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?
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.
Quote from: CitabriaFlyer on 06/29/2011 10:31 pmDoes 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
Quoteand 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.
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.
Nice topic, Ed. Looking forward to more installments and forum input.
So......If AM-18 = AM-PD AM-19 = AM-PE (presumed) AM-30 = AM-TRThen that makes for....1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0P T D E RIs the Jupiter code PATHFINDERIt fits the theme of the launches.
Minor correction, Ed...Explorer 1 was launched January 31, 1958 (February 1 GMT), not in March 1958.
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 tothe discussion before I post additional comments.
You don't have to give up on the letter H for the number 4, Ed. Bycoincidence, H was the last letter that I was able to verify earlier this year during my search for the complete Jupiter code. I found a closeup photo of vehicle AM-24, a Jupiter that previously had eluded my searchfor a clear picture. To my amazement the code letters on the side of the rocket were AH, corresponding to Jupiter number 24. The source wasan original RCA photolab of Jupiter AM-24 dated 9-30-59.
Have a look at the left-most image on page 108 of the report Lessons Learned in Engineering (discussed in in this thread), attached below. The report's authors describe as being of "Jupiter 1". Note the marking "AMXHA"I presume "Jupiter 1" was Jupiter AM-1A.Could it be that the image has been reversed, and the marking really read "AMXHA".Could it be that for the very first Jupiter flights, the HUNTSVILEX code was still used?
Was there any particular reason for use of the HUNTSVILEX and PATHSI-DER codes? The codes being so simple, it seems unlikely they would have been taken seriously as ways of maintaining secrecy.
But if the idea was to keep the Soviets in the dark about the number of missiles produced, why not use a better code, like assigning a random four-digit serial number to each missile?
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
Here's an "almost" image showing the top of the RP-1 tank (LOX was below the RP tank) among the "fatter" Jupiter missiles lined up on the left. This photo may have been taken at Chrysler's Michigan Ordnance Missile Plant in Sterling Heights, Michigan, where both Redstone and Jupiter missiles were produced. Chrysler built 30 Jupiters per year here for a couple of years - and this was the least-produced of the "big four" missiles.Those S-3 series engines in the middle are also of interest. These "150K" engines were in great demand then, also being produced, in modified form, for Thor and Atlas (and later, Saturn). Rocketdyne was manufacturing more than 200 of these per year when this image was made, a number that neared 400 per year by the early 1960s. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 07/07/2011 04:20 amHere's an "almost" image showing the top of the RP-1 tank (LOX was below the RP tank) among the "fatter" Jupiter missiles lined up on the left. This photo may have been taken at Chrysler's Michigan Ordnance Missile Plant in Sterling Heights, Michigan, where both Redstone and Jupiter missiles were produced. Chrysler built 30 Jupiters per year here for a couple of years - and this was the least-produced of the "big four" missiles.Those S-3 series engines in the middle are also of interest. These "150K" engines were in great demand then, also being produced, in modified form, for Thor and Atlas (and later, Saturn). Rocketdyne was manufacturing more than 200 of these per year when this image was made, a number that neared 400 per year by the early 1960s. - Ed KyleThis same image is posted on Jim Ryan's www.myarmyredstonedays.com. His caption gives the location as Warren, Michigan and the date as December 1957. You can find it on Slide Show in folder Redstone Miscellaneous page 2.Possibly the "cap' was for access into the RP-1 tank.
For some reason I do not think any group wanted Jupiter for space launch. I know some were scrapped overseas and some parts salvaged but how many were returned for storage if any? I assume any US stored missiles were also scrapped. Perhaps the pending glut of Thor and Atlas istarting in 1963 reduced the need for Jupiter and Titan 1..........
All was not immediately lost, because the JPL upper stage lived on, for awhile, as part of another funded NASA launch vehicle that also never flew - but that's another story.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 07/08/2011 01:53 pmAll was not immediately lost, because the JPL upper stage lived on, for awhile, as part of another funded NASA launch vehicle that also never flew - but that's another story. Third stage of Vega, right?
Walking down the rocket garden in Huntsville is moving when you know the history; Redstone to Jupiter-C to Mercury-Redstone to Atlas D to Jupiter to Juno II to the only remaining Block II Saturn I...
Quote from: Art LeBrun on 07/08/2011 06:15 amFor some reason I do not think any group wanted Jupiter for space launch. I know some were scrapped overseas and some parts salvaged but how many were returned for storage if any? I assume any US stored missiles were also scrapped. Perhaps the pending glut of Thor and Atlas istarting in 1963 reduced the need for Jupiter and Titan 1..........I should have been more precise in my statement. After the last Juno II flight in April 1961 I am thinking there was little Jupiter space launch interest or at least none was funded with the expectation of 45 plus missiles being available in 1963-64. A shame as I would have liked to have seen Jupiter with a liquid propelled second stage.(and so would Jim)
I guess since there were no NASA upperstages for Jupiter, that is what killed it. I bet interservice rivalry or AMBA's pride prevented the use of Agena.Also Jupiter didn't have an "Able" stage to leverage off of.Now that I have said all that, maybe the use of the Jupiter-C upperstages for Juno II is what killed Jupiter as a launch vehicle. There was no pedigree for other variations.
[The Able stage is an important factor, and an odd example of how ABMA's own prowess during the mid-1950s hurt Jupiter in the end. ABMA modified its own existing rocket, Redstone, to create a nose cone test vehicle - Jupiter-C, which flew in 1956-57. Jet Propulsion Lab, an Army group at the time, developed the upper stage cluster. The Air Force did not have an existing rocket for such a task, so it had to develop Thor-Able, borrowing the Navy's Vanguard upper stage for the task. Since there was no "Jupiter-Able" equivalent, Thor-Able was a more viable candidate for a satellite launch vehicle than "Juno IV", which would have required development of an entirely new set of upper stages. Thor-Able eventually morphed into Delta, and the rest is history.JPL was the big loser in all this. It had been the upper stage contractor for Junos I, II, and IV. For whatever reason, NASA did not allow JPL to continue with upper stage development work. "Propulsion" is what JPL had originally been created to do. - Ed Kyle
Interesting that JPL was propulsion and suddenly spacecraft contracted.
Their association with James Van Allen in the early days was a critical element. That man really knew his stuff - perhaps the most important theorist/experimentalist in the U.S. since Benjamin Franklin.
Quote from: Art LeBrun on 07/10/2011 05:52 amInteresting that JPL was propulsion and suddenly spacecraft contracted.They became quite good (excellent) at exploration spacecraft, but had to suffer through Rangers I through VI to get there! Their association with James Van Allen in the early days was a critical element. That man really knew his stuff - perhaps the most important theorist/experimentalist in the U.S. since Benjamin Franklin. New Zealand's Bill Pickering too, of course, who served as the "Von Braun" of telemetry while leading JPL through these transition years. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 07/10/2011 04:49 pm Their association with James Van Allen in the early days was a critical element. That man really knew his stuff - perhaps the most important theorist/experimentalist in the U.S. since Benjamin Franklin. Compared to, say, Enrico Fermi? -Alex
Here are some views of Juno II which was a lash up interim launch vehicle which had an erratic flight history in its 30 month career 1958-1961. Hope some of these are interesting and give new views of Juno II.
Also visible is the prominent fall-back umbilical connected to the guidance compartment (called the "aft unit" on Jupiter missiles). This had some type of "package" attached to it that fell away a few seconds before engine start - no idea what that was about. The umbilical itself remained attached until engine start.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 07/17/2011 03:50 pmAlso visible is the prominent fall-back umbilical connected to the guidance compartment (called the "aft unit" on Jupiter missiles). This had some type of "package" attached to it that fell away a few seconds before engine start - no idea what that was about. The umbilical itself remained attached until engine start.It was purge unit to provide cooling to the guidance compartment. Redstone, Jupiter and the single stage Saturn I's had it.
Here are some related umbilical images of Jupiter Combat Training Launch (CTL) operations. The first one show the less prominent R&D/space name plate for CM but with the USAF serial number. Note large vertical numerals for missile quadrants.
Quote from: Art LeBrun on 07/17/2011 07:18 pmHere are some related umbilical images of Jupiter Combat Training Launch (CTL) operations. The first one show the less prominent R&D/space name plate for CM but with the USAF serial number. Note large vertical numerals for missile quadrants.Fantastic images as always, Art!There's an image of Juno II AM-19B on page 156 of "Go for Launch" (Powell with LeBrun) that, I think, shows Juno II from its "good side". It's a photo taken from the gantry as it rolls back from pad 26B. Is that one of your images by chance? - Ed Kyle
Here is a better copy of the image you mentioned. I received this as AM-19A but the afternoon sunlight pretty much tells me this is AM-19B. The AMPEx is not resolved.
I've started a series of articles on the Jupiter missile and its relatives.http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/jupiter.html
Quote from: edkyle99 on 06/29/2011 10:26 pmI've started a series of articles on the Jupiter missile and its relatives.http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/jupiter.htmlEd, Do you have any new material related to plans to launch manned Mercury capsules on Jupiters? For a while there was a Mercury-Jupiter vehicle that was to be launched between the Mercury-Redstone and Mercury-Atlas. Like Juno III and Juno IV this was one of those plans that was leapfrogged.
Quote from: Jim Davis on 07/19/2011 05:42 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 06/29/2011 10:26 pmI've started a series of articles on the Jupiter missile and its relatives.http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/jupiter.htmlEd, Do you have any new material related to plans to launch manned Mercury capsules on Jupiters? For a while there was a Mercury-Jupiter vehicle that was to be launched between the Mercury-Redstone and Mercury-Atlas. Like Juno III and Juno IV this was one of those plans that was leapfrogged.NASA documents show that early plans, (late 1958 through mid 1959) were to use eight or so Mercury Redstones but never more than a couple of Mercury Jupiters. The Mercury Jupiters would have explored the flight envelope at higher velocities than Redstone, prior to the use of Atlas. The first flight would have carried a primate, the second possibly an astronaut. Later plans hinted at unmanned tests only, with the flights meant to qualify Mercury for maximum reentry load factors. ABMA would have built the spacecraft adapter for Jupiter. In July 1959, the Jupiters were canceled when it became apparent that Atlas could serve the same purpose. Basically the schedule was so compressed that Atlas flights would have happened before the Jupiter flights. Interesting, though, that the following also happened during July 1959 when the decision was made!http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/am16-2.jpgNASA did spend $1.8 million on Mercury-Jupiter before canceling the effort. To the best of my knowledge the Jupiters were never delivered. - Ed Kyle
Got any links to studies or anything detailing the Mercury-Jupiter??
This is a little OT, but I have a question about the Jupiter-C. On re-entry-test flights, this rocket propelled an RV about 3000 miles downrange, but the Jupiter IRBM had a range of about half that. Therefore, Jupiter-C re-entries took place at velocities about 40% higher that Jupiter re-entries. Given that Jupiter-C was supposedly created solely to test Jupiter components, how did ABMA justify Jupiter-C's substantial excess capability?
Hey Ed, Got any links to studies or anything detailing the Mercury-Jupiter?? This would be TERRIFIC stuff for the space modeling community... Later! OL JR
Quote from: edkyle99 on 07/20/2011 01:42 amQuote from: Jim Davis on 07/19/2011 05:42 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 06/29/2011 10:26 pmI've started a series of articles on the Jupiter missile and its relatives.http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/jupiter.htmlEd, Do you have any new material related to plans to launch manned Mercury capsules on Jupiters? For a while there was a Mercury-Jupiter vehicle that was to be launched between the Mercury-Redstone and Mercury-Atlas. Like Juno III and Juno IV this was one of those plans that was leapfrogged.NASA documents show that early plans, (late 1958 through mid 1959) were to use eight or so Mercury Redstones but never more than a couple of Mercury Jupiters. The Mercury Jupiters would have explored the flight envelope at higher velocities than Redstone, prior to the use of Atlas. The first flight would have carried a primate, the second possibly an astronaut. Later plans hinted at unmanned tests only, with the flights meant to qualify Mercury for maximum reentry load factors. ABMA would have built the spacecraft adapter for Jupiter. In July 1959, the Jupiters were canceled when it became apparent that Atlas could serve the same purpose. Basically the schedule was so compressed that Atlas flights would have happened before the Jupiter flights. Interesting, though, that the following also happened during July 1959 when the decision was made!http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/am16-2.jpgNASA did spend $1.8 million on Mercury-Jupiter before canceling the effort. To the best of my knowledge the Jupiters were never delivered. - Ed KyleHey Ed, Got any links to studies or anything detailing the Mercury-Jupiter?? This would be TERRIFIC stuff for the space modeling community... Later! OL JR [/quote)http://www.ninfinger.org/models/vault2004/mercury_jupiter4.jpghttp://www.ninfinger.org/models/vault2004/mercury_jupiter.jpg
Quote from: luke strawwalker on 07/20/2011 07:40 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 07/20/2011 01:42 amQuote from: Jim Davis on 07/19/2011 05:42 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 06/29/2011 10:26 pmI've started a series of articles on the Jupiter missile and its relatives.http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/jupiter.htmlEd, Do you have any new material related to plans to launch manned Mercury capsules on Jupiters? For a while there was a Mercury-Jupiter vehicle that was to be launched between the Mercury-Redstone and Mercury-Atlas. Like Juno III and Juno IV this was one of those plans that was leapfrogged.NASA documents show that early plans, (late 1958 through mid 1959) were to use eight or so Mercury Redstones but never more than a couple of Mercury Jupiters. The Mercury Jupiters would have explored the flight envelope at higher velocities than Redstone, prior to the use of Atlas. The first flight would have carried a primate, the second possibly an astronaut. Later plans hinted at unmanned tests only, with the flights meant to qualify Mercury for maximum reentry load factors. ABMA would have built the spacecraft adapter for Jupiter. In July 1959, the Jupiters were canceled when it became apparent that Atlas could serve the same purpose. Basically the schedule was so compressed that Atlas flights would have happened before the Jupiter flights. Interesting, though, that the following also happened during July 1959 when the decision was made!http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/am16-2.jpgNASA did spend $1.8 million on Mercury-Jupiter before canceling the effort. To the best of my knowledge the Jupiters were never delivered. - Ed KyleHey Ed, Got any links to studies or anything detailing the Mercury-Jupiter?? This would be TERRIFIC stuff for the space modeling community... Later! OL JR [/quote)http://www.ninfinger.org/models/vault2004/mercury_jupiter4.jpghttp://www.ninfinger.org/models/vault2004/mercury_jupiter.jpgInteresting... thanks for the links! OL JR
Great photos, thanks again!Re the last picture, shouldn't the nameplate have read "AM-PI"? The sign on the display hides most of what would be the 'I' but seems consistent with this. On the other hand, enough of the nameplate to show the top of the 'A' appears to have survived, but I see no hint of an 'A'.
How did the designations work for Chrysler-produced missiles? Encylopedia Astronautica indicates that the first Chrysler rocket to fly was CM-21 on 21 January 1959. Twenty-one was not too different from the numerical parts designations of the AM missiles flying at the time, so I presume the CM numbers were part of the same sequence. On 20 October 1960, however, we jump to CM-217. Subsequent Chrysler launches are all numbered 1xx or 2xx. Was there any rationale to this?
Three of the original R&D missiles were converted for Juno II flights. An additional seven Juno II launch vehicles were built new, resulting in a grand total of at least 101 Jupiter or Juno II vehicles manufactured. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: Proponent on 07/04/2011 02:01 pmWas there any particular reason for use of the HUNTSVILEX and PATHSI-DER codes? The codes being so simple, it seems unlikely they would have been taken seriously as ways of maintaining secrecy.They were likely trying to guard the secret number of missiles produced. The codes wouldn't have been seen by the public during the R&D phase, because the Army controlled the images, the vehicles were shrouded and airlifted in, and all services kept the press off of the base, too far away to make out such details. Determined spies wouldn't have had to decipher the codes based on images of missiles. They would have gained access to appropriations documents or worked from the inside, maybe even helping build the missiles. A code simply made it more difficult for Soviet intelligence to get the answers (i.e., they couldn't do it by reading the newspapers), and probably bought some time. Part of the spying game is making the other guy devote his intelligence resources. - Ed Kyle
Is there a significant difference between VIP visits of yesteryear and today?
Here Jupiter AM-23 begins it s errant flight aloft. Not only was the Explorer 7 gang shook up but I might think the Transit 1A and Vanguard 3 crews were relieved - although at a greater distance.
Quote from: Art LeBrun on 07/27/2011 05:47 amHere Jupiter AM-23 begins it s errant flight aloft. Not only was the Explorer 7 gang shook up but I might think the Transit 1A and Vanguard 3 crews were relieved - although at a greater distance.I wonder if the burst of gas visible in the second photo might be related to the cause of the failure. The cause was officially listed as due to a failure pressure sphere (helium?) connection. - Ed Kyle
Additional images of Jupiter processing in Hanger R and at LC-26A 1960-1961............
10/20/60 Jupiter CM-217 LST CC LC-26A *11/03/60 Juno-2 AM-19D Explorer 8 CC LC-26B 02/25/61 Juno-2 AM-19F Explorer S-45 CC LC-26B F04/22/61 Jupiter CM-209 CTL CC LC-26A *04/27/61 Juno-2 AM-19E Explorer 11 CC LC-26B
IMAGE 1:Definitely CM-217 flew with the surrounding petals.IMAGE 2: CM-209 looks flight ready but no petals.IMAGE 3: CM-114 does not appear to have petals (extreme contrast)Need more documents - need more photos: a common issue
Quote from: luke strawwalker on 07/20/2011 07:40 pmHey Ed, Got any links to studies or anything detailing the Mercury-Jupiter?? This would be TERRIFIC stuff for the space modeling community... Later! OL JR Nothing yet. ... - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 07/21/2011 08:36 pmQuote from: luke strawwalker on 07/20/2011 07:40 pmHey Ed, Got any links to studies or anything detailing the Mercury-Jupiter?? This would be TERRIFIC stuff for the space modeling community... Later! OL JR Nothing yet. ... - Ed KyleA bit of an update on this question. The Mercury capsule was 74.5 inches in diameter at its base. The Jupiter "aft unit" (guidance and control section) was only 65 inches in diameter at its top end. The 88 inch tall guidance section transitioned from the 105 inch diameter Jupiter body down to the 65 inch wide missile nose cone. Reworking the aft unit to provide a larger diameter base to hold Mercury would have been a substantial development exercise, because the ST-90 guidance platform was located in the forward end of the section, behind pressure bulkheads I believe. A redesign was of course possible, but NASA soon deem it not worthwhile for only two launches. - Ed Kyle
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.
I wonder if the late Dr. Von Braun ever considered mounting an Abel booster (for 2'd stage) and an Vanguard third stage on top of a Jupiter.My quesstimate is that such a combo would have boosted a 100Ib+ payload into LEO.
A final look at Jupiter, with a rundown of displayed vehicles. I may update this in coming days.http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/jupiter8.htmlI would love to know more details on these displayed vehicles. One of them might be Missile 101, the first IOC Jupiter. - Ed Kyle
Saw the one in Hangar R with others, they look good
Quote from: Jim on 08/15/2011 12:41 amSaw the one in Hangar R with others, they look goodIs that the one that was displayed at LC 26 (my photo shows that one above)? Are these now going to stay in Hanger R? - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 08/15/2011 02:47 amQuote from: Jim on 08/15/2011 12:41 amSaw the one in Hangar R with others, they look goodIs that the one that was displayed at LC 26 (my photo shows that one above)? Are these now going to stay in Hanger R? - Ed Kyleyes, but don't know if they are staying in thereThere were the following in the hangar:JupiterThorBlue ScoutRascalPolarisMaceMatadorSnarkBomarc
I have to go back for that, but I will
Quote from: Art LeBrun on 08/08/2011 06:44 amAnother 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
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.
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.
