Author Topic: Project Mercury  (Read 8204 times)

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9640
  • Liked: 373
  • Likes Given: 465
Project Mercury
« on: 02/23/2009 06:55 PM »
OK, during early phase launch aborts (with the escape rocket still attached) was the retrorocket package used to augment the escape rocket thrust? If the answer is "no", did the retrorocket package somehow separate from the capsule at abort, or was the package carried along with the capsule during aborts, and later jettisoned?

 ???

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32499
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11269
  • Likes Given: 333
Re: Project Mercury
« Reply #1 on: 02/23/2009 07:56 PM »
no, no, and yes
« Last Edit: 02/23/2009 07:56 PM by Jim »

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9640
  • Liked: 373
  • Likes Given: 465
Re: Project Mercury
« Reply #2 on: 02/23/2009 09:50 PM »
OK, any ideas on why the retropack would be carried along as dead weight during launch aborts? Was it because it was too tricky to separate in the microseconds during the actual abort, or because the project was moving so quickly that this was simply the quickest architecture to implement?

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8654
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1125
  • Likes Given: 245
Re: Project Mercury
« Reply #3 on: 10/08/2010 12:25 PM »
Quick question, I was glancing at an exploded view ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mercury-Redstone_Exploded_View.gif ) of the Mercury-Redstone and noticed what looked looked like a common bulkhead between LOX/alcohol tanks.

Did Redstone/Jupiter really use a common bulkhead?

I thought that Von Braun was not a fan of the common bulkhead?
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline JayP

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 788
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Project Mercury
« Reply #4 on: 10/08/2010 04:29 PM »
Quick question, I was glancing at an exploded view ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mercury-Redstone_Exploded_View.gif ) of the Mercury-Redstone and noticed what looked looked like a common bulkhead between LOX/alcohol tanks.

Did Redstone/Jupiter really use a common bulkhead?

I thought that Von Braun was not a fan of the common bulkhead?

That image may not be showing the tanks at all, just pointers showing where the tanks go. I believe that the redstone used seperate, internal tanks with a surounding structure and an outer skin like the A4 did.
« Last Edit: 10/08/2010 04:29 PM by JayP »

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8654
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1125
  • Likes Given: 245
Re: Project Mercury
« Reply #5 on: 10/11/2010 06:18 PM »

I believe that the redstone used seperate, internal tanks with a surounding structure and an outer skin like the A4 did.

That was always my impression. Thats why I was asking. I had always thought like the A-4 it used two separate tanks within the structure and was thus very mass inefficient. Which is why I decided to ask.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Art LeBrun

  • Photo freak
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2135
  • Orange, California
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Project Mercury
« Reply #6 on: 10/19/2010 08:08 PM »
I am guessing Redstone was built to be robust/durable for troops and field use as a conservative measure. Integral tanks had been used in MX-774 and Viking earlier.
1958 launch vehicle highlights: Vanguard TV-4 and Atlas 12B

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12998
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 4102
  • Likes Given: 769
Re: Project Mercury
« Reply #7 on: 10/20/2010 12:23 AM »
That image may not be showing the tanks at all, just pointers showing where the tanks go. I believe that the redstone used seperate, internal tanks with a surounding structure and an outer skin like the A4 did.

Nope.  Redstone used aluminum skin, supported by a few internal "ring frames".  The skin was the tank wall.  I think the tanks had separate bulkheads, but I'm trying to confirm.

Redstone was built tough for field use.  Von Braun's team also knew that missile break-up in flight was a problem only partly solved by having a separable warhead section.  Redstone was also designed before the Army team had gained enough big rocket flight experience to know where the limits were. 

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 10/20/2010 12:25 AM by edkyle99 »

Offline Art LeBrun

  • Photo freak
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2135
  • Orange, California
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Project Mercury
« Reply #8 on: 10/20/2010 02:04 AM »
That image may not be showing the tanks at all, just pointers showing where the tanks go. I believe that the redstone used seperate, internal tanks with a surounding structure and an outer skin like the A4 did.

Nope.  Redstone used aluminum skin, supported by a few internal "ring frames".  The skin was the tank wall.  I think the tanks had separate bulkheads, but I'm trying to confirm.
 

 - Ed Kyle

Redstone used a common bulkhead convex to the lox tank and the shell was the tank wall with ring frames.
« Last Edit: 10/20/2010 02:29 AM by Art LeBrun »
1958 launch vehicle highlights: Vanguard TV-4 and Atlas 12B

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12998
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 4102
  • Likes Given: 769
Re: Project Mercury
« Reply #9 on: 10/20/2010 03:50 AM »
Redstone used a common bulkhead convex to the lox tank and the shell was the tank wall with ring frames.

Thanks for that.  ABMA's Jupiter also had a common bulkhead.  So did Atlas.  Thor and Titan had separate bulkheads.  Interesting design diversity which, I believe, may have been planned in part since one set of systems served as a developmental back up to the other.   

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Art LeBrun

  • Photo freak
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2135
  • Orange, California
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Project Mercury
« Reply #10 on: 10/20/2010 04:11 AM »
Redstone used a common bulkhead convex to the lox tank and the shell was the tank wall with ring frames.

Thanks for that.  ABMA's Jupiter also had a common bulkhead.  So did Atlas.  Thor and Titan had separate bulkheads.  Interesting design diversity which, I believe, may have been planned in part since one set of systems served as a developmental back up to the other.   

 - Ed Kyle

I would really like to see the lox vent layout for the Jupiter. Appears as though the vent line was parallel to the fill line instead of venting from the top of the tank. Redstone was similar. Reason? Anybody?
1958 launch vehicle highlights: Vanguard TV-4 and Atlas 12B

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22511
  • Liked: 850
  • Likes Given: 300
Re: Project Mercury
« Reply #11 on: 10/20/2010 05:23 AM »
Redstone used a common bulkhead convex to the lox tank and the shell was the tank wall with ring frames.

Thanks for that.  ABMA's Jupiter also had a common bulkhead.  So did Atlas.  Thor and Titan had separate bulkheads.  Interesting design diversity which, I believe, may have been planned in part since one set of systems served as a developmental back up to the other.   

 - Ed Kyle

I would really like to see the lox vent layout for the Jupiter. Appears as though the vent line was parallel to the fill line instead of venting from the top of the tank. Redstone was similar. Reason? Anybody?


Well Both Jupiter and Redstone evolved from the V-2 line, while Thor was a new design.  Should be noted Thor was designed to be rapidly deployed by plane to forward bases as an IRBM, while Jupiter was a true ICBM.

In Hampton there is a road called Mercury Boulevard, which was renamed to honor the program run out of Langley. Sometimes I wish Johnson would have not pushed to move the manned flight program out to Texas, but for purely selfish reasons.
And this is a good reminder that just because one of your fellow space enthusiasts occasionally voices doubts about the SpaceX schedule announcements or is cautious about believing SpaceX has licked a problem before actually seeing proof that's true, it doesn't mean they hate SpaceX.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5605
  • Liked: 1144
  • Likes Given: 684
Re: Project Mercury
« Reply #12 on: 10/20/2010 06:45 AM »
Thor and Titan had separate bulkheads.

Was that true of the Titan II as well?  If so, it's interesting that a famously-efficient design (Titan II's 1st stage was theoretically SSTO-capable and probably could have achieved that in practice had its engine been thottleable) was possible with separate bulkheads.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5605
  • Liked: 1144
  • Likes Given: 684
Re: Project Mercury
« Reply #13 on: 10/20/2010 06:47 AM »
...  Jupiter was a true ICBM.

Er, you mean IRBM, no?

Tags: Mercury NASA