Author Topic: Deployed Jupiter IRBM's  (Read 19283 times)

Offline RyanC

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 460
  • SA-506 Launch
  • Liked: 119
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Deployed Jupiter IRBM's
« Reply #20 on: 02/24/2013 10:47 pm »
The image below shows the Juno II upper stages tub assembly and you can compare it to the Jupiter at the left.

They used the same basic JPL "High Speed" Solid Upper Stage Tub design of clustered solids on Jupiter RTV, Jupiter-C, Juno I (Explorers), Juno II (various science payloads).

The big differences were AFAIK:

The first design for Jupiter RTV/Jupiter C had a 11-3 cluster.

Juno I for Explorer I went to a 11-3-1 cluster.

Juno I for Explorer IV changed the composition of the upper stage propellants, and also went from a steel motor case to Titanium case for the fourth stage. This change of casing on Stage IV was utilized in Juno II as well.

EDIT:

There were no less than three propellants used for the JPL High Speed Assemblies:

T17-E2: 219.8 ISP (another source gives it as 205 ISP sea level, 218 ISP vac)

Used on all the Stage II (11 motor assemblies), and the early Stage III (3 motor assemblies)

63% Ammonium Perchlorate
33.17% LP-33 Liquid Polymer
2.32% Paraquinone dioxime
1.16% Diphenylguanidine
0.02% Sulfur
0.33% Nylon Tow

JPL 136: 236 ISP

Used on Stage III (3 motor assembly) for Explorer IV and later launches.

72% Ammonium Perchlorate
25.7% LP-33 Liquid Polymer
1.7% Paraquinone dioxime
0.1% Sulfur
0.5% Monoastrol Blue

JPL 532A: 249 ISP

Used on Stage IV (1 motor assembly) for Explorer IV and later launches.

78.55% Ammonium Perchlorate
2% Zirconium Oxide
16.354% Niax 2025 Polypropylene Glycol
0.268% Trimethyol Propane
0.485% Alrosperse 11P
2.06% Toluene Diisocyanate (Dupont Hylene T)
0.243% Phenyl B-Napthylamine
0.04% Ferric Acetylacetonate
« Last Edit: 02/24/2013 11:20 pm by RyanCrierie »

Offline Art LeBrun

  • Photo freak
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2128
  • Orange, California
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Deployed Jupiter IRBM's
« Reply #21 on: 02/24/2013 11:07 pm »
Juno I for Explorer IV changed the composition of the upper stage propellants, and also went from a steel motor case to Titanium case for the fourth stage. This change of casing on Stage IV was utilized in Juno II as well.
The Explorer 4 instrument and stage changes might explain much of the 4 month gap between Explorer 3 and Explorer 4 flights. Nice summary.
« Last Edit: 02/25/2013 12:06 am by Art LeBrun »
1958 launch vehicle highlights: Vanguard TV-4 and Atlas 12B

Offline RyanC

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 460
  • SA-506 Launch
  • Liked: 119
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Deployed Jupiter IRBM's
« Reply #22 on: 02/24/2013 11:42 pm »
The Explorer 4 changes might explain much of the 4 month gap between Explorer 3 and Explorer 4 flights. Nice summary.

Explorer 4 was also 7~ pounds heavier than previous Explorers.

Offline Art LeBrun

  • Photo freak
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2128
  • Orange, California
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Deployed Jupiter IRBM's
« Reply #23 on: 02/24/2013 11:52 pm »
The Explorer 4 changes might explain much of the 4 month gap between Explorer 3 and Explorer 4 flights. Nice summary.

Explorer 4 was also 7~ pounds heavier than previous Explorers.
Some of the weight increase was due to lead shielding on 2 of the 4 radiation counters. The white temp control stripes were no longer applied. Early satellites were evolving due to discoveries.
« Last Edit: 02/25/2013 12:04 am by Art LeBrun »
1958 launch vehicle highlights: Vanguard TV-4 and Atlas 12B

Offline Davd

  • Member
  • Posts: 97
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Deployed Jupiter IRBM's
« Reply #24 on: 02/25/2013 12:22 am »
The Jupiter/Juno II stretch probably showed the lack of flexibility in the upper stages as that was where the "stretch" should have been done. Shame a liquid propellant second stage was not available as that would have provided more payload mass and less trajectory dispersion.

By comparison, Thor flew in more-or-less the stock IRBM configuration with its early space launches (they might have added extra structural reinforcement or improved engines on them, but I'm too lazy to look it up) because they had better upper stages. Though I don't know what prevented them from mating an Able or Agena to Jupiter. Probably just because it was a dead end launch vehicle and not seen as worth the effort.

Thor didn't start getting stretched tanks until later when the whole Thor/Thorad/Delta/Long Tank Thrust Augmented malarkey happened. I can't even keep track of the 20 or so variants they flew before standardizing on the Delta 3000 during the 70s.


Offline Art LeBrun

  • Photo freak
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2128
  • Orange, California
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Deployed Jupiter IRBM's
« Reply #25 on: 02/25/2013 12:36 am »
Thor had an advantage in first stretching the Delta and Agena stages, uprating the MB-3 engine and adding restart to Agena and the new Able-Star stage. And then along came the strap on solids in 1963.

Jupiter like Titan 1 was DOA after being pulled form operational sites. Personally I would have liked to seen both of them fly with liquid propellant upper stages.
« Last Edit: 02/25/2013 12:48 am by Art LeBrun »
1958 launch vehicle highlights: Vanguard TV-4 and Atlas 12B

Offline Davd

  • Member
  • Posts: 97
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Deployed Jupiter IRBM's
« Reply #26 on: 02/25/2013 03:21 am »
Thor had an advantage in first stretching the Delta and Agena stages, uprating the MB-3 engine and adding restart to Agena and the new Able-Star stage. And then along came the strap on solids in 1963.

Lessee. First they had the Thor-Able (Able being originally Vanguard's upper stages), which eventually became the Delta, and then the Able-Star, Agena variants, and eventually strap-ons in various configurations.

They also used different names for the same vehicle; Air Force launches carried the Thor and Able names while NASA used Delta, originally an alternative name for the Able second stage and later applied to the entire vehicle. Once strap-ons were introduced, the original Able stages were replaced by a bigger variant. Also (IIRC) Thor Agenas were used exclusively for military payloads and NASA didn't fly those. They later had the extended tank versions with strap-ons as well.

And that also doesn't cover the assorted "Thor Burners" with small solid upper stages used for random military payloads.

So finally in the mid-70s, this confused mob of Thor-derivative boosters was replaced by one standard Delta for both Air Force and NASA launches.

Quote
Jupiter like Titan 1 was DOA after being pulled form operational sites. Personally I would have liked to seen both of them fly with liquid propellant upper stages.

Oh well, at least unlike Titan I, Jupiter did get to fly as a space launcher (albeit poorly).

Incidentally, it was proposed in 1959 that Jupiter could be used as a Mercury launch vehicle, but NASA officials quickly dismissed the idea, not wanting to have another booster to test and debug. Thor probably would have made more sense, but I don't think that was ever seriously considered for the Mercury program. They likely proposed Jupiter because it was made by the same people and used the same pads as the Redstone.
« Last Edit: 02/25/2013 06:07 am by Davd »

Offline Art LeBrun

  • Photo freak
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2128
  • Orange, California
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Deployed Jupiter IRBM's
« Reply #27 on: 02/25/2013 06:37 am »
Also (IIRC) Thor Agenas were used exclusively for military payloads and NASA didn't fly those. They later had the extended tank versions with strap-ons as well.

NASA did fly 13 Thor-Agenas 1962-1970. Payloads included Alouette, Echo II, Nimbus, SERT, OGO and PAGEOS. These are distinguished in images by UNITED STATES and a NASA Thor-Agena number on the interstage.
« Last Edit: 03/04/2013 03:08 am by Art LeBrun »
1958 launch vehicle highlights: Vanguard TV-4 and Atlas 12B

Offline Davd

  • Member
  • Posts: 97
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Deployed Jupiter IRBM's
« Reply #28 on: 02/25/2013 10:05 am »
NASA did fly 13 Thor-Agenas 1962-1970.

Ah see I wasn't totally sure about that, which is why I stuck that (IIRC) in there.

Quote
Payloads included Alouette, Echo II, Nimbus, SERT, OGO and PAGEOS. These are distinguished by UNITED STATES and a NASA Thor-Agena number on the interstage.

Ok although as they were all flown from VAFB (CC never did Thor-Agena flights), the actual launches were probably done by the Air Force.

Incidentally, the above-mentioned payloads all survived their launch vehicles except one Nimbus that got destroyed by RSO after wandering off course. Which all things considered is pretty good considering the Thor's grim launch record during this period (15 failed space launches from CC pre-1974 and 27 (!) failures from VAFB). It's miraculous that any CORONA satellites made it to orbit at all.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35690
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 17768
  • Likes Given: 395
Re: Deployed Jupiter IRBM's
« Reply #29 on: 02/25/2013 10:42 am »

Incidentally, it was proposed in 1959 that Jupiter could be used as a Mercury launch vehicle, but NASA officials quickly dismissed the idea, not wanting to have another booster to test and debug. Thor probably would have made more sense, but I don't think that was ever seriously considered for the Mercury program. They likely proposed Jupiter because it was made by the same people and used the same pads as the Redstone.


Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35690
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 17768
  • Likes Given: 395
Re: Deployed Jupiter IRBM's
« Reply #30 on: 02/25/2013 10:47 am »

Ok although as they were all flown from VAFB (CC never did Thor-Agena flights), the actual launches were probably done by the Air Force.


No different than "NASA" Atlas Agenas or Titan IIIE's.  Anyways, it is the contractors that do the real work.  The actual real difference is who owns the contract for vehicle.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35690
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 17768
  • Likes Given: 395
Re: Deployed Jupiter IRBM's
« Reply #31 on: 02/25/2013 10:57 am »

And that also doesn't cover the assorted "Thor Burners" with small solid upper stages used for random military payloads.


Those Thors are reason for the subject of this thread.  They were the refurbed former IRBM's.

Also, it wasn't random military payloads; of the 31 launches, 29 were DSMP and its precurors.
« Last Edit: 02/25/2013 12:06 pm by Jim »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35690
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 17768
  • Likes Given: 395
Re: Deployed Jupiter IRBM's
« Reply #32 on: 02/25/2013 11:31 am »
They also used different names for the same vehicle; Air Force launches carried the Thor and Able names while NASA used Delta, originally an alternative name for the Able second stage and later applied to the entire vehicle.

Incorrect, the Able and Delta stages were different.  They had: different engines,  AJ10-40/41/42/101 vs AJ10-118; usually different guidance, STL vs BTL; and different contractor for stage design and construction, Aerojet vs Douglas.

The names of Thors with Vanguard derived upperstages were given names  from a mixture of old school and the NATO phonetic alphabet.  The Baker and Charlie versions were stillborn and Dog was not a good name for a rocket.  Since, Echo was the payload for the first Delta and for a while Thor Able-Star was Thor-Epsilon.

Offline Art LeBrun

  • Photo freak
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2128
  • Orange, California
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Deployed Jupiter IRBM's
« Reply #33 on: 02/25/2013 01:28 pm »


So finally in the mid-70s, this confused mob of Thor-derivative boosters was replaced by one standard Delta for both Air Force and NASA launches.


Thor-Agena was retired after 1972 when the recon programs had moved on to the Titan 3B and 3D and Thor-Burner was retired in 1980 as the DMSP had evolved to needing a larger SLV so Atlas E was assigned to fly the newer more capable weather satellites. The mobs were needed to fly the many varied payloads of the time.
1958 launch vehicle highlights: Vanguard TV-4 and Atlas 12B

Offline Davd

  • Member
  • Posts: 97
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Deployed Jupiter IRBM's
« Reply #34 on: 02/26/2013 01:05 am »
No different than "NASA" Atlas Agenas or Titan IIIE's.  Anyways, it is the contractors that do the real work.  The actual real difference is who owns the contract for vehicle.

NASA flew Atlas-Agenas mucho many times from CC though and Titan IIIE was used exclusively for planetary probes.

Quote
the Able and Delta stages were different.

I know that. If you look at pictures of them, they clearly don't look the same.

Echo I atop its booster. Since the shroud is not attached, this appears to be a prelaunch checkout.
« Last Edit: 02/26/2013 04:09 am by Davd »

Offline Davd

  • Member
  • Posts: 97
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Deployed Jupiter IRBM's
« Reply #35 on: 02/26/2013 01:14 am »
Thor-Agena was retired after 1972 when the recon programs had moved on to the Titan 3B and 3D and Thor-Burner was retired in 1980 as the DMSP had evolved to needing a larger SLV so Atlas E was assigned to fly the newer more capable weather satellites. The mobs were needed to fly the many varied payloads of the time.

Right. They eventually pruned down the large number of booster variations that proliferated during the 60s. Payloads would have still been extremely varied of course. The Thor/Delta family seemed to be the most varied considering that Atlas was standardized on Agena and Centaur versions early on (excluding the burner vehicles made from recycled missiles).

And then of course they also recycled Titan II ICBMs for space launches (the last of those flew in 2003), but it ended up not actually saving any money since the cost of converting them could have simply bought a new Delta booster.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14672
  • Liked: 7079
  • Likes Given: 1137
Re: Deployed Jupiter IRBM's
« Reply #36 on: 02/26/2013 01:45 am »
The Thor/Delta family seemed to be the most varied considering that Atlas was standardized on Agena and Centaur versions early on (excluding the burner vehicles made from recycled missiles).
One reason Thor-Delta had so many variations was that it was conceived as an "interim" machine to tide NASA over until Atlas Vega or Atlas Centaur were ready to handle the agency's missions.  But of course it had a lot of growth possibilities, may of them proven first in the better funded Corona/Keyhole Thor-Agena program, and the darn thing kept working better than any other rocket so NASA could not afford to get rid of it!

Goddard's Bill Schindler, Delta program manager for many years, is given credit for Delta's growth and success.  Prospective payload people would ask if Delta could handle their payload and he would always say "yes", then turn to his NASA/industry group to figure out how to make the thing do what he had already promised it could do!  In this way, Delta steadily became less "interim" and more "workhorse", through step-by-step improvements that helped preserve the reliability record.  Schindler, by the way, was ex-Navy, one of the Naval Research Lab Vanguard group that came over to NASA. 

I think there may be an interesting comparison made between the Navy way and the Air Force way that Thor was used during those years.  (The Army way, of course, was Marshall Space Flight Center's way.)  Under Schindler's direction, the Goddard group, I've read, was loath to shave margins, leaning toward a conservative approach.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 02/26/2013 01:55 am by edkyle99 »

Offline Davd

  • Member
  • Posts: 97
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Deployed Jupiter IRBM's
« Reply #37 on: 02/26/2013 02:21 am »
One reason Thor-Delta had so many variations was that it was conceived as an "interim" machine to tide NASA over until Atlas Vega or Atlas Centaur were ready to handle the agency's missions.

Because it was a less powerful vehicle than Atlas and Titan, being based on a smaller IRBM. The quirky Centaur was not as reliable or practical as the hypergolic/solid Delta upper stages and turned out that only planetary probes and some geosynchronous satellites needed it.

Quote
But of course it had a lot of growth possibilities, may of them proven first in the better funded Corona/Keyhole Thor-Agena program, and the darn thing kept working better than any other rocket so NASA could not afford to get rid of it!

That is true, although Atlas was pretty reliable after the 60s and didn't suffer the string of high-profile launch accidents that plagued Delta and Titan in the 70s-90s (the AC-67 loss in 1987 was totally preventable).

At the end of the day, Delta evolved into the bread-and-butter medium-lift booster with Titan handling heavy payloads while Atlas gradually receded to a niche role as (mostly) a platform for launching Centaurs.

Offline Art LeBrun

  • Photo freak
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2128
  • Orange, California
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Deployed Jupiter IRBM's
« Reply #38 on: 02/26/2013 02:37 am »
One reason Thor-Delta had so many variations was that it was conceived as an "interim" machine to tide NASA over until Atlas Vega or Atlas Centaur were ready to handle the agency's missions.

Because it was a less powerful vehicle than Atlas and Titan, being based on a smaller IRBM. The quirky Centaur was not as reliable or practical as the hypergolic/solid Delta upper stages and turned out that only planetary probes and some geosynchronous satellites needed it.

Those were the very reasons for Atlas-Centaur (add Surveyor) although it launched several heavy scientific satellites.
1958 launch vehicle highlights: Vanguard TV-4 and Atlas 12B

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35690
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 17768
  • Likes Given: 395
Re: Deployed Jupiter IRBM's
« Reply #39 on: 02/26/2013 02:40 am »
although Atlas was pretty reliable after the 60s and didn't suffer the string of high-profile launch accidents that plagued Delta and Titan in the 70s-90s (the AC-67 loss in 1987 was totally preventable).

Huh?  Not true.   Atlas had 10 Centaur, 1 Agena, and4 E/F (partial and full) failures in the same time frame where as Delta had 8 with more total flights (Aprox. 160 to 200).

AC-70, 71 & 74 were in the 90's, where as Delta had only D-228 and 241
« Last Edit: 02/26/2013 02:42 am by Jim »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0