|
Author
|
Topic: Mercury-Redstone: Panic or planned use?
|
Duke Of URL
Member Posts: 1316
From: Syracuse, NY
Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted 05-20-2011 09:48 AM
   
Were the Mercury/Redstone launches part of a methodical plan or a panicked response to the fact we didn't have an ICBM yet that was man-rated and that the R-7 was further along than the Atlas?I've read that part of Mercury was to see if humans could actually stand to be blasted straight up for as long as it took to reach space. That would support the "plan" argument, as would the fact that originally each Mercury astronaut was to take a suborbital flight. However, there was the whole Man-In-Space-Soonest thing. That makes me wonder if the whole idea was to get anyone up any way. Does anybody have any facts one way or another? Is there anything on the subject from people there at the beginning like Holmes, Faget etc? |
Chris Dubbs
Member Posts: 145
From: Edinboro, PA USA
Registered: Nov 2004
|
posted 05-20-2011 10:51 AM
I'll go with the "get anyone up anyway" theory. Although this isn't directly responsive to your question, it helps to characterize the period. That wonderful new book Realizing Tomorrow: The Path to Private Space Flight by Dubbs and Paat-Dahlstrom, has a chapter on Robert Truax. When NASA was created, Truax was working for the DOD's Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA). Various NASA-ARPA committees were created to ease the transition to civilian control. Truax served on the Man in Space Committee with Max Faget. The two immediately fell into disagreement over which rocket to use for the Man in Space program. Faget favored the Atlas, while Truax favored the Atlas-Agena combination, which was just finishing development. The Atlas-Agena was a larger rocket, and to Truax's way of thinking it would have served both for launching the Mercury capsule and for launching the larger, two-man Gemini capsule to follow. But Faget wanted the simplest route to a Project Mercury launch vehicle, and his argument won out. The Atlas was developed for Project Mercury and the Titan II for Gemini. "We could have done it all at one time with the Atlas-Agena and saved a couple hundred million dollars," according to Truax. |
Skylon
Member Posts: 277
From:
Registered: Sep 2010
|
posted 05-20-2011 04:12 PM
I'm sensing revisionism here. I thought Gemini (or Mercury mk II as it was originally) wasn't even considered until Mercury was well along. Apollo was conceived before Gemini. The Atlas must have been selected for Mercury by that point.Mercury mk 2/Gemini was started when it was realized Apollo would take time to get ready, and there was a lot of stuff (rendezvous, EVA and long duration flight) to prove before they got there. I'm also not sure an Atlas-Agena launched Gemini would have been as capable as what flew. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2458
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 05-21-2011 01:23 AM
NACA was thinking of manned flights well before Mercury came into being. As in - By mid-1953 NACA firmly fixed space as one of its prime targets. At a July 1952 meeting it resolved that it would "devote... effort to problems of unmanned and manned flights at altitudes from 50 miles to infinity and at speeds from Mach 10 to the velocity of escape from the Earth's gravity." (Source: Project Mercury: A Chronology). Mercury, after a few diversions on the way, was the culmination of these efforts. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2458
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 05-21-2011 03:55 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Duke Of URL:
However, there was the whole Man-In-Space-Soonest thing. That makes me wonder if the whole idea was to get anyone up any way.
The MISS idea was one that was floated in 1958 against a background of rivalry between the branches of the military. The Air Force stepped with the 'Man in Space Soonest' concept. This was as a result of a working conference held in Los Angeles. It had three elements - - a high drag, no lift, blunt shaped craft landed by parachute
- a more sophisticated approach using a lifting body
- a long range programme culminating with a space station or with a trip to the Moon.
As I said in the post above - it was a diversion on the route that eventually led to Mercury. |
Byeman
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 05-21-2011 07:14 AM
Thor was even looked at. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2458
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 05-21-2011 08:21 AM
I can't find a reference to the use of a Thor. However, in 1958 there were proposals for the use of Titan, Atlas (plus one with a Hustler), Polaris, Minuteman (plus one in combination with a Jumbo).Also, there were a few where the launch vehicles were not specified. One of these was to launch an X-15 into orbit. |
Duke Of URL
Member Posts: 1316
From: Syracuse, NY
Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted 05-21-2011 11:02 AM
quote:
Originally posted by moorouge:
However, in 1958 there were proposals for the use of Titan, Atlas (plus one with a Hustler), Polaris, Minuteman (plus one in combination with a Jumbo).
Minuteman? I thought they didn't fly until '62, by which time Project Mercury was using Atlas boosters. I knew about Titan, but the Polaris thing is news.Jupiter was used as a booster and, in fact, launched Gordo on an early suborbital flight during December 1958, before astronauts were selected. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2458
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 05-21-2011 03:16 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Duke Of URL:
Minuteman?
Here is a list of boosters to be used in some of the proposals discussed at a January 1958 conference held at Wright-Patterson AFB - - Martin - Titan
- McDonnell - Atlas + Polaris
- Lockheed - Atlas + Hustler
- Convair - Atlas
- Republic - Minuteman + Polaris + Minuteman 2nd stage + Jumbo
- AVCO - Titan
- Goodyear - Atlas/Titan + Vanguard
|
Duke Of URL
Member Posts: 1316
From: Syracuse, NY
Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted 05-21-2011 06:47 PM
Do you mean the whole missile or components? I thought the Minuteman was a solid-propellant rocket and, while great as something that can be stored and then fired quickly, was too risky to used as a man rated booster. I'm not arguing, just expressing surprise. |
Rusty B
Member Posts: 239
From: Sacramento, CA
Registered: Oct 2004
|
posted 05-22-2011 04:12 PM
quote:
Originally posted by moorouge:
I can't find a reference to the use of a Thor.
There is at least one study on the NASA NTRS server about using the Thor as a test vehicle for the Mercury spacecraft:Design Feasibility Report, Thor Test Booster for the NASA Manned Space Capsule, December, 1958. |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 05-22-2011 04:30 PM
Main thing to keep in mind about the R-7 is we didn't really know all that much about its capabilities back in 1959 when Mercury was formed (the first Discoverer Corona satellites didn't really have any decent success yet and the U-2 incident pretty much kaboshed overflights). It could lift a lot, but nobody inside the US exactly knew its specifications as the USSR kept things pretty tightly under wraps until about 1967-68.Considering the rhetoric from the Soviet Union about their ICBM capability (which in reality wasn't really all that much with the R-7 as they only had a hand full available and needed a lot of prep time to fly them), developing an ICBM capability for the US was a top priority to counter a "perceived" Soviet threat. As such, Redstone was a consideration from day one since the Atlas had a long maturation period to becoming an operational ICBM and that project took priority in the DoD's mind. By comparison, the Redstone was essentially an off the shelf, ready to use booster which was availble for testing when project Mercury needed it. Titan may have been considered sooner, but the plan as I understand it was not to use it as a booster until it had fully matured as an ICBM as the priority was to get it deployed operationally in order to replace the Atlas and cut down the time to launch from when the order was given. When Titan went operational, then the Atlas found new life as a space booster for Mercury and the unmanned probes when combined with the Agena and Centaur upper stages (in much the same vein as the R-7s did for Russia when the smaller ICBMs came online). Concerning Truax and the Atlas Agena arguement, yes it could have done the job and then some, but at that point, I believe only a Thor Agena or two had flown and not the Atlas Agena combination. There were still quite a few uncertainties and I don't think Faget wanted to overcomplicate the situation. |
Duke Of URL
Member Posts: 1316
From: Syracuse, NY
Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted 05-22-2011 06:15 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Jay Chladek:
Main thing to keep in mind about the R-7 is we didn't really know all that much about its capabilities back in 1959 when Mercury was formed
I don't know about that. It was essentially the same rocket that launched early Sputniks. The Soviets made a huge deal out of their 6000 km test flight in August 1957 and then, after telling the world they would do just that during the IGY, started firing off Sputniks with it in October. So we knew what they had, and I think to suggest that we had no idea about the R7 and exactly what it could do is mistaken. Even without satellites the US had resources for getting information on the R7.. |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 05-23-2011 02:15 PM
There is a difference between what intelligence gathering agencies know and what elements are made public to a civilian agency such as NASA in the first year of its existance. Plus, while the CIA might have gotten some really good data on a booster and let other agencies know, those agencies don't necessarily always act upon it. There was quite a bit of agency in fighting during that time period.The state department at the time also tended to keep things like that hidden unless they could be verified through an independent source (such as USAF or direct CIA overflights with either U-2s or RB-47Es). It was that way during the Cuban Missile Crisis in any event according to the accounts on both sides that I read. So there is a difference between what was "known" and what was suspected to be known. Even in NASA's case, elements of the agency didn't really have a clear idea what the Vostok spacecraft looked like until about 1968. There are drawings on display at the Kansas Cosmosphere showing a Vostok style external launch shroud over a Mercury capsule as NASA was tasked to take a guess at what was under the shroud and that was one of the ideas they came up with. |
ilbasso
Member Posts: 1522
From: Greensboro, NC USA
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 05-23-2011 03:11 PM
I seem to remember that the shape of the Vostok R-7 booster rocket, with its four strap-on pods on the first stage, was a total surprise to the US. I recall that US analysts couldn't make the thrust and weight numbers add up, because they were assuming the rocket was cylindrical. |
Duke Of URL
Member Posts: 1316
From: Syracuse, NY
Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted 05-23-2011 04:22 PM
The Soviets tested the R7 in 1957 and were public about the results. They used R7 to launch several Sputniks prior to 1959 and weren't exactly shy about how they did it either. To suggest that the R7 never even came up in conversation is counter-intuitive at best. The Soviets were cagy about how many R7s they had, but weren't foolish enough to think we didn't know pretty much what it could do. And, since the R7 launched Korabl-Sputniks in 1960 and 61 I can't believe we had absolutely no idea about this booster and its capabilities. Just because the Buffalo Daily Trombone didn't carry the story doesn't mean it was a total secret. |
Duke Of URL
Member Posts: 1316
From: Syracuse, NY
Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted 05-23-2011 04:45 PM
quote:
Originally posted by ilbasso:
I seem to remember that the shape of the Vostok R-7 booster rocket, with its four strap-on pods on the first stage, was a total surprise to the US. I recall that US analysts couldn't make the thrust and weight numbers add up, because they were assuming the rocket was cylindrical.
It's like with ex-wives: sometimes it's better to play dumb. The Soviets had launched everything but Khruschev's bidet into orbit on the R7. We could track altitude, flight paths etc, and given their starting points would get a fairly accurate idea of what they could do. Don't forget the U2 was making overflights at the time, and you simply can't completely hush up something like a missile or satellite launch. Are you seriously suggesting we wouldn't schedule a U2 mission over Kapustin Yar or Plesetsk if we got wind of a launch? |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 05-23-2011 06:35 PM
From what I've read, only one U-2 flight was successfully flown over the R-7 test site and that was in April 9, 1960, less than a month before Fracis Gary Powers got shot down. The previous U-2 overflights over the periphery of the USSR were from bases in western Europe and the Far East and even as long legged as the U-2 was, it couldn't get to Tyrantum or the two operational ICBM bases, which were very deep in Soviet territory. It wasn't until the US managed to get permission to launch from Pakistan that they could do the flights deep over Soviet territory to photograph Tyurantum on that first flight (recovering in Iran). The second flight from Pakistan flown by Powers was to recover in Norway and fly over Plesestk as part of its assigned flight track, but it didn't make it. |
Duke Of URL
Member Posts: 1316
From: Syracuse, NY
Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted 05-23-2011 06:54 PM
We can bat this back and forth all day, but I keep asking myself what it has to do with the original post and come up without any good answers.I'll say you have an interesting point though. |
Rusty B
Member Posts: 239
From: Sacramento, CA
Registered: Oct 2004
|
posted 05-24-2011 05:57 AM
The Soviet missile and space program. What did the U.S. know and when did it know it?Here are the CIA intelligence reports released through FOIA: |
E2M Lem Man
Member Posts: 846
From: Los Angeles CA. USA
Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted 05-24-2011 01:45 PM
Interesting thread.The use of Redstone goes back to Project M.I.S.S. And specifically Project ADAM. Project Mercury was slated to use THREE boosters for manned missions originally- the North American Aviation HYRIDE rocket- which became the "Little Joe" was going to test the escape system with each astronaut- but this thought was dropped in favor of the Redstone tests and these were dropped after Grissom's flight. |
Rusty B
Member Posts: 239
From: Sacramento, CA
Registered: Oct 2004
|
posted 06-09-2011 08:48 PM
Here's some interesting info about early plans for Project Mercury from a Mercury Status Report in the NASA NTRS document archive. In early 1959 there were plans for 24 hour manned Mercury balloon flights launched from a ship and recovered in the ocean as part of astronaut training. It appears the Jupiter had too great a launch acceleration, so only two unmanned tests were planned. Project Mercury Status Report No.1 for period ending Jan 31, 1959 (PDF). Page 16: Balloon flights are planned for high-altitude qualification tests of the complete capsule including all instrumentation, retrorockets, drogue parachute, parachute systems, and recovery. A later phase will include manned flights for complete orientation of pilot and associated training through 24 hours at altitude followed try recovery at sea. The period of the capsule qualification operation is expected to extend from October 1959 through March 1960. Earlier dry runs to check out balloon flight techniques would be land based, probably at some military base where balloon flights have previously been made, and the capsule series is expected to be launched from shipboard off the Bahama Banks. Considerable experience exists within the military for both methods of balloon flight. Page 17: At present, two flight tests utilizing the Jupiter booster are planned. Both are to be unmanned because of the excessive longitudinal accelerations attained during the launching phase. The first flight will be made to qualify the manufacturer's capsule at the greatest load factor, 20g, anticipated during an abort from an orbital launch with the Atlas booster. This flight is planned for November 1959 or as soon as a contractor's capsule becomes available.At present, the second flight is scheduled as a back-up to the first. Hardware status: Two Jupiter boosters have been ordered from AEMA. Direct-support tests: Wind-tunnel tests of a capsule - Jupiter combination have not been made; however, it is anticipated that tests to determine the static stability and drag characteristics of the latest McDonnell capsule - Jupiter combination will soon be undertaken. Recovery: Standard recovery schemes will be utilized. That is, the capsule should be located upon reentry, and recovery should be made within three (j) hours after impact. Progress is being made in predicting the expected landing area on a statistical basis. |
advertisement