Project Mercury

[Danderman]

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?

 

[Jim]

no, no, and yes

[Danderman]

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?

[kevin-rf]

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?

[JayP]

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.

[kevin-rf]

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.

[Art LeBrun]

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.

[edkyle99]

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

[Art LeBrun]

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.

[edkyle99]

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

[Art LeBrun]

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?

[Ronsmytheiii]

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.

[Proponent]

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.

[Proponent]

...  Jupiter was a true ICBM.

Er, you mean IRBM, no?