 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Space History / April 2004The American Experience- "The Satellite Sky"
I was trying to dig up info today on n the filmed views of the Earth taken out of the Vostok/Voshkod, and rewatched my tape of this- which is downright priceless; lots of rocket explosions (including, at the beginning, the _entire_ Atlas flight that drops its flaming tail section back near the blockhouse), The hilarious Laika Cigarettes commercial (what is _wrong_ with that guy?), and of course Khruschev's statement to Nixon that "In the Soviet Union, we do not kill flies with our nostrils!" It even has beatniks. Highly recommended if you can find a copy. Pat > I was trying to dig up info today on n the filmed views of the Earth > taken out of the Vostok/Voshkod, and rewatched my tape of this- which [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It even has beatniks. > Highly recommended if you can find a copy. My favorite American launch failure film was of a Thor (IIRC) which rose about 20 feet above the pad, turned sideways and slowly arced across the Banana River, impacting on the other side. While the Thor was supposed to be an Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile (IRBM), that particular one was "informally" designated the one and only IBRM -- the Inter- Banana River Missile. Doug dvandorn@NOSPAM.mn.rr.com >My favorite American launch failure film was of a Thor (IIRC) which rose >about 20 feet above the pad, turned sideways and slowly arced across the >Banana River, impacting on the other side. While the Thor was supposed >to be an Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile (IRBM), that particular >one was "informally" designated the one and only IBRM -- the Inter- >Banana River Missile. Was that the Juno II launch? The Juno launch is on this also. There is also a great Titan I that goes wobbling all over the place, and some really nice footage of the Vanguard debacle. My favorite rocket failure is the Polaris that's first stage blows up on ignition, and the second stage ignites and leaves. Pat >My favorite rocket failure is the Polaris that's first stage blows up on >ignition, and the second stage ignites and leaves. What's not shown in the film, but was described by participants; That 2nd stage arced over and flew a course that took it... Directly towards a trailer on which a second Polaris was currently sitting. My personal favorite is the D5 that flew the loop-de-loop because of damage to the first stage during ejection. D.  SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. >My personal favorite is the D5 that flew the loop-de-loop because of >damage to the first stage during ejection. Can you imagine what the sub crew did when that thing cleared the water? I'm trying to remember if they had the periscope up when it launched; if so- what would your response be when whoever is looking through it suddenly screams and dives for the deck? Pat >>My personal favorite is the D5 that flew the loop-de-loop because of >>damage to the first stage during ejection. > >Can you imagine what the sub crew did when that thing cleared the water? Don't have to, used to work with the guy who was sitting the Launcher console for that launch. :) They heard the normal (loud) launch noises followed by an enormous 'kaboom' when the range destruct package was activated. Scared the hell out of them. >I'm trying to remember if they had the periscope up when it launched; Impossible. Launch depth is considerably deeper than periscope depth. What you see in photographs of submerged is the LONARS mast though what the acronym stands for escapes me at this late date. LONARS is installed on SSBN's when they test fire missiles, it's great height meant that its upper end is above water when the boat is at firing depth. (Firing depth is too deep to use the submarines own navigation and communication antennas.) It's used for radio communication with range safety and exact determination of the SSBN's position at launch time. The upper end of the mast can be seen in these launch photographs; http://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/a-1_01.jpg http://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/a-3_01.jpg http://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/c3-DFSC8408113_JPG.jpg http://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/slbm-dvic419.jpg http://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/slbm-dvic420.jpg This picture (http://boomer.user-services.com/archives/980727-07-l.html) shows the LONARS mast installed on the USS Henry Clay. Prior to the wall coming down, it was the only publically available photograph (that I know of) showing the mast installed. Previously they were classified because they revealed launch depth. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. >>Can you imagine what the sub crew did when that thing cleared the water? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >noises followed by an enormous 'kaboom' when the range destruct >package was activated. Scared the hell out of them. If that thing had performed a 180 degree loop and went into the water nose-first, that whole test could have ended a lot different; it had almost finished two complete loops before they destructed it, and that may have been enough time to dive right down onto the submarine's top side and ka-blewey. >This picture >(http://boomer.user-services.com/archives/980727-07-l.html) shows the >LONARS mast installed on the USS Henry Clay. Prior to the wall coming >down, it was the only publically available photograph (that I know of) >showing the mast installed. Previously they were classified because >they revealed launch depth. I have forwarded this picture to my good friend in the the German Naval Ministry; he is a great enthusiast regarding both sub-marine vessels and the infernal devices that may be fired from them, especially those designed to carry radium explosives to great distances. He has a friend of Japanese extraction who is also greatly interested in them, as his country may well acquire a submersible vessel in the not-too-distant future, and given the primitive state of engineering science that yet exists in Japan, I am sure that they will give consideration to buying one of our excellent Holland or Lake sub-marine boats. Pat >>My favorite rocket failure is the Polaris that's first stage blows up on >>ignition, and the second stage ignites and leaves. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >My personal favorite is the D5 that flew the loop-de-loop because of >damage to the first stage during ejection. In "V-2" Walter Dornberger describes a test flight in which the A4 sat on its exhaust like a Harrier jet, neither going up or down, and the photographer ended up pointing the camera _down_ at the rocket. Does that film survive? SignatureSave the Hubble Space Telescope! Remove spam and invalid from address to reply. > In "V-2" Walter Dornberger describes a test flight in which the A4 sat > on its exhaust like a Harrier jet, neither going up or down, and the > photographer ended up pointing the camera _down_ at the rocket. Does > that film survive? I don't know if it's the same one, but I have seen a film of an A-4 that does hover for a few seconds as it drifts around over the pad, frying the whole area with its exhaust. Pat > > In "V-2" Walter Dornberger describes a test flight in which the A4 sat > > on its exhaust like a Harrier jet, neither going up or down, and the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that does hover for a few seconds as it drifts around over the pad, > frying the whole area with its exhaust. Yeah, I've seen that one. But the absolute best A4 launch accident footage I've seen is of the rocket starting up, coming up to full thrust, releasing from its launch ring, and then shutting down. The rocket seems to sit there for just a moment, then slowly tips over. As it lands on its side, you can see the fuel and LOX tanks fail, and for just a split-second you can see the fluid begin to flow along the ground -- then all Hell breaks loose. It's probably the most common footage of an A4 explosion, but it's still one of the best. Doug dvandorn@NOSPAM.mn.rr.com Hi all > Yeah, I've seen that one. But the absolute best A4 launch accident > footage I've seen is of the rocket starting up, coming up to full [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > -- then all Hell breaks loose. It's probably the most common footage of > an A4 explosion, but it's still one of the best. Sounds spectacular Doug. I must have been living under a rock for all of my 29 years. I've managed to miss seeing this footage. You wouldn't happen to know somewhere on the Net where I could download a clip of it. From your descriptions it rates up there with the Hinderburg film and some of the early American launcher mishaps. > Doug > dvandorn@NOSPAM.mn.rr.com Thanks and regards Frank > Hi all > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > From your descriptions it rates up there with the Hinderburg film and some > of the early American launcher mishaps. I don't know if it's as spectacular as the Hindenburg explosion -- the V2 was a lot smaller than the later rigid airships -- but it really is something to see. I just spent about 10 minutes looking for a link to a downloadable or streaming version of the film, and can't find it easily because of the overwhelming number of hits you get when you look for info on the V2. But I'm sure it's out there somewhere... Doug dvandorn@NOSPAM.mn.rr.com >Sounds spectacular Doug. I must have been living under a rock for all of my >29 years. I've managed to miss seeing this footage. You wouldn't happen to >know somewhere on the Net where I could download a clip of it. It may be on here: http://www.v2rocket.com/start/others/aud_vid.html Pat "Our main goal for a long time was to make it more dangerous to be in the target area than to be part of the test crew." - Wernher von Braun Matt Bille (MattWriter@AOL.com) OPINIONS IN ALL POSTS ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE AUTHOR >Yeah, I've seen that one. But the absolute best A4 launch accident >footage I've seen is of the rocket starting up, coming up to full >thrust, releasing from its launch ring, and then shutting down. Nah, it's the one that takes off, climbs skyward, slowly arcs over....and power dives into the Luftwaffe airfield next door. That, and the one that takes off and promptly flies horizontally into the sandbank surrounding the launch pad. Pat >...the rocket starting up, coming up to full >thrust, releasing from its launch ring, and then shutting down. The >rocket seems to sit there for just a moment, then slowly tips over... I recall some old rocketeer or other commenting that he flinched every time he saw the DC-X stop in mid-air... SignatureMOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. | henry@spsystems.net > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >I recall some old rocketeer or other commenting that he flinched every >time he saw the DC-X stop in mid-air... The A4 that hovers eventually begins to rise as its weight decreases due to fuel burn; there is another shot of one that gets airborne, rises about a hundred feet up, then shuts down dead and falls out of the camera view... a second or two later debris and fumes rise into the bottom of the camera view. AFAIK A4s didn't have a self destruct system... so if something went funny on liftoff, everybody just peed their pants and either hid or ran depending where the rocket appeared to be going. _And look what I found!_: http://www.jirzy.webzdarma.cz/e6.html The photos of the one tipping over on the pad, along with lots of other failures. The "hoverer" is Start 4. The one that falls out of the camera frame is Start 21. Start 23 is a launch of the winged A4b. Pat > > > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > The one that falls out of the camera frame is Start 21. > Start 23 is a launch of the winged A4b. And the one I was speaking of, with a camera vantage above the launch pad, is "Start 9 , P7, 1.7. 1943 : Very known failure of A-4." This picture series even includes one of the color frames from the original color footage. That is *exactly* the one I was spekaing of.. You can see as it falls over on its side, the nosecone pops off and the body of the rocket begins to deform (and while it's hard to see in the stills, liquid kerosene and LOX start flowing out over the ground) before the fireball just develops, full-blown, from one frame to the next. Doug dvandorn@NOSPAM.mn.rr.com >That is *exactly* the one I was spekaing of.. You can see as it falls >over on its side, the nosecone pops off and the body of the rocket >begins to deform (and while it's hard to see in the stills, liquid >kerosene Alcohol in this case; the German's probably wished they'd had enough petroleum products to fuel A4's with kerosene. (For a _really- strange fuel, one has to go back to some of the early French rockets which were powered by Nitric Acid and Turpentine.) Pat > >That is *exactly* the one I was spekaing of.. You can see as it falls > >over on its side, the nosecone pops off and the body of the rocket [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > (For a _really- strange fuel, one has to go back to some of the early > French rockets which were powered by Nitric Acid and Turpentine.) Of course you're right -- I knew that. I must have been thinking of von Braun's later fuels-of-choice (especially for the Saturns). I plead drugs. (Cluster migraines, so I'm on a really weird mix of Prednisone and Percocet. Makes me both hyper and floaty at the same time...) Doug dvandorn@NOSPAM.mn.rr.com >Of course you're right -- I knew that. I must have been thinking of von >Braun's later fuels-of-choice (especially for the Saturns). > >I plead drugs. (Cluster migraines, so I'm on a really weird mix of >Prednisone and Percocet. Makes me both hyper and floaty at the same >time...) Well, at least you weren't the one who confused the Thor and Jupiter/Juno II rockets... I'm still kicking myself over that one. I associate the two together as they were built at the same time for the same mission, and used almost identical motors. Pat > (For a _really- strange fuel, one has to go back to some of the early > French rockets which were powered by Nitric Acid and Turpentine.) Right. It was the second version of Veronique rocket, launched for the first time in 59 First version (first launch in 52) used nitric acid and kerozen F. > >My favorite American launch failure film was of a Thor (IIRC) which rose > >about 20 feet above the pad, turned sideways and slowly arced across the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Pat Wrong missile. The Juno was a derivative of the Jupiter missile developed by the Redstone Arsenal at Huntsville, Alabama. The Thor was developed by Douglas Aircraft Co. at Santa Monica, California. Back in the early days the Army and Air Force had competitive IRBM programs and the Thor was an Air Force missile. Mike Walsh >> > >Wrong missile. The Juno was a derivative of the Jupiter missile developed >by the Redstone Arsenal at Huntsville, Alabama. AH, sh.t! :-[ I should have known that any day of the week! I even looked up pictures of Juno II launches trying to find the famous picture of the one going horizontal just after launch; the word "Thor" didn't sink in. The launch I was thinking of was Explorer S-1 on July 16th, 1959. Pat > > >My favorite American launch failure film was of a Thor (IIRC) which rose > > >about 20 feet above the pad, turned sideways and slowly arced across the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > The Thor was developed by Douglas Aircraft Co. at Santa Monica, California... The Mercury chapter of PBS' "Spaceflight" has some really excellent Atlas test launch failure footage from the Cape, including a weirdly Wile E. Coyote-ish specimen that leaps crazily off the pad, barely clears the tower, then immediately turns in mid-air and plunges towards the ground. The funniest of that batch, though, is an Atlas which rises maybe a third of the way up the tower, stops, and then, not falling back, but hovering on its plume, slowly begins to translate horizontally away from the tower -- standing perfectly straight up the whole time, until detonated by RS. I thought it hilarious that a rocket so obviously f.cked up would still have at least enough systems working to be able to stand straight up and hover while horribly malfunctioning. Any of that old Atlas/Mercury test film in this series? Signature"All over, people changing their votes, along with their overcoats; if Adolf Hitler flew in today, they'd send a limousine anyway!" --the clash. ___________________________________________________________________ Mike Flugennock, flugennock at sinkers dot org Mike Flugennock's Mikey'zine, dubya dubya dubya dot sinkers dot org On 4/21/04 8:42 AM, in article 71v43mm0zk-2104041142130001@paste.sinkers.org, "Mike Flugennock" <71v43mm0zk@stinkers.org> wrote: >>>> My favorite American launch failure film was of a Thor (IIRC) which rose >>>> about 20 feet above the pad, turned sideways and slowly arced across the [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > have at least enough systems working to be able to stand straight up and > hover while horribly malfunctioning. All it would take is reduced thrust - like a draggy turbine. The autopilot would keep it upright. Brett > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > All it would take is reduced thrust - like a draggy turbine. The > autopilot would keep it upright. Yeah, but can you imagine the frantic engine gimballing that had to have been going on the keep the damn thing upright? At least that proved to the naysayers that a rocket can, indeed, be very finely controlled through engine gimbals alone. Doug dvandorn@NOSPAM.mn.rr.com >> <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >the naysayers that a rocket can, indeed, be very finely controlled >through engine gimbals alone. Or exhaust vanes as the Germans did (see my post about the V2/A4 in this thread). > >> <snip> > >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Or exhaust vanes as the Germans did (see my post about the V2/A4 in this > thread). Yeah -- the V2/A4 and the Redstone/Jupiter all used exhaust vanes, and as I recall suffered from vane erosion and from a slight but significant reduction in total isp because of them. I believe the MX-774 was the first rocket (at least the first American rocket) to demonstrate the effectiveness of engine gimbaling for guidance and control. Doug dvandorn@NOSPAM.mn.rr.com >Yeah -- the V2/A4 and the Redstone/Jupiter all used exhaust vanes, and >as I recall suffered from vane erosion and from a slight but significant >reduction in total isp because of them. I believe the MX-774 was the >first rocket (at least the first American rocket) to demonstrate the >effectiveness of engine gimbaling for guidance and control. The Soviets stuck with exhaust vanes for a very long time; Scud missiles still use them. Pat > Any of that old Atlas/Mercury test >film in this series? > "The Satellite Sky" is a one-hour show, not a series, but besides the atlas that goes up wobbling and explodes before falling back the earth with it's fuel tank burning, there is of course one of the Atlas-Able failures where they hit the ignition button and the sucker just instantly blows without even moving an inch. One of the best explosions I've seen is the Thor with the live atomic warhead on it that blows on the pad at Johnston Atoll in "Trinity and Beyond"- pieces of flaming Uranium 238 tamper and Plutonium go flying all over the place when the warhead single-point self-destructs after the missile catches fire during ignition. Pat >> Any of that old Atlas/Mercury test >>film in this series? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > all over the place when the warhead single-point self-destructs after > the missile catches fire during ignition. That was the warhead flying apart? I had gathered from mumbletymumble that the warhead ended up in the drink after the missile may or may not have waited for range safety to blow it up, to be fished out rather later by the lowest-ranking individuals with the proper dive certifications. Either way, a low point in both the annals of weapons testing and submarine salvage. Bill Keel >That was the warhead flying apart? I had gathered from mumbletymumble >that the warhead ended up in the drink after the missile may or may not have >waited for range safety to blow it up, to be fished out rather later >by the lowest-ranking individuals with the proper dive certifications. >Either way, a low point in both the annals of weapons testing and >submarine salvage. This one went up on the pad before liftoff; a fire starts at the base of the Thor, and begins moving up it while the rocket remains largely intact; then at about the time the Lox tank is about to blow, the warhead self-destructs and burning stuff goes flying all over the pad area- they had a hell of a time cleaning it all up. Pat |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.