Author Topic: Jupiter History (Read 105469 times)

edkyle99 · « **on:** 06/29/2011 10:26 pm »

I've started a series of articles on the Jupiter missile and its relatives.

http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/jupiter.html

As always, there's more to the story than meets the eye.

Perhaps this thread can serve as a repository for any remembrances, information, photos, etc., related to Jupiter, Juno II-V, etc.

- Ed Kyle

Rocket Science · « **Reply #1 on:** 06/29/2011 10:30 pm »

Thanks Ed, Looks Great!

Robert

CitabriaFlyer · « **Reply #2 on:** 06/29/2011 10:31 pm »

Does anyone know where Jupiter missiles were stationed? I am aware their presence in Turkey contributed to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Where else were they deployed? What was the doctrine driving such deployments?

GClark · « **Reply #3 on:** 06/29/2011 11:16 pm »

Ed - Great stuff. I do hope you're aware that doesn't show up on your Library page.

CitabriaFlyer - They were also deployed in northern Italy.

Jim · « **Reply #4 on:** 06/29/2011 11:18 pm »

Quote from: CitabriaFlyer on 06/29/2011 10:31 pm

Does anyone know where Jupiter missiles were stationed? I am aware their presence in Turkey contributed to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Where else were they deployed? What was the doctrine driving such deployments?

Turkey and Italy
The IRBM range and consenting host governments

kevin-rf · « **Reply #5 on:** 06/30/2011 12:45 am »

Nice article Ed, thanks for taking the time for a good Jupiter history.

Quote

and was deployed for several years at the height of the Cold War as an active missile system in Italy and Turkey, where its menacing presence in part sparked the Cuban Missile Crises.

Not to quibble, that puts more emphasis on Jupiter. It was part of a defense force that included the deployed Thors, AF's large deployed intercontinental bomber force, Deployed ICBM's, Deployed SLBM's, among others factors that left Cuba as one of the few Soviet options. Yes it was part, but we really have to put that in context.

edkyle99 · « **Reply #6 on:** 06/30/2011 12:50 am »

Quote from: Jim on 06/29/2011 11:18 pm

Quote from: CitabriaFlyer on 06/29/2011 10:31 pm
Does anyone know where Jupiter missiles were stationed? I am aware their presence in Turkey contributed to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Where else were they deployed? What was the doctrine driving such deployments?

Turkey and Italy
The IRBM range and consenting host governments

Right. There were two squadrons totaling 30 missiles in Italy and one 15-missile squadron in Turkey.

Since they were deployed under U.S. Air Force management, though crewed by local NATO Italian and Turkish forces, they were primarily deployed to target Soviet and Soviet Warsaw Pact airfields. These were deployed in "static" mode, at fixed sites (although much of the Jupiter GSE had been designed for mobile deployment, some of that was scrubbed by the Air Force).

Jupiter was originally to be a U.S. Army missile (with a Navy variant), which would have resulted in a different deployment and targeting scheme. For the Army, Jupiter would have been used tactically to defend ground forces, as, essentially, super long-range nuclear artillery. An Army Jupiter would have been deployed in a mobile mode, able to move to thwart Soviet targeting (and to follow the battle).

- Ed Kyle

edkyle99 · « **Reply #7 on:** 06/30/2011 01:03 am »

Quote from: kevin-rf on 06/30/2011 12:45 am

Quote
and was deployed for several years at the height of the Cold War as an active missile system in Italy and Turkey, where its menacing presence in part sparked the Cuban Missile Crises.
Not to quibble, that puts more emphasis on Jupiter. It was part of a defense force that included the deployed Thors, AF's large deployed intercontinental bomber force, Deployed ICBM's, Deployed SLBM's, among others factors that left Cuba as one of the few Soviet options. Yes it was part, but we really have to put that in context.

Fair enough. Jupiter was one piece of the larger Cold War stare down (Berlin Air Lift, Hungary, Thors, Berlin Wall, Bay of Pigs, etc.) that preceded the Cuban Crises.

Jupiter does have a more direct connection to the Cuban Crises than Thor, however, because both JFK and RFK said or wrote that they were willing to trade the Jupiter missiles in Turkey for Soviet missiles in Cuba - and in fact a back door deal is essentially what happened. RFK wrote that he offered the Soviet ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin a pledge of no invasion of Cuba, plus the withdrawal of U.S. Jupiter missiles in Turkey. Unlike Italy and the U.K., Turkey shared a border with the Soviet Union.

The Thors were removed soon after, but there is no direct link between their removal and the Cuban missiles in recorded history that I have found.

There is some evidence, BTW, that the Jupiter deployment *may* have directly contributed to the Soviet move to deploy its missiles in Cuba. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/declass.htm

- Ed Kyle

Proponent · « **Reply #8 on:** 06/30/2011 03:51 am »

I enjoyed the initial installments and look forward to reading those coming.

Peripheral question: In what way Titan live on into the 21st century? I could see how one might argue that Atlas V is actually more a Titan derivative than an Atlas one, but then Atlas would have to be dropped from the list of systems that lived into the next century.

Oberon_Command · « **Reply #9 on:** 06/30/2011 03:55 am »

Quote from: Proponent on 06/30/2011 03:51 am

I enjoyed the initial installments and look forward to reading those coming.

Peripheral question: In what way Titan live on into the 21st century? I could see how one might argue that Atlas V is actually more a Titan derivative than an Atlas one, but then Atlas would have to be dropped from the list of systems that lived into the next century.

The last Titan launch was in 2005, if I recall correctly.

Proponent · « **Reply #10 on:** 06/30/2011 04:27 am »

Indeed. A schoolboy error on my part.

edkyle99 · « **Reply #11 on:** 06/30/2011 02:01 pm »

One thing I haven't yet found is an image of the base of the "aft unit", the tapered section that housed the guidance and that served as the "bus" for the nose cone. The "aft unit" (visible with the roll bar markings in the image of the displayed Jupiter at the Huntsville museum) had a solid fuel vernier motor (with squibs that blew off the nozzle on guidance command), a pair of spin motors, and a set of cold gas thrusters for control.

The spinning, ablative heat shielded nose cone shrieked into the atmosphere, enduring a max of 44 Gs as it slowed from about 4,660 m/s to 166 m/s in only 66 seconds. This design, first proven by ABMA, is said to have proved more accurate than the blunt body Mk 2 heat-sink reentry vehicle used by Thor and, initially, Atlas. A similar, though lighter, design was eventually employed by other U.S. missiles.

- Ed Kyle

Art LeBrun · « **Reply #12 on:** 07/01/2011 03:03 am »

Nice topic, Ed. Looking forward to more installments and forum input.

JosephB · « **Reply #13 on:** 07/01/2011 03:50 am »

Quote from: Art LeBrun on 07/01/2011 03:03 am

Nice topic, Ed. Looking forward to more installments and forum input.

Ditto, interesting and informative as always Ed. I also liked the last SLR article.

edkyle99 · « **Reply #14 on:** 07/01/2011 04:42 am »

Here's a Jupiter quiz, just for fun.

Most know that Redstone and Jupiter-C missiles sported an alpha-code letter on their fuselage, where the letters "HUNTSVILEX" coded to "1234567890". Thus Explorer I was launched by "UE" or missile number "29".

Jupiter missiles, at least after the first few, used a different code. Missile "AM-30" was labeled "AM TR". Missile "AM-18", which carried space monkeys Able and Baker, was labeled "AM PD". And so on.

Can anyone guess the Jupiter code? (Those who know the answer, wait a bit for others to try to figure it out.)

- Ed Kyle

AS-503 · « **Reply #15 on:** 07/01/2011 02:43 pm »

So......

If AM-18 = AM-PD
AM-19 = AM-PE (presumed)
AM-30 = AM-TR

Then that makes for....

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
P T D E R

Is the Jupiter code PATHFINDER

It fits the theme of the launches.

edkyle99 · « **Reply #16 on:** 07/01/2011 05:27 pm »

Quote from: AS-503 on 07/01/2011 02:43 pm

So......

If AM-18 = AM-PD
AM-19 = AM-PE (presumed)
AM-30 = AM-TR

Then that makes for....

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
P T D E R

Is the Jupiter code PATHFINDER

It fits the theme of the launches.

I think you've got it!

I've found an image of "AM-19A" (a Juno II) labeled "AMPEA". I've also found a photo of missile "CM-22" labeled "CMAA". I recall seeing other images, perhaps in the Cape Canaveral history book to which Art Lebron contributed, that affiliated "I" with "6" and "H" with "4".

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
P A T H I D E R

And, BTW, that name, "Pathfinder", might be a good name for another rocket, whose current unofficial name I dare not speak.

- Ed Kyle

AS-503 · « **Reply #17 on:** 07/01/2011 10:57 pm »

Pathfinder would be an appropriate name, but was more fitting in the early space-race era, no?

There is a good Rocketdyne history book that describes the evolution from S3-D to H1 to F1,J-2, Aerospike, SSME.

When I think of "pathfinders" I think of those engines and their respective development.

What a weird bird the Jupiter was.

Thorny · « **Reply #18 on:** 07/01/2011 11:38 pm »

Minor correction, Ed...

Explorer 1 was launched January 31, 1958 (February 1 GMT), not in March 1958.

rocketeer · « **Reply #19 on:** 07/02/2011 02:07 am »

Well, Ed, PATHFINDER is close, but no cigar. There is no 'N'
in this Jupiter code (which is the second iteration incidently - the
first ten Jupiters had a different code!) Number 5 is actually 'S.'
I will wait and see if anybody else has more to add to
the discussion before I post additional comments.