Author Topic: Jupiter History (Read 105529 times)

Art LeBrun · « **Reply #120 on:** 08/16/2011 02:56 am »

Quote from: Jim on 08/16/2011 01:59 am

I have to go back for that, but I will

Thank you for the consideration........

Jim · « **Reply #121 on:** 08/19/2011 08:33 am »

Jim · « **Reply #122 on:** 08/19/2011 08:35 am »

Jim · « **Reply #123 on:** 08/19/2011 08:39 am »

Jim · « **Reply #124 on:** 08/19/2011 08:47 am »

Jim · « **Reply #125 on:** 08/19/2011 09:04 am »

Jim · « **Reply #126 on:** 08/19/2011 09:09 am »

kevin-rf · « **Reply #127 on:** 08/19/2011 12:36 pm »

Thankyou for sharing Jim

Rocket Science · « **Reply #128 on:** 08/19/2011 12:53 pm »

2nd that Jim,
Thanks for all the great pics!. Nice to see all the resto's on the hardware. What a difference since I saw them last, they all look much happier!

Regards
Robert

Art LeBrun · « **Reply #129 on:** 08/19/2011 01:20 pm »

Nice images, Jim - quick response to a request. Thanks.

Jim · « **Reply #130 on:** 08/19/2011 01:59 pm »

It actually was too crowded to take good photos. Also the sunlight was a challenge.

edkyle99 · « **Reply #131 on:** 08/19/2011 03:38 pm »

Quote from: Jim on 08/19/2011 08:35 am

Super pics Jim! Thanks! It is terrific to see all of these artifacts in such good shape. I wonder what plans they have for them? (If it were up to me, I would build a massive, well-lit museum just outside the gates where all of these items could be displayed indoors. Big bucks, though. I'm not sure where I would get the money!)

The Titan I must still be out there. That will be a tough one to restore, if it is even possible.

Note that the Jupiter has "AM PT" painted on it. This, of course, is NOT "AM PT". "AM PT" was AM-13, the Bioflight 1 Jupiter that launched Gordo on December 13, 1958. Gordo survived the flight, but a recovery system failure caused Gordo's loss.

Interesting choice given that Bioflight 2 was the more famous flight, since Able and Baker survived to make the cover of Life magazine! I have to say that I would prefer seeing these missiles identified with their actual production numbers, but it may be that no one knows such information for this Jupiter.

- Ed Kyle

Proponent · « **Reply #132 on:** 08/21/2011 09:38 am »

Was there ever any consideration of using hydrazine and nitric acid in the Jupiter? This seems to have been von Braun's favorite propellant combination at the time, and it could have made Jupiter a more practical weapon.

Art LeBrun · « **Reply #133 on:** 08/21/2011 02:23 pm »

Quote from: edkyle99 on 08/08/2011 01:45 pm

Quote from: Art LeBrun on 08/08/2011 06:44 am
Another effort to use Jupiter as a large SLV is depicted in the drawing below. I have no documentation on this concept. The drawing is dated November 27, 1957 and it seems to come from NAA. It looks strange to see the all liquid boosters and still a plan to use a scaled up Sargeant final stage.

Navaho was cancelled in July 1957. NAA had assembled, or partially assembled, several G-38 booster/missile sets (the three-engine booster Navaho's). In the ensuing months, the company made numerous proposals to use the powerful boosters for space flight purposes (and, no doubt, for missile work). This looks like one of those proposals - one I've never seen before. (I have seen a proposal to strap an X-15 to the side of a Navaho booster. http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/g26x15.jpg )

- Ed Kyle

QUEST magazine VOL 15 Number 3 2008 pp 14-19 has a 6 page article by Dave Stern on NAA proposals to fly the X-15/X-15A/X-15B on ballistic and orbit flights using Navaho G-26/G-38 boosters . Most of the article details the X-15 aspect of the proposal.

edkyle99 · « **Reply #134 on:** 08/21/2011 03:42 pm »

Quote from: Proponent on 08/21/2011 09:38 am

Was there ever any consideration of using hydrazine and nitric acid in the Jupiter? This seems to have been von Braun's favorite propellant combination at the time, and it could have made Jupiter a more practical weapon.

Very early studies of missiles with longer range than Redstone considered a variety of propellant combinations (some were two-stage variants of Redstone), but the Jupiter program finally approved hinged on use of existing propulsion systems - specifically the kerosene/LOX 150K engine from NAA developed for Atlas as a derivation of the Navaho G38 engine. As a result, Jupiter from the outset was kerosene/LOX.

- Ed Kyle

Art LeBrun · « **Reply #135 on:** 10/07/2011 05:22 am »

This 1958 view of the Chrysler factory for Jupiter and Redstone missiles came from the excellent Redstone site owned by Jim Ryan: www.myarmyredstonedays.com

WallE · « **Reply #136 on:** 09/07/2025 02:02 pm »

The failure on Juno II AM-16 as many probably know was blamed on a shorted diode. Specifically it was a short between two top hat diodes inside the inverter which cut off power to the guidance system and resulted in loss of engine gimbal control. The immediate fix was to use conformal coatings on the circuit board to prevent future shorts, and impact damage to the diodes due to being ejected from the launch vehicle at destruct made it hard to determine at first whether the damage was present at launch or occurred as a result of the failure.

Juno AM-19B, scheduled to fly a Beacon scientific satellite (basically a reflective balloon similar to the later Echo satellites), was checked to make sure it didn't have the same problem and launched on August 14--the original planned 44 degree azimuth was rejected by the range safety officer and it was switched to a 48 degree azimuth instead (unlike Atlas and Thor, Redstone and Jupiter had no roll program and instead the launch stand was rotated on a turntable for the desired azimuth). Earlier that morning, Titan I B-5 launched from Pad 19 and ended nearly as dramatically as AM-16, after which the countdown for AM-19B began. It flew normally during first stage burn, but failed due to a botched experiment with releasing flares from the guidance compartment after staging, which ended up depressurizing the compartment and caused the upper stages to fire in the wrong direction, sending the Beacon into the Atlantic Ocean.

The rotary power inverter used in Juno II was a feature inherited from the Redstone missile and considered a weak point as it was unreliable in a vacuum environment. A more robust solid state inverter was developed for the Saturn program.

Blackstar · « **Reply #137 on:** 09/07/2025 11:57 pm »

The official Jupiter history is mentioned in this thread, but has not been posted here. I'll look for it, but if anybody has it, please post it.

edkyle99 · « **Reply #138 on:** 09/08/2025 09:16 pm »

Quote from: Blackstar on 09/07/2025 11:57 pm

The official Jupiter history is mentioned in this thread, but has not been posted here. I'll look for it, but if anybody has it, please post it.

This is the ABMA Jupiter missile history, I believe.

- Ed Kyle

Proponent · « **Reply #139 on:** 11/19/2025 02:41 pm »

Here's a Chrysler document from December 1960 about a Jupiter-Agena launch vehicle.