REDSTONE Redux?????

[dman]

With the emphasis on creating suborbital spacecraft was wondering if anyone
ever considered building a REDSTONE missile as a booster for a suborbital
launch?

REDSTONE played a vital role in the US space programs - it launched the first US satellites (Explorer series) and first American in space (Alan Shepard MR-3)

Was think along lines of 2 person capsule using REDSTONE booster. Couple
years back was proposal by some Canadians (Canadian Arrow) to use a V2
as a base for 3 person suborbital flights !

REDSTONE is a proven technology (60 years old) and the plans I believe are
public domain (Former US Army missileman has published blog with the training and firing manuals for REDSTONE)

What is your opinion on fesibility?????

 

[PhantomCruiser]

Are there any Redstone rockets left in the inventory?

I'm not sure the Joe Average person would be willing to put up with the G loads involved with the Redstone. For the "civilian" astronaut market they may be better off with Virgin Galactic and/or Lynx, just for creature comforts.

Food for thought though...

 

[Dantassii]

Big problem with the Redstone is the reentry. Up to 10-11 G's at peak load and it lasts for quite a few seconds. The average healthy person can be expected to tolerate up to 3 G's for a few seconds, but only a well trained athlete or test pilot knows how to stay alive at 10-11 G's for 5-10 seconds or more.

Nice idea though...

Dantassii
HUMONGOUS IMS shipbuilder

 

[RisingFury]

Redstone rocket?

 

[dman]

Mercury - Redstone flew rather steep trajectory which resulted in high G loads
on re-entry

Possible to adjust trajectory to a shallower profile in attempt to limit G's....

 

[Thunder Chicken]

Copahagen Suborbital

Copahagen Suborbital has been playing with a similar concept, don't know how far along they are. They did some abort systems tests in 2011.

http://copsub.com/

About the closest I've seen to [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Astronaut_Farmer"]The Astronaut Farmer[/ame] in real life, but hey, good for them. I hope no one gets hurt.

 

[dman]

Copenhagen Suborbitals recently tried a static test of alcohol/LOX engine similar in concept to REDSTONE

Test ended in failure - weld failed on cooling jacket causing alcohol to spill
into combustion chamber sparking a fire

If go to their web page have video of failed test along with autopsy
showing failed welds

This was a smaller model of the one intending to use for suborbital flight

That engine is scheduled to have thrust of 259 kilonewtons (60,000 lbs)
putting it in between V2 and REDSTONE in power

Copenhagen Suborbitals

http://copsub.com/

---------- Post added at 12:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:30 AM ----------

Sent folks at Copenhagen Suborbital link to web page of retired US Army
missileman

His web page has PDFs of the REDSTONE training and firing manuals

Here is link

http://myarmyredstonedays.com/

Go to appendix for REDSTONE manuals

 

[Thunder Chicken]

Copenhagen Suborbitals recently tried a static test of alcohol/LOX engine similar in concept to REDSTONE

Test ended in failure - weld failed on cooling jacket causing alcohol to spill
into combustion chamber sparking a fire

If go to their web page have video of failed test along with autopsy
showing failed welds

http://www.youtube.com/embed/f-4n-2MtECE

Wow...that is about the most aesthetically pleasing rocket failure video I have ever seen.

Regarding CS's construction quality and suitability for manned-spaceflight, I think Douglas Adams said it best, "Extremely rickety' was one phrase that sprang to mind and 'Please may I get out?' was another."

 

[Phil Smith]

Hey everyone!

dman - I'd like it much! I got draft design of 2 stage vehicle for putting 15 kg satellite into LEO. Total booster weight - 12,700 kg (With 150kN first stage engine). If we replace 2nd stage and payload section with capsule, 1st stage is capable throwing up to 1,500 kg module on a ballistic trajectory like Redstone did, but for a fraction of the cost.
Right now I write some codes for matlab to precisely compute trajectories in 3 and 6 degrees of freedom systems and confirm vehicle capability.
So if you guys wanna join this project - welcome to the team (just let me know xD )
Perhaps I should create a topic with some pics and data.
PS one moment - i'm in Europe

 

[dman]

Wow - 1500kg on suborbital trajectory

Consider that Mercury weigned in 2800 lb (1350 kg) and that it was

Designed for orbital flights of 24 hours and had a retro rocket pack of 500 lbs (225 kg) and 500 lbs of H2O2 thruster fuel (thats 1000 lbs of weight right
there which probably can be eliminated or in case of thruster fuel seriously reduced by using cold jets)

Mercury was also over built in that engineers at time had only vague idea of
stresses spacecraft would endure

Probably can design a suborbital cradt weighing under 1500 lbs (600 kg)

May I ask what fuel rocket is using ?

150 KN thats about 40,000 lbs thrust, about 1/2 of REDSTONE

---------- Post added at 06:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:34 PM ----------

Regarding CS's construction quality and suitability for manned-spaceflight, I think Douglas Adams said it best, "Extremely rickety' was one phrase that sprang to mind and 'Please may I get out?' was another."

Thunder chicken

Yeah from looks of it - CS definiely needs help in welding the combustion chamber

Welds were too shallow (as stated in their autopsy report)

Wonder if have access to X ray machine to examine welds .........

 

[Notebook]

Redstone, and not to be forgoten, and it sometimes is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGM-17_Thor

N.

 

[dman]

Was proposal to have series of suborbital test flights of Mercury using JUPITER
IRBM as a booster

Was scrapped and Mercury went from REDSTONE to ATLAS orbital flights....

 

[RonDVouz]

Redstone, and not to be forgoten, and it sometimes is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGM-17_Thor

N.

Looks like it's got a Q-Tip for a warhead. :lol:

 

[Andy44]

http://www.youtube.com/embed/f-4n-2MtECE

Wow...that is about the most aesthetically pleasing rocket failure video I have ever seen.

Engineering failure as art. It really is beautiful.

Regarding CS's construction quality and suitability for manned-spaceflight, I think Douglas Adams said it best, "Extremely rickety' was one phrase that sprang to mind and 'Please may I get out?' was another."

There is a Redstone in the Smithsonian Udvar-Hazy Center with a Mercury capsule stacked on it and you can stand right next to it.

It's amazing how small the whole contraption is, and how simple-looking the Redstone is; not very high-tech at all. My friend said it best, "You mean to tell me they stuck a guy in that thing and and launched him into SPACE?! Are you freakin' kidding me?"

It goes without saying, of course, that if you asked me to get in there I'd do so without hesitation...well, as long as the same people who put Shepard in there are running things.

 

[Phil Smith]

Wow - 1500kg on suborbital trajectory

Consider that Mercury weigned in 2800 lb (1350 kg) and that it was

Designed for orbital flights of 24 hours and had a retro rocket pack of 500 lbs (225 kg) and 500 lbs of H2O2 thruster fuel (thats 1000 lbs of weight right
there which probably can be eliminated or in case of thruster fuel seriously reduced by using cold jets)

Mercury was also over built in that engineers at time had only vague idea of
stresses spacecraft would endure

Probably can design a suborbital cradt weighing under 1500 lbs (600 kg)

May I ask what fuel rocket is using ?

150 KN thats about 40,000 lbs thrust, about 1/2 of REDSTONE

---------- Post added at 06:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:34 PM ----------

Regarding CS's construction quality and suitability for manned-spaceflight, I think Douglas Adams said it best, "Extremely rickety' was one phrase that sprang to mind and 'Please may I get out?' was another."

Thunder chicken

Yeah from looks of it - CS definiely needs help in welding the combustion chamber

Welds were too shallow (as stated in their autopsy report)

Wonder if have access to X ray machine to examine welds .........

Dont forget about LES - so 1,500 kg is capsule weight + LES weight;

Here are some vehicle parameters:
1st stage:
Fuel - RP-1, oxidizer - LOX;
O/F - 2.479; burning time 185 sec;
Specific impulse (sea level) - 281.64 sec;
Thrust (sea level) - 150.0kN (33,700 lbs;
Thrust (void) = 172.5 kN (38,700 lbs);
Dry stage mass - 1,670 kg;
Propellant mass - 10,050 kg;
Engine Flow rate - 54.2 kg/sec;
Turbopump fed system;
Stage controls (there are 2 options):
a) One gimbaling engine (pitch & yaw) with eight small H2O2 thrusters (bank) at intertank section;
b) Two smaller chambers with common turbopump assembly (like Titan booster) - more undesirable high pressure piping, but thrusters is no longer needed.
But my vote is for first option.

Yep, total thrust is smaller than redstone cause this concept is much efficient.
And one of the primary goals - making a recoverable 1st stage, so for suborbital flights is a great feature.
Also wondering of 3d metal printing parts (for example - turbopump cases, inducers, impellers, etc.) - it will cost much cheaper than casting 'em.

And little schematic (see attachment file)

 

[dman]

Seems somewhat over complicated - especially in the gimballed engine mount
and H2O2 thrusters

Thing learn in "rocket sciene" is KISS - KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID

Every component has to be tested extensively, which is expensive in time and $$$

That is why choose REDSTONE as possible booster - technology while not
as efficent is simple and proven

Things like graphite jet vanes to divert exhaust and trim tabs on rudders for
flight control supplemented by air jets

REDSTONE design has been proven with some 100 firings (civilian anf military
version)

REDSTONE is public domain (though some bureacrats might balk at building 70 ft Medium range missile)

As for LES - was considering using it as separation rocket after booster
burnout

G Forces may make it little rough for passengers

 

[Phil Smith]

anyway, it will cost good pile of $$$, even if we have all drawing sets of the vehicle, testing is necessary ... A lot of testing and broken parts... Just because we build it for the first time and we dont know all secrets original engineers did.

KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID - good point, I agree

 

[dman]

Von Braum did 90 % of the work for us on the REDSTONE

Guidance and electronic systems would be replaced by moderm equipment vs the tube based originals

Modern materials and alloys could replace some of the structural members
reducing weight

 

[BruceJohnJennerLawso]

Guidance and electronic systems would be replaced by moderm equipment vs the tube based originals

Modern materials and alloys could replace some of the structural members
reducing weight

Still gotta test it. Even an upgrade can turn out to be a major bug if Murphy comes calling.

This is why space is so expensive :lol:

 

[orbitingpluto]

Even with modern electrical systems, and new computers, it's still a Redstone at heart. Meaning it's a improved V2, built to be a battlefield missile, and has all the strengths and weaknesses of one. Since you're intent on using a Redstone to fly people suborbitally, you run right up against the high G loads it places on it's passengers; no problem for warheads, but it is a problem for the presumably well heeled market that would be able to buy rides.

At the cost to create the tooling, workforce, and everything else to get to the point to where a new built Redstone arrives at the pad, you'll end up with a rocket that isn't suited to the market it intends to serve- why not hire a few engineers and at least spend that money on a rocket better suited to the job you intend it for?

It isn't like rocketry is a lost technology, or only able to be done by magic Germans. von Braun was using gimbaled engines at least as far back as October 1957, with the Jupiter missiles, the Russian had smaller engines(verniers) to provide steering along side the bigger engines on the R-7(around the late '50s); with decades of experience with better forms of steering, keeping things 'simple' seems like idolatry. Just because Redstone worked then, doesn't mean it is better than what we could do now. Or that trying to do so is too hard without the benefit of somebody like a von Braun.