Talk:Redstone (rocket)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bold text

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Under a proposal to clean up inconsistent disambiguation of rocket article titles, this article, Redstone (rocket), may be moved to PGM-11 Redstone.
At this stage, it is only a proposal at an early stage of discussion, but you are encouraged to contribute to the discussion, which is located here.


Contents

[edit] pic

Whats up with the pic? it says on the image page that its a composite, and the article says that there is a hole in the ceiling to allow the rocket to fit. the rocket in the picture is way too small. Perhaps someone could delete the photo and/or get a new one because this one is misleading? thank you. Ilikefood 22:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the referenced newsreel. The camera never caught the full Redstone when it was erect- it paned down. The image was formed from three screenshots from the reel to form a vertically panoramic image. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 02:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 continuation of pic discussion

I don't deny that they got the missile in there, but the hole in the ceiling bit sounds strange. First there is the fact that said missile probably didn't have:
  • Fuel
  • Warhead
  • Engine (internal components, they probably left the engine bell attached for aesthetics)
Since it wasn't going to be launched from there, these items would not be necessary. They could have just brought it in by sections and assembled it inside. Granted they may not have had doorways big enough, unless they decided to remove them temporarily. That would make more sense than cutting into the roof since replacing a door is easier than patching a hole where previously there wasn't one. Anynobody 09:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
If you check the image, it is a screenshot from a video.[1] It looks like they hauled it in horizontally, fully assembled (including the pointy part on top of the nosecone- what is that?) and used manpowered hoists to raise it. So, if it went from horizontal to vertical, it would have left a furrow in the ceiling, not just a small hole. This news article [2] and this [3] mention the hole and this [4] has a photo. John F. Zerbey, the engineer who proposed the idea, just died in Feb.[5] That article also mentions a cartoon in the New Yorker- I tried a search, but the archive is down for maintenance (I'm not sure how far they go back anyway). There is no mention in the Time archives. This is just a SWAG: Perhaps they hauled it up, found it was too tall, lowered it, removed the point, hauled it back up, cut the hole and put the point back on. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I see where the hole came from, it's how they suspended the rocket. It was not supported on the ground, see picture:
Image:Redstone in Grand Central2.gif
Cable attached to ceiling
. The pointy part on top of the nosecone actually has different names depending on the function, and rocket. For example on the tip of the Redstone rockets that launched Mercury capsules was actually a set of four escape rockets and a parachute. If the top of a ballistic missile is especially blunt, sometimes a point is added to create a shock wave ahead of the nose itself to assist re-entry. Anynobody 22:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I see the cable now. It couldn't have hung by just the one cable could it? It is difficult to see if it is actually hanging. or on the floor. A Redstone weighed about 1200 kg with fuel. The Grand Central Terminal article says "Grand Central's Main Concourse played host to an American Redstone missile. With no other way of erecting the missile, the hole had to be cut in order to lift it into place." I knew Mercury had escape rockets. I suspect it has to do with laminar flow. I was a Pershing tech- it didn't need that protrusion. According to this,[6] the date of the newsreeel is 1957/07/08.--Gadget850 ( Ed) 01:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

And the ceiling height is 125 feet, Redstone was about 83 feet tall.
If they left out the internal stuff I think it would be light enough to suspend by a steel cable. (Essentially it'd be a big hollow metal tube.) Knowing your background I won't "dumb down" my explanations (I apologize if my last answer sounded patronizing). I don't think the Redstone needed a Drag Resistant Aerospike, the nose looks "sharp" enough. Do you remember how much a launch ready Pershing weighed? We could deduct warhead, fuel, and engine weights to give a ballpark idea of what an empty missile might weigh.
I don't see any supports near the ground, and if you look closely you can see people walking under it. (It just dawned on me that hanging it makes perfect sense, on the ground someone could knock it over.) Anynobody 02:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Pershing 2 weighed 7,490 kg at 10.6 m (see [[7]] for some infobox fiddling). 1200 kg can't be right for Redstone- it was three times as big as Pershing. A shell would make sense- they erected it by hand. Aerospike- interesting, I wasn't familiar with that one. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 03:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

1200 kg is the payload weight- the infobox does not have the missile weight. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
For some reason I thought the Pershing was a liquid fuel rocket too, reading up on it you are of course correct the Pershing was a more compact solid fueled design. I looked up some current steel cable types and strengths, granted in the 50's they probably were not as good of course. However if they were only half as strong, it would still be more than needed I think. (Actually the question becomes, could the ceiling handle it?).Galvanized wire ropewow 382.5 tons = 346,998.163 kg the strongest cable could hold a few (67.6 short tons) M1A2s off the ground. Anynobody 04:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I still think it could not have simply been suspended by one cable- the round would tend to spin with the breeze. Either there were multiple cables or it was anchored in some manner. I looked at the video and I'm still not sure I see people actually underneath it. Regardless, I think the text should reflect what is in the Grand Central Terminal article. Perhaps with a footnote that some sources incorrectly state that the hole was a result of the missile being too tall. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there really a breeze in Grand Central Station? I've never been there and it looks enclosed. Anynobody 23:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I made this quick animation to show what I mean, I definitely think there were other wires. Anynobody 00:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Cable attached to ceiling 2
Cable attached to ceiling 2

Any space that size will have some sort of breeze at some point. You can take a virtual tour.[8] This is getting off onto original research. I think we should reiterate the GCT article. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 01:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the discussion is mostly OR, for the sake of clarity: I'm not saying that it should be included. I was actually trying to disprove:

The missile was six inches too tall to fit, so a hole was cut in the ceiling.

and figure out (just for my and anyone else's curiosity on the talk page) how the heck they did that.

As to the article itself, I feel the sentence I identified should be removed. Otherwise the article is fine the way it is as a technical description. Anynobody 01:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted identified sentence, based on section below it seems that many more corrections are in order. Anynobody 01:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review

  • The article fails to identify which version of Redstone is the focus, and rather wanders amongst them all. This is important as Redstone was used in several programs- the Redstone MRBM, Mercury-Redstone, Jupiter-C and Juno 1. This might work best as a series- one general article linking to the variants. Designation Systems has a good overview of the Redstone MRBM[9], and Jupiter-C/Juno 1[10].
  • "The Jupiter IRBM (intermediate range ballistic missile) was a direct descendant of the Redstone". Wrong- this was Jupiter-C. Jupiter (missile) was a completely different system.
  • The infobox needs to be updated- it is missing a lot of specs.
  • Trivia should be folded into the body and reworded per above. This was the MRBM version.

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the original author of this article did a rather credible job, considering the fact that he/she most likely had no first-hand knowledge or hands-on experience with the Redstone missile. As someone who has both, as of today I have started to make some corrections and additions to this article, without totally re-writing (or destroying) the original author's intent. In the coming days I will continue to make minor contributions.

With regard to a the above Review comments:

1. *"The Jupiter IRBM (intermediate range ballistic missile) was a direct descendant of the Redstone". Wrong- this was Jupiter-C. Jupiter (missile) was a completely different system.

Well, yes and no. Jupiter 1,500 mile range IRBM was not a "direct descendent of the Redstone" in the sense that Redstone was indeed a direct descendant of von Braun's V-2, but its concept and design by the von Braun team is based on the team's Redstone design. Jupiter employed inertial guidance, the ST-90 stable reference platform being an outgrowth of the Redstone ST-80; Jupiter propulsion system was also bi-propellant, substituting kerosene for the Redstone's ethyl alchohol fuel, but still using liquid oxygen as the oxidizer. Jupiter-C on the other hand was a modified tactical Redstone missile with an elongated (8') thrust unit minus the tactical Redstone guidance compartment and warhead, but adding solid rocket upper stages, and used among other things to place America's first satellite, Explorer 1, into orbit.

2. *The infobox needs to be updated- it is missing a lot of specs.

I will attempt to update/add specs, and also try to add a tactical Redstone launch photo to supplement the Mercury/Redstone photo currently shown.

--Redstonesoldier 23:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I may have misread descendant for variant, difficult to remember that far back. The PGM-19 Jupiter tends to wander and is a bit confusing. On infoboxes: This article is using a table instead of a standard infobox. You have choices between {{Infobox Weapon}}, {{Infobox Spacecraft}} and {{Infobox rocket}}. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 14:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading Statement

The article states:

'The Eisenhower administration, however, wanted the first U.S. satellite to be launched by a civilian developed rocket instead of a military missile as the military projects were top priorities and could not be delayed for civilian uses'

According to the PBS NOVA show 'Sputnik Declassified', this is not correct. Eisenhower primarily wanted to establish the right of flyover first, and felt a military missile would prevent that from happening as it was too threatening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.248.81 (talk) 13:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Applied this correction to the text of the section labelled "As a satellite launch vehicle". Redstonesoldier (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Preserved Examples?

Just wondering if anyone has information that could be added to this on examples of the Redstone which are still in existence, on display or otherwise preserved relatively intact. I recall there were several at the Kennedy Space Center when I visited several years ago which were configured in mock ups as the Jupiter, Mercury and other Redstone-derived rockets. My understanding at the time is that although the displays contained mockup upper stages or other components, the rockets were indeed real decommissioned redstones. There may be others preserved at other locations. Perhaps this may be worth adding? DrBuzz0 (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Redstone family

Trying to wrap my head around the uses of Redstone:

Redstone family
Redstone components used in 

Is this correct? Is this all? --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 14:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Redstone family:
additional uses:
  • Operation Hardtack atomic tests with missiles RS-50, RS-51 at Johnson Island. (ref: Bullard p. 149)
  • Television Feasibility Demonstration Project with missiles CC-2011, CC-2014, CC-2021 (I took part in this launch), CC2022 at WSMR. (ref: Bullard p.146)
  • Targets for Navy ABM project at PMR Pt. Mugu, California 1965. Unsure of number of missiles launched, or vehicle numbers used. (ref: Missiles and Rockets, December 13, 1965, at page 14 of www.myarmyredstonedays.com)
Redstone components used in:
have no info about uses with or in addition to Saturn S-1 or S-1B.
Hope this helps. -- Redstonesoldier (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Redstone family:
additional uses:
One more use - Jupiter A: Jupiter A program was started in late 1955 at Redstone Arsenal in support of Jupiter IRBM development program. Jupiter A's were Redstone missiles modified to check out components of the Jupiter IRBM. Twenty-five Jupiter A's were fired from Cape Canaveral between September 1955 and June 1958. They were part of the overall 37-missile Redstone test flight program, e.g., the Jupiter tests were piggybacked onto the Redstone R&D flights. --Redstonesoldier (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Here is a reference for Jupiter A. [11] --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 17:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)