Chinese missile could shift Pacific power balance

[Chinaownseverything]

Utter BS...As usual...May be China cannot but certainly we can. In ballistic mechanics, there is something called the 'gravity turn'...

Gravity turn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you not remember the video I showed you about gyroscopes?

I can attest to this myself that their is a gyroscope in every modern missile

How does it work? in video it works by constantly shifting the weight to keep the little car balanced so that it does not fall over. Obviously you can set it up so that the gyroscope shifts randomly during missile flight.

What will happen in a missile that is going through air and you shift the center of mass? Then the missile will no longer be a dead drop SCUD.

This is also how segway works it is filled with gyroscopes.

In fact ALL missiles have this to keep it on course or it will get blown of course if there is strong wind. The gyroscope can easily be programmed to make the missile move erratically yet still hit the target

 

[Thomas]

ESTIMATION AND PREDICTION OF BALLISTIC MISSILE TRAJECTORIES

"Forward track of the missile can be derived, enabling the time and location of the missile impact to be estimated"

 

[Chinaownseverything]

Immersed bolometers...

Optics InfoBase - Miniature Optically Immersed Thermistor Bolometer Arrays

...Are sensitive enough to detect IR contrasts in horizon focus to provide REAL TIME satellite attitude controls for decades. But here you are telling the world that a flame plume from an ascending missile cannot provide sufficient IR contrasts for detection and tracking.

This is basic physics, you can get the general direction and trajectory of the missile from IR but you cannot get enough information to actually know exactly where the missile is.

The IR sensor just responds to radiation leaving the missile, it just receives information.

A radar on the other hand the send information and then collects the information that bounces back a device such as that can accurately locate and track objects such as missiles and planes.

If you look at that Aegis video the only role of the satellite is to ascertain the general location of the missile as with IR it is not possible to ascertain the exact location.

The reason why the aegis system splits into two parts a radar piece and a missile piece is that the radar piece needs to be close enough to the ballistic missile so that it can begin tracking.

But you cannot get an EXACT location from IR, it is simply impossible because of the physics.

I have already explained why you cannot tell the EXACT distance of a missile from IR.

Not every missile will be at the EXACT same temperature

By coming IR of missile to that of the earth you can tell the where the missile is located but the EXACT distance that the missile is away from the satellite cannot be determined

 

[Thomas]

This is basic physics, you can get the general direction and trajectory of the missile from IR but you cannot get enough information to actually know exactly where the missile is.

The IR sensor just responds to radiation leaving the missile, it just receives information.

A radar on the other hand the send information and then collects the information that bounces back a device such as that can accurately locate and track objects such as missiles and planes.

If you look at that Aegis video the only role of the satellite is to ascertain the general location of the missile as with IR it is not possible to ascertain the exact location.

The reason why the aegis system splits into two parts a radar piece and a missile piece is that the radar piece needs to be close enough to the ballistic missile so that it can begin tracking.

But you cannot get an EXACT location from IR, it is simply impossible because of the physics.

I have already explained why you cannot tell the EXACT distance of a missile from IR.

Not every missile will be at the EXACT same temperature

By coming IR of missile to that of the earth you can tell the where the missile is located but the EXACT distance that the missile is away from the satellite cannot be determined

Why are you so stuck on IR only? Ballistic missile early warning encompasses IR, and radar. If you have bothered to go to the sites I have linked. and read what the industry experts say are the current capabilities of U.S. Ballistic missile defenses. You would not be making such nonsense claims. The experts very clearly show that the U.S. has the ability to track and target Ballistic missiles from launch to target. This is a proven fact! Now you can continue to refuse to admit it. But you are not fooling anyone with a shred of common sense. Are you saying you know more then the missile experts?

 

[gambit]

Heh...heh...heh...

Great, you might want to check your wiki source to see what gravity turn is mainly used for.

I did. And am willing to bet that you did not know about such a thing.

From your own quote:

After the pitch over is complete the engines are reset to point straight down the axis of the rocket again. This small steering maneuver is the only time during an ideal gravity turn ascent that thrust must be used for purposes of steering.

Meaning thrust still can be used for steering the missile, just not for the maximum range.

Did I say thrust is ONLY for range?

Even if the missile enters the gravity turn and stay with its course,...

There is no 'even' about it. A gravity turn, no matter how minute in degree induced and/or for how long, it must be performed.

...the trajectory of the missile still need to be determined after the rocket burns out(end of the boost phase), because only after the rocket burns out, the missile enters its mid-course phase coasting through space before reentering the atmosphere in a predictable parabola manner.

Eh? How does that prove that flight path prediction is not possible? Mid-course, for intercontinental purposes, is pretty much orbital, where the warhead bus, no longer connected to the booster, is not under longitudinal or 'forward' acceleration. We can track the bus and continue to estimate its flight path until the moment the bus induce lateral acceleration to reenter the atmosphere, which involve another gravity turn. We do this all the time and subconsciously. You drive? Then you have been doing such target trajectory estimation. You guess where your fellow motorists 'might' be and when any make an adjustment, you may be compelled to do the same to avoid collision or to follow.

With multi-stage missiles which most ballistic missiles are, the matter is more complicated.

Multiple stages are for long range missiles, but what are you saying here? That somehow having multiple stages would enable an ICBM to avoid using a gravity turn, which would give it a predictable flight path? Show us a source for this assertion, please. This I have got to see.

Also there is something called maneuverable reentry vehicle.
Maneuverable reentry vehicle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which is for terminal defense. We are talking about missile detection during boost phase.

The moment the vehicle is in a gravity turn, it cannot maneuver for course correction, or it should not maneuver if it is to retain structural integrity. The boost phase include this gravity turn maneuver. Once the missile is detected and tracked while in this turn, its flight path can be estimated straight up to orbit.

That is derived from your "Vietnamese rocket science"???

No...That is from real physics. A missile is essentially a hollow tube from which structural vibration is a major concern, especially when there are burning rocket motors. Many launch failures come from longitudinal vibrations that could overstress that hollow tube...

http://www.vibrationdata.com/rocket.htm

Astronaut Michael Collins wrote:

The first stage of the Titan II vibrated longitudinally, so that someone riding on it would be bounced up and down as if on a pogo stick. The vibration was at a relatively high frequency, about 11 cycles per second, with an amplitude of plus or minus 5 Gs in the worst case.

COULD -- not will.

Here is another source...

http://www.xmission.com/~jwindley/techsvpogo.html

"Pogo" is a rocket scientist's slang for a longitudinal vibration or oscillation that sometimes occurs in rockets. As the propellant flows through the pipes and fittings on its way from the tanks to the engine, low-frequency disturbances can form.

Pogo is a structural dynamics problem. If left alone it will not necessarily damage the engine, but it may damage the rocket structure and damage the payload.

The purpose of a 'gravity turn' is to use...errr...gravity ???...to induce lateral acceleration on that hollow tube. That lateral acceleration cannot be sudden where the possibility of a combination of constructive and destructive interference is very real and increases the odds of a structural failure before orbit.

You really shouldn't be throwing something you don't fully understand to pretend that you are more experienced in this field.

Really...??? Considering I am throwing out sources about items that you know nothing about...And that you failed to show the readers where/what item that I supposedly to not understand.

 

[gambit]

Why are you so stuck on IR only? Ballistic missile early warning encompasses IR, and radar. If you have bothered to go to the sites I have linked. and read what the industry experts say are the current capabilities of U.S. Ballistic missile defenses. You would not be making such nonsense claims. The experts very clearly show that the U.S. has the ability to track and target Ballistic missiles from launch to target. This is a proven fact! Now you can continue to refuse to admit it. But you are not fooling anyone with a shred of common sense. Are you saying you know more then the missile experts?

Because the guy got nothing else to go on.

 

[Chinaownseverything]

Why are you so stuck on IR only? Ballistic missile early warning encompasses IR, and radar. If you have bothered to go to the sites I have linked. and read what the industry experts say are the current capabilities of U.S. Ballistic missile defenses. You would not be making such nonsense claims. The experts very clearly show that the U.S. has the ability to track and target Ballistic missiles from launch to target. This is a proven fact! Now you can continue to refuse to admit it. But you are not fooling anyone with a shred of common sense. Are you saying you know more then the missile experts?

Radar has a VERY short range, putting a radar in a satellite cannot track a ballistic missile in space because 3,000-5,000 KM is not enough for space especially when the early warning satellite itself altitude is 35,900 KM.

Even the wikipedia entry does NOT state that it uses radar

Defense Support Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have read the PDF's you posted none of them say specifically that the distance of the missile can be determined far enough to track.

Do I need to explain IR radiation again?

IR radiation is RECEIVING it is equivalent to YOUR EYE

If you were in space and you saw an unknown object will you be able to tell how far it is? JUST BY LOOKING AT IT?

If you knew how large the object is you can determine how far away it is by knowing the scaling.

But in a situation with a ballistic missile you do not know the HEAT of the object.

So since you don't know how big the object is supposed to be then you would not be able to determine how far the object is away "simply by looking at it"

How radar works is different, If you were in sapce and you saw an unknown object you can determine how far it is by throwing a ball, hitting the object and then seeing how long it takes for the ball to travel back to your hands. You can determine exact distance with radar but there is no way you can tell the exact location of something by looking at the infared sensors.

If you were in outer space and you saw a unknown object YES you can track it with your eyes, but you will never know how far away it is because you do not know how BIG the object really is. Only by throwing a ball and counting the time it takes to hit the object can you know where exactly the object is, and only by knowing where the object exactly is can you intercept it with a missile.

The early warning satellite can only tell the general location of where the missile can possibly land but it does not give the EXACT distance of the missile relative to the earth.

 

[chauism]

Heh...heh...heh...


I did. And am willing to bet that you did not know about such a thing.

Yeah, I don't know about gravity turn after majoring in aeronautical engineering.

Did I say thrust is ONLY for range?

There is no 'even' about it. A gravity turn, no matter how minute in degree induced and/or for how long, it must be performed.

The best you can do is taking my words out of its context?? Read my lips again.

Even if the missile enters the gravity turn and stay with its course(which mean the rocket does not use thrust to steer its direction), the trajectory of the missile still need to be determined after the rocket burns out(end of the boost phase), because only after the rocket burns out, the missile enters its mid-course phase coasting through space before reentering the atmosphere in a predictable parabola manner. Here again from your own wiki source.

Eh? How does that prove that flight path prediction is not possible? Mid-course, for intercontinental purposes, is pretty much orbital, where the warhead bus, no longer connected to the booster, is not under longitudinal or 'forward' acceleration. We can track the bus and continue to estimate its flight path until the moment the bus induce lateral acceleration to reenter the atmosphere, which involve another gravity turn. We do this all the time and subconsciously. You drive? Then you have been doing such target trajectory estimation. You guess where your fellow motorists 'might' be and when any make an adjustment, you may be compelled to do the same to avoid collision or to follow.

After the pitch over, the rocket's flight path is no longer completely vertical so gravity acts to turn the flight path back towards the ground. If the rocket were not producing thrust the flight path would be a simple parabola like a thrown ball, leveling off and then falling back to the ground. The rocket is producing thrust though, and rather than leveling off and then descending again, by the time the rocket levels off it has gained sufficient altitude and velocity to place it in a stable orbit.

Finally you got it. Ballistic missile's trajectory is only predictable after it enters its mid course orbital where gravity and air friction are the only forces that their values can be calculated acting on the missile.
ICBM Flight phases

Multiple stages are for long range missiles, but what are you saying here? That somehow having multiple stages would enable an ICBM to avoid using a gravity turn, which would give it a predictable flight path? Show us a source for this assertion, please. This I have got to see.

DF-21 is a two stage missile. One of the advantage of being multi-stage is that the coasting period between the two stages is unknown, therefore there is one more unknown variable in calculating the trajectory before it finishes the boost phase.

Gravity exists and acts on objects all the time, again it is you who is using irrelevant terms such as gravity turn to throw other innocent people off their guard and pretend that you are the expert on this subject. Gravity turn is important in spacecraft launching is because it has to put the payload into a much higher circular orbit with much higher speed than any ballistic missile most of the time. It uses thrust mainly for fighting the gravity drag, aerodynamic drag and forward acceleration, and uses gravity force for its angular accelerations with minimum thrust for steering. For ballistic missile unless it is aimed at its maximum range, the amount of thrust used for steering the missile is still an unknown variable to outside observers.

No...That is from real physics. A missile is essentially a hollow tube from which structural vibration is a major concern, especially when there are burning rocket motors. Many launch failures come from longitudinal vibrations that could overstress that hollow tube...

http://www.vibrationdata.com/rocket.htm
COULD -- not will.

Here is another source...

Clavius: Vehicles - pogo and the saturn v

The purpose of a 'gravity turn' is to use...errr...gravity ???...to induce lateral acceleration on that hollow tube. That lateral acceleration cannot be sudden where the possibility of a combination of constructive and destructive interference is very real and increases the odds of a structural failure before orbit.

You are comparing the rigidness of a commercial rocket to a missile here???? It is like saying a commercial aircraft can sustain the same g-force as a fighter. For comparison, modern AAM which is also a hollow tube, can sustain 50+g longitudinally.

Really...??? Considering I am throwing out sources about items that you know nothing about...And that you failed to show the readers where/what item that I supposedly to not understand.

Good job, you threw out a source that can debunk your own argument.

Now I am taking Mike's advice not wasting anytime with you farther more.

 

[Thomas]

Radar has a VERY short range, putting a radar in a satellite cannot track a ballistic missile in space because 3,000-5,000 KM is not enough for space especially when the early warning satellite itself altitude is 35,900 KM.

Even the wikipedia entry does NOT state that it uses radar

Defense Support Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have read the PDF's you posted none of them say specifically that the distance of the missile can be determined far enough to track.

Do I need to explain IR radiation again?

IR radiation is RECEIVING it is equivalent to YOUR EYE

If you were in space and you saw an unknown object will you be able to tell how far it is? JUST BY LOOKING AT IT?

If you knew how large the object is you can determine how far away it is by knowing the scaling.

But in a situation with a ballistic missile you do not know the HEAT of the object.

So since you don't know how big the object is supposed to be then you would not be able to determine how far the object is away "simply by looking at it"

How radar works is different, If you were in sapce and you saw an unknown object you can determine how far it is by throwing a ball, hitting the object and then seeing how long it takes for the ball to travel back to your hands. You can determine exact distance with radar but there is no way you can tell the exact location of something by looking at the infared sensors.

If you were in outer space and you saw a unknown object YES you can track it with your eyes, but you will never know how far away it is because you do not know how BIG the object really is. Only by throwing a ball and counting the time it takes to hit the object can you know where exactly the object is, and only by knowing where the object exactly is can you intercept it with a missile.

The early warning satellite can only tell the general location of where the missile can possibly land but it does not give the EXACT distance of the missile relative to the earth.

I think there is some misconceptions here. You seem to think that I am saying the minute a missile is fired the U.S. has a radar lock is ready to shoot it down. That is not what I have said. I pointed out that the minute it is fired it is able to be tracked (and IR is able to track the missile). once tracked however accurate, the calculations are made to it's probable impact, including time (refer to the ballistic missile intercept PDF I linked before).

That doesn't mean a missile is launched right at that second. first the Ballistic missile has to come into radar coverage range, and of the anti-missile. During that time intercept calculations are continuously re-done. Aegis BMD selects which ship is closest and at best angle for intercept. It also decides if more then one missile is required to ensure shoot down. After SM2/3 launch Aegis is still able to update the intercept calculations to the in flight missiles.

Now as far as radar we were talking about the DF-21 missile in this thread correct? If you look at were the U.S. and Japan have stationed the Early warning radar. you will find that it is more then capable of detecting launches within a large chunk of China including all of Korea and around Taiwan.

The DF-21 has a supposed range of around 1700 km. So China could launch it just beyond radar coverage. But it's launch will still be picked up and tracked. If it fires from just across the Taiwan straights (which supposedly is where China is basing the DF-21). Radar will pick it up the second it launches. If China bases the DF-21 near North Korea. It will be picked up by radar the minute it launches.

 

[chauism]

I think there is some misconceptions here. You seem to think that I am saying the minute a missile is fired the U.S. has a radar lock is ready to shoot it down. That is not what I have said. I pointed out that the minute it is fired it is able to be tracked (and IR is able to track the missile). once tracked however accurate, the calculations are made to it's probable impact, including time (refer to the ballistic missile intercept PDF I linked before).

That doesn't mean a missile is launched right at that second. first the Ballistic missile has to come into radar coverage range, and of the anti-missile. During that time intercept calculations are continuously re-done. Aegis BMD selects which ship is closest and at best angle for intercept. It also decides if more then one missile is required to ensure shoot down. After SM2/3 launch Aegis is still able to update the intercept calculations to the in flight missiles.

Now as far as radar we were talking about the DF-21 missile in this thread correct? If you look at were the U.S. and Japan have stationed the Early warning radar. you will find that it is more then capable of detecting launches within a large chunk of China including all of Korea and around Taiwan.

The DF-21 has a supposed range of around 1700 km. So China could launch it just beyond radar coverage. But it's launch will still be picked up and tracked. If it fires from just across the Taiwan straights (which supposedly is where China is basing the DF-21). Radar will pick it up the second it launches. If China bases the DF-21 near North Korea. It will be picked up by radar the minute it launches.

You'd better tell that to someone who thinks that once the missile enters a turn then its trajectory is determined and predictable.

 

[Chinaownseverything]

I think there is some misconceptions here. You seem to think that I am saying the minute a missile is fired the U.S. has a radar lock is ready to shoot it down. That is not what I have said. I pointed out that the minute it is fired it is able to be tracked (and IR is able to track the missile). once tracked however accurate, the calculations are made to it's probable impact, including time (refer to the ballistic missile intercept PDF I linked before).

That doesn't mean a missile is launched right at that second. first the Ballistic missile has to come into radar coverage range, and of the anti-missile. During that time intercept calculations are continuously re-done. Aegis BMD selects which ship is closest and at best angle for intercept. It also decides if more then one missile is required to ensure shoot down. After SM2/3 launch Aegis is still able to update the intercept calculations to the in flight missiles.

Now as far as radar we were talking about the DF-21 missile in this thread correct? If you look at were the U.S. and Japan have stationed the Early warning radar. you will find that it is more then capable of detecting launches within a large chunk of China including all of Korea and around Taiwan.

The DF-21 has a supposed range of around 1700 km. So China could launch it just beyond radar coverage. But it's launch will still be picked up and tracked. If it fires from just across the Taiwan straights (which supposedly is where China is basing the DF-21). Radar will pick it up the second it launches. If China bases the DF-21 near North Korea. It will be picked up by radar the minute it launches.

To intercept a missile though, you cannot use long range radar.

This is why it is called "early warning" radar because that is all it does, it warns you that there is a ballistic missile being fired but it does not have the accuracy to guide an interceptor.

The longer the range of the radar the more inaccurate it becomes. It is possible to predict a general location that it is going to land, but that is all.

The radar that actually does the guidance of the interceptor is the active radar that splits off from the patriot.

 

[Thomas]

You'd better tell that to someone who thinks that once the missile enters a turn then its trajectory is determined and predictable.

"Forward track of the missile can be derived, enabling the time and location of the missile impact to be estimated If relayed to the target area in a timely manner, appropriate passive defensive measure may be deployed. In addition, the forward track can include estimates of the missile position as a function of time along the trajectory"

Now maybe you know more then the RAND corporation, but I highly doubt it.

 

[chauism]

"Forward track of the missile can be derived, enabling the time and location of the missile impact to be estimated If relayed to the target area in a timely manner, appropriate passive defensive measure may be deployed. In addition, the forward track can include estimates of the missile position as a function of time along the trajectory"

Now maybe you know more then the RAND corporation, but I highly doubt it.

Of course it can be derived after its boost phrase which is about 3 minutes after its launch, no question about that. However saying that it can be determined before that or once it enters a turn is completely dubious.

 

[gambit]

You'd better tell that to someone who thinks that once the missile enters a turn then its trajectory is determined and predictable.

Am still writing. Prepare to be seriously embarrassed, especially now that you boasted that you majored in aeronautical engineering...

 

[gambit]

Yeah, I don't know about gravity turn after majoring in aeronautical engineering.

IF you did know it, you would know that a 'gravity turn' is essentially a zero angle of attack maneuver...

Gravity turn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...because gravity does the steering during the initial ascent phase the vehicle can maintain low or even zero angle of attack.

A gravity turn is performed usually endoatmospheric. If there is zero angle of attack, then we can estimate the vehicle to be orbital at some point. The moment there is a change in angle of attack AFTER the the vehicle entered the maneuver, and we know that gravity pulls the vehicle towards Earth, then we can recalculate the vehicle's path based upon that point of change to where it might be pointing at on the ground.

So IF you did know about the 'gravity turn' maneuver, then you would not be engaging in this discussion and claiming that it is not possible to estimate a vehicle's ballistic trajectory in the first place. This is the reason why I called myself a 'sanitation engineer', aka a 'janitor', in here.

The best you can do is taking my words out of its context?? Read my lips again.

Sure...

Even if the missile enters the gravity turn and stay with its course,...

The word 'even' implies an option, meaning you are implying that an ICBM has the option of entering that maneuver. Wrong. An ICBM has no choice but to enter the gravity turn. The better phrasing should be 'Once the missile enters the gravity turn...'

Finally you got it. Ballistic missile's trajectory is only predictable after it enters its mid course orbital where gravity and air friction are the only forces that their values can be calculated acting on the missile.

Wrong as shown above with the gravity turn being low or zero angle of attack. When including constant thrust then it is eminently possible to predict a ballistic flight path.

DF-21 is a two stage missile. One of the advantage of being mutli-stage is that the coasting period between the two stages is unknown, therefore there is one more unknown variable in calculating the trajectory before it finishes the boost phase.

Man...oh...man...No wonder you guys are so entertaining...Perhaps you mean 'phases'?

Anyway...The problem for endoatmospheric multistagings is the ignition timings between stages.

For example...

See that empty space on the Soyuz's body and below orange/yellow area? That is the 'interstage' portion. We found out a long time ago that for the most in multistaging operation, there are problems associated with interstage ignition and the type of fuel. If the vehicle is liquid fueled, the tanks are not completely full to allow for fuel expansion but potentially the fuel may not be on the bottom of the tank, so there might not be proper sequential stage ignition. So we created 'ullage' rockets...

Ullage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In liquid rockets, ullage is the space within a fuel tank above the liquid propellant. This term derives from the term 'ullage' in winemaking, where it refers to the space above the liquid in a container such as a barrel or wine bottle.

Liquid, cryogenic rockets keep their propellant in tanks. These tanks are never completely filled in order to allow for the expansion of the cold liquid propellant. On the ground, the space between the top of the propellant load and the top of the tank is known as "ullage space".

In micro-gravity conditions the gas may float around and threaten to be sucked into the engines, which is typically very undesirable. Small rocket engines are sometimes used to settle the propellant prior to the main engine ignition. These are called ullage motors.

These small solid fuel rockets would fire to create simulated 'gravity' to force the liquid fuel to the bottom of the fuel tank so the upper stage engine could ignite. There are very few situations where we want any pause between stages, even the Moon project vehicles have merely seconds between stages:

Saturn V's stages are:

T+02:30.0 first-stage engine cutoff
T+02:31.5 second-stage ullage-rocket ignition
T+02:31.7 staging charge fired and first-stage retrorocket ignition
T+02:31.8 separation complete
T+02:32.4 second-stage engine start sequence
T+02:33.4 second-stage engine ignition
T+02:35.4 second-stage engines at 90% thrust
T+02:36.0 ullage-rocket burnout

Notice the time elapsed between first-stage cutoff and second stage ignition: 3.4 seconds. And notice ullage rockets operation. So for the Soyuz above, that air gap is to allow ullage and second stage ignition escape paths so that the separating lower stage would not explosively ignite and destroy the overall vehicle. The American Titan series had this problem for a while.

For solid fuel the multistaging ignition timing is still there except that even though we do not need ullage motors, solid fuel do not ignite as rapidly as liquid fuel can, so what we do is called 'hot staging' where the next stage engine is lit in very precisely controlled manner BEFORE separation. The lower or previous stage section is heavily shielded with fire retardant material so it would not catch fire and possibly explode.

The above is an illustration of the Minuteman multistaged ICBM. Look at timestamp 2:46 when the lower stage is separated and when the upper stage is already lit, maintaining constant thrust.

So for you to say this: '...coasting period between the two stages...' is absolutely incorrect for someone who claimed to majored in aeronautical engineering. The difference between 'stage' and 'phase' is not allowed for such an education. The only time there is any 'coasting' between stages is when the vehicle is ALREADY in orbit and the final stage is ignited to send the bus into the descent. Even then, it should be properly phrased as 'phase' because the vehicle's location -- orbit -- take precedent in description.

Gravity exists and acts on objects all the time, again it is you who is using irrelevant terms such as gravity turn to throw other innocent people off their guard and pretend that you are the expert on this subject. Gravity turn is important in spacecraft launching is because it has to put the payload into a much higher orbit than any ballistic missile. It uses thrust mainly for fighting the gravity drag, aerodynamic drag and forward acceleration, and uses gravity force for its angular accelerations with minimum thrust for steering. For ballistic missile unless it is aimed at its maximum range, the amount of thrust used for steering the missile is still an unknown variable to outside observers.

The amount of thrust to send the vehicle into a gravity turn is: ZERO = 0.

Here is the wiki source explanation again...

The pitch over maneuver consists of the rocket gimbaling its engine slightly to direct some of its thrust to one side.

Thrust is the same as from launch. By the time the vehicle is ready for a gravity turn maneuver, the engines are already producing maximum thrust, more so if it is solid fuel because we cannot throttle solid fuel burn. So to induce a gravity turn, thrust is REDIRECTED, aka 'gimbaling', to offset thrust from its previous longitudinal alignment. This redirection is measured in duration, else we would send the vehicle back to Earth.

Gimballed thrust - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gimbaled thrust is the system of thrust vectoring used in most modern rockets, including the Space Shuttle and the Saturn V lunar rockets.

We can also use lateral thrust motors but this would unnecessarily complicate the missile, which is essentially a throwaway weapon. So to keep it simple it is better to briefly gimbal the motors' nozzles to redirect thrust to enter the gravity turn.

You are comparing the rigidness of a commercial rocket to a missile here???? It is like saying a commercial aircraft can sustain the same g-force as a fighter. For comparison, modern AAM which is also a hollow tube, can sustain 50+g longitudinally.

Absolutely.

First...The fact that you differentiate 'rocket' and 'missile' here tells me you really do not know what you are talking about. The difference between a 'rocket' and a 'missile' is more contextual than technical. A 'missile' has a sensor/guidance system. A 'rocket' does not. But a 'rocket' is also a description for a vehicle that uses mainly directed thrust instead of aerodynamic exploitation for flight. That mean a 'rocket' is also the basis for a 'missile'. A satellite launcher is a 'missile' because it has a sensor/guidance system and that it has a specific target or spatial location in its electronic mind.

Second...If we go back to the 'gravity turn' wiki source again, we would find this bit...

Second, and more importantly, because gravity does the steering during the initial ascent phase the vehicle can maintain low or even zero angle of attack. This minimizes transverse aerodynamic stress on the launch vehicle, allowing for a lighter launch vehicle.

An air-air missile is supposed to operate with severe transverse aerodynamic stresses, fancy phrasing for maneuvers, and will never use a 'gravity turn'. An ICBM or satellite launcher is not supposed to make such maneuvers and because weight is a penalty, it will use a 'gravity turn' to make just one gradual maneuver so that it will be constructed less physically robust than an air-air missile so that it can carry a larger payload.

Third...I have seen the inside of an AIM-7 and AIM-9. Both are hollow tubes, albeit very robustly constructed for high-G maneuvers.

So yes, my calling an ICBM a 'hollow tube' is technically and contextually correct.

Good job, you threw out a source that can debunk your own argument.

In your dream.

Now I am taking Mike's advice not wasting anytime with you farther more.

There goes that ego again. This is a publicly accessible forum where everyone's comments available for all to see. You say something wrong and I will challenge. Your friend's advice is worthless.