Disaster at Silo 7 (TV 1988)

During routine maintenance of a liquid-fuelled ICBM, the fuel tank is penetrated by a falling spanner. The film traces the efforts of the maintenance crew and associated military and ... See full summary »

Director:

Larry Elikann

Writers:

Mark Carliner (story), Douglas Lloyd McIntosh (story),

Stars:

Ray Baker, Peter Boyle, Patricia Charbonneau

Nominated for 1 Primetime Emmy. Another 1 nomination.

Cast

Cast overview, first billed only:
Ray Baker	...	Col. Chadwick
Peter Boyle	...	Gen. Sanger
Patricia Charbonneau	...	Kathy Fitzgerald
Perry King	...	Maj. Hicks
Michael O'Keefe	...	Sgt. Mike Fitzgerald
Joe Spano	...	Sgt. Swofford
Dennis Weaver	...	Sheriff Ben Harlen
Joe Urla	...	Pepper Martinelli
Brent Jennings	...	A.C. Jones
Christian Clemenson	...	Col. Brandon
Ken Jenkins	...	Clarence
Maureen Teefy	...	Penny Travers
Jack Kehler	...	Col. Canby
Olivia Burnette	...	Jennifer Fitzgerald
Justin Burnette	...	T.J. Fitzgerald

Storyline

During routine maintenance of a liquid-fuelled ICBM, the fuel tank is penetrated by a falling spanner. The film traces the efforts of the maintenance crew and associated military and civilian personnel to recover the potentially disastrous situation before the fuel tank is sufficiently depressurised that the stack collapses and explodes.

---

Plot Keywords:

missile silo | titan | strategic air command | nuclear accident | missile | 

---

Genres:

Drama | Sci-Fi | Thriller

---

Certificate:

Not Rated

Details

Country:

USA

Language:

English

Release Date:

27 November 1988 (USA)

Also Known As:

Awaria wyrzutni numer 7

Filming Locations:

Titan Missile Museum - 1580 W. Duval Mine Road, Green Valley, Arizona, USA

Company Credits

Production Co:

Mark Carliner Productions

Technical Specs

Runtime:

96 min

Sound Mix:

Mono

Color:

Color

Aspect Ratio:

1.33 : 1

Did You Know?

Trivia

Based on a true story.

---

Soundtracks

"YOU'RE SO EASY TO LOVE"
Sung by Cathryn Craig

User Reviews

A question for the Titan Experts here.

We all know that the titan II was a VERY powerful missile, and since it was not too accurate (over 1/2 mile CEP, IIRC) it carried a huge warhead of 9 megatons, to compensate for that error. Such a warhead could easily pretty much decimate any large city in the world.

BUT..According to some stories and articles I have read, the US was SERIOUSLY thinking of putting a 35 megaton warhead on the TII. Maybe some here know::

(1--how close in actuality did this come from being deployed??

(2-- Since the missile could only carry so much weight and the W-53 already weighed in excess of 3 tons, (around 3MT/T Y/W) in order to nearly quadruple the yield, without adding too much weight, this would have required a MUCH higher yield/weight ratio than the W-53 or even the B-41. Calculations show that a Y/W ratio of such a warhead would be in excess of 9MT/T, even if the new warhead would be in excess of 4 tons. How was this going to be done?? Was it going to be a multi-stage secondary w/multiple tertiaries, making it a VERY dirty bomb?(it would seem that it would HAVE to be, in order more than to triple the Y/W ratio).

(3-WHY did the leaders even think that such a powerful warhead was needed in the first place?? Unless it was a response to the Tsar Bomba. After all a 9MT blast is MORE than big enough for ANY practical military purpose, no?? (if it was a penetration blast they needed, increasing the accuracy is a MUCH better method, than simply adding firepower--which is EXACTLY what the MIII and Peacekeeper and Trident II has done.) It is likely that one sub-megaton W-87 or W-88 RV would do MORE damage to a target of 1500 feet in diameter,or a hardened target of 200 feet, with a CEP of 300FT, than a W-53 would have done to the same target,with a CEP of 2500FT or more--WITHOUT destroying everything else for 20 miles around in the process.

And don't worry--NONE of this is 'classified", ALL of what I am talking about is available on ANY site or in any book.