the food concession at NARAM 43 in Geneseo, NY. I have pictures.
`

Very nice finish for a wooden rocket :tongue: (kidding of course)

[sodmeister]

*SNARK*
I thought it was more of a "nuklar".
;)

What do I know ,I`m french Canadian.....we just say "Le grosse boom"



Paul

[CF-105]

No need ,it`s only 20 mins. away;)

I was laughing when you said "run away...run away..." I was reading about one of the few tests they did to prove it safe for those on the ground.They launched one ,and after motor burn out it was detonated.Below on the ground there were a couple of "volunteers" standing there.Afterwards they commented "see ,it`s safe...we`re just fine".:eyepop:

Ah ,the good old days ,when men were men and test rats were left in their cages.

Paul

"Run away!" can also describe the tactic after launching the thing - hard 180 degree turn, full-throttle dive and hope you clear the blast radius.

[raohara]

"Run away!" can also describe the tactic after launching the thing - hard 180 degree turn, full-throttle dive and hope you clear the blast radius.

Ah yes, fond memories of Mk-45 torpedoes and SUBROC. Can't turn and run away as fast in a submarine as you can a plane.

[judo]

Ah yes, fond memories of Mk-45 torpedoes and SUBROC. Can't turn and run away as fast in a submarine as you can a plane.

Ever read "To Kill the Potemkin?" The last act of a desperate sub was to shoot one at an Alfa, order a flank bell and a 180 course reversal.

[luke strawwalker]

No need ,it`s only 20 mins. away;)

I was laughing when you said "run away...run away..." I was reading about one of the few tests they did to prove it safe for those on the ground.They launched one ,and after motor burn out it was detonated.Below on the ground there were a couple of "volunteers" standing there.Afterwards they commented "see ,it`s safe...we`re just fine".:eyepop:

Ah ,the good old days ,when men were men and test rats were left in their cages.

Paul

Go look at "Hollywood's Top Secret Film Studio- The Atomic Cinematographers" here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwgY4KP0mQY&list=PLA0F22BD45CF64846&index=2&playnext=2 on Youtube... about 6 minutes into part 2 of the film... George Yashitake, the photographer who filmed that Genie test, tells the story as the film plays...

He was sent out there to film five scientist volunteers who were standing directly under the point where the missile was to explode, 10,000 feet above them. The Genie was launched from under the wing of a Scorpion jet and exploded right on target. The video of the launch and test from the ground viewpoint is terrific, along with some great footage of the Scorpion as it was being readied for takeoff, lifting off, and launching the missile. After the detonation, the shock wave impacts the ground around the observers with a definite "THUD", "proving" that the use of nuclear anti-aircraft missiles was perfectly "safe" for regular soldiers on the ground below...

Of course, I wouldn't want to be standing under the thing... the atmosphere is significantly thinner at altitude, so there is not as much atmosphere to absorb the gamma rays, X-rays, and neutron pulse from the detonation when it occurs directly overhead versus the same distance away at or near ground level. And, yeah, the atmosphere DOES absorb considerable amounts of the radiation before it travels very far-- that's why even small (ish) bombs detonated in space create substantial EMP effects-- no air to absorb/re-emit most of the radiation as a thermal/blast effect instead of radiation/electromagnetic energy...

The Genie was designed to destroy Soviet bombers with simple unguided rockets, using a small 1.5 kiloton yield W-25 nuclear warhead. Once the reliability and superiority of radar and infrared guided air to air missiles was proven, the Genie and other "light nuclear weapons" (like Davey Crockett) fell into disfavor and were retired...

Later! OL JR :)

[luke strawwalker]

Probably, but not for the reasons implied.
:D

CJL is correct, the term "Atomic Bomb" was used to denote fission devices but fission devices do, in fact, rely on releasing energy by splitting nuclei. Thus, a fission device is a nuclear device.
Fusion devices also rely on nuclear reactions, but the combining of nuclei. A fission device must be used as a trigger to generate the enormous temperatures needed for the reaction, thus the term "Thermonuclear".

"Atomic bomb" is a simplistic, inaccurate term as both types of devices are nuclear devices. So, basically it all comes down to fission or fusion devices, until we come up with a better way of blowing ourselves up.


Yep... the term "nuclear weapon" has largely displaced the other terms because of the multitude of bomb designs... from "simple" atomic fission weapons, to the early "boosted" deuterium/tritium fuelled atomic bombs which were used as the first test "thermonuclear weapons", to the "dry bomb" designs currently used for virtually all fusion weapons, to more sophisticated designs of "staged" weapons, such as fission/fusion/fission weapons, which use a fission bomb trigger to initiate nuclear fusion in a supply of lithium deuteride fuel, which then releases fast neutrons capable of fissioning a regular U-238 jacket, to even fission/fusion/fission/fusion four-stage designs, neutron and other enhanced radiation bombs, etc...

I've heard they're even working on antimatter bombs... I wondered how that was possible-- antimatter is incredibly easy to make explode-- just release the stuff; when it comes into contact with normal matter, it instantly ALL converts to energy... even the best nuclear weapon designs only achieve about 2% energy release from the original mass of nuclear fuel, versus 100% efficiency for antimatter... an antimatter bomb with the same amount of fuel as the Little Boy bomb would destroy EVERYTHING in a radius from Baghdad to London...

Only an TINY amount of antimatter would be required to make a bomb-- a gram or two would produce megatons of yeild... but the problem is, STORING it... it can only be contained in magnetic fields inside a vaccuum chamber-- if the magnetic field collapses or air leaked in, the normal matter and the antimatter would combine and instantly convert to energy... making a 'delivery system' capable of generating such an intense magnetic field and maintaining perfect integrity of a vaccuum chamber with 100% reliability is beyond our capabilities...

Then it occurred to me... antiparticles are often generated by nuclear reactions... that's how we produce trace amounts of antimatter in particle accelerators... So with the proper bomb design, a fission/fusion reaction could produce the antimatter by bombarding a supply of 'antimatter fuel' jacketing the bomb's core with high speed energetic subatomic particles produced in the thermonuclear reaction... there would be no need to contain or store the antimatter, because it would only be produced in the millionth of a second of the nuclear explosion itself, and would instantly annihilate itself by interacting with surrounding matter, releasing ENORMOUS quantities of energy and GREATLY boosting the yield of the nuclear explosion that generated the antimatter... just more "stages" to the nuclear device... four, five, six stage?? Makes sense... after all, a neutron bomb is just a specially designed nuclear bomb, designed so that it's explosive yield is small but it produces an INTENSE pulse of high energy neutrons and gamma rays which are lethal at ranges FAR larger than the blast/heat radius of the bomb's explosive yield... (though of course the air attenuates and absorbs neutron radiation and to a lesser extent gamma rays which makes them relatively 'short range' weapons)...

Later! OL JR :)

[Reinhard]

Only an TINY amount of antimatter would be required to make a bomb-- a gram or two would produce megatons of yeild...
The mass eqivalent of 1Mt (4.2PJ) is 46.7g. To build a build a 1 Megaton antimatter weapon, 23.4g of antimatter is necessary - the other half of the necessary mass is matter. This is about the same amount as there is BP in an Estes D12.


Then it occurred to me... antiparticles are often generated by nuclear reactions... that's how we produce trace amounts of antimatter in particle accelerators... So with the proper bomb design, a fission/fusion reaction could produce the antimatter by bombarding a supply of 'antimatter fuel' jacketing the bomb's core with high speed energetic subatomic particles produced in the thermonuclear reaction... there would be no need to contain or store the antimatter, because it would only be produced in the millionth of a second of the nuclear explosion itself, and would instantly annihilate itself by interacting with surrounding matter, releasing ENORMOUS quantities of energy and GREATLY boosting the yield of the nuclear explosion that generated the antimatter... just more "stages" to the nuclear device... four, five, six stage??
Antimatter is generated all the time in a nuclear explosion, but this doesn't change the energy output. The energy that gets released when the particles annihilate has to be provided at an earlier stage to create them. For example, a photon with at least 1022keV (gamma radiation) is enough to create an electron-positron pair. The photon looses this amount of energy in the process. When these two particles annihilate again, 1022keV of radiation energy is released again (2 photons of 511keV). No energy is generated or lost in this process.

So in theory, antimatter is a way to store extreme amounts of energy in a small volume but not a source of it - unless you find a place where you can mine it;).

Reinhard

[CTimm]

Enjoy.

[sodmeister]

Great video Luke ,thanks for that.I read about that test and other stuff regarding the Genie.I chuckled to myself when the fellow said he brought a baseball cap ,just in case :lol:

Nothing like nuclear "flack" to take down a few bombers !

Paul

[Pem Tech]

Enjoy.

WHAZOO!
Great reference...
Thanks for posting.
:clap:

[Fred22]

Heres what the actual Genie explosion looked like :) The guys in the picture stood underneath the explosion. This article was great
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nukevault/ebb332/index.htm
I will build a genie someday. Le grand boom indeeed lol
Cheers
fred

[Fred22]

WHAZOO!
Great reference...
Thanks for posting.
:clap:

Like he said :)
Cheers
fred

[luke strawwalker]

Heres what the actual Genie explosion looked like :) The guys in the picture stood underneath the explosion. This article was great
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nukevault/ebb332/index.htm
I will build a genie someday. Le grand boom indeeed lol
Cheers
fred

What would have REALLY been funny, is if all those guys had pre-arranged a practical joke...

When the bomb went off, they should have all dropped to the ground and covered their eyes, started screaming, and thrashing around on the ground... :lol::lol::lol: Guess that would've messed up the training film thoroughly though... :neener:

BUT, I guess HQ would NOT have been amused... Woulda been an interesting conversation with the General I bet... "Ummm, sir, we have to launch and detonate another Genie... the guys yall had standing at Ground Zero all dropped to the ground screaming and thrashing around when the bomb detonated, so we don't have the film we need..." :surprised::bangbang::kill::kill::no:

Still, woulda been funny... :lol:

later! OL JR :)

[Stymye]

there are full plans for a scale Genie model in the back issues of Model Rocketry( It was originaly called the "Ding Dong" ...lol)

http://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/ModelRocketry/Model_Rocketry_v01n05_03-69.pdf

takes a little time to load

[Fred22]

This why I love this place. Good humour and an ample supply of facts. I agree Luke it would have been funny but my guess is they would have been cleaning dog sled kennels on the DEW line very soon after :) Thanks for the scale stuff guys.
Cheers
Fred

[bradycros]

Yeah, thanks.