Talk:Jupiter-C

Question

Question for this site.How long does this type of fuel last,is it harmful if found that it's shelf life is over?(environmently)

POV?

"Calling a Redstone-based rocket a Jupiter to show that something was getting done for the money paid for the Jupiter project is typical of the changes-of-name that take place in military industries." I'm not so sure about this... it seems a little POV'd, and not really on target for the Jupiter-C rocket article. If there's no response, I'll go ahead and delete.Sjcodysseus 05:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Contradiction

The date of the maiden flight in the table differs from that in the main article.

RE: The date in the maiden table refers to the first orbital flight, which isn't clearly labeled. Also, the burnout time listed in the table (120 s) refers to the burnout time of the original Redstone without the increased tankage. It's not clear which of the two figures given in the text (155 s and 157 s) is correct, but I can say that 155 seconds is the amount of time the Rocketdyne engine would take to burn all of the fuel at 100% throttle.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 11:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

[[Jupiter-C (rocket)]] → Jupiter-C – Unnecisarry Disambiguation GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 16:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support per nom and other recent rocket articles. David Kernow 01:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cleanup and split

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was to split.--GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 23:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

This article seems to conflate the Jupiter IRBM, the Jupiter-C sounding rocket, and the Juno I launch vehicle:

The Jupiter was an IRBM, and the Jupiter-C was not so the lead is clearly incorrect.

The Jupiter-C was a 3-stage sounding rocket, which was used to test re-entry vehicles.

The 4-stage launch vehicle described in much of the article is the Juno I, which was used to orbit satellites, including Explorer 1. It is commonly confused with the Jupiter-C because the only real difference is the presence of the upper stage. Even some official sources get this wrong from time to time.

Therefore, I propose that this article is cleaned up, and information on the Juno is split out to a seperate article. I would be happy to do this if consensus (or lack of objection) is reached. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 13:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, GW.Fl295 16:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It's been more than 5 days, no objections, so I am carrying out the split. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 23:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Confusion between Juno I and Jupiter-C

Confusion remains, both Juno I and Jupiter-C pages claims they launched Explorer 1 - phe 23:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Jupiter C was NOT a sounding rocket Mark Lincoln (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Jupiter C, like the Jupiter A which preceded, it was NOT a Sounding rocket. It was a research and development vehicle. This clearly stated in two Redstone Arsenal histories. "1 March 57 The first JUPITER R&D missile was fired, but the flight was unsuccessful."and "5 May 57 JUPITER C Missile RS-34 was fired to test thermal behavior of a scaled-down version of the JUPITER nose cone during reentry. The nose cone was not recovered; however, instrument contact with the cone through reentry indicated that the ablative-type heat protection for warheads was successful." See http://history.redstone.army.mil/ihist-1957.html

There is alsoclear mention of the purpose of the Jupiter C in the Redstone Arsenal history of the Jupiter program "In the beginning, a 50-missile test program was planned involving a composite of JUPITER C’s for re-entry vehicle tests, JUPITER A’s for component testing, and the JUPITER configured missile." and "The actual flight testing in support of JUPITER development was divided into three phases. Two of these used the REDSTONE as the flight test vehicle to prove out JUPITER components. Designated as JUPITER A’s, 25 missiles were fired between September 1955 and June 1958. Objectives of these tests were to obtain design criteria, apply the angle-of-attack meter to the IRBM, evolve separation procedures, prove guidance system accuracy, and design and prove propulsion system thrust control. To solve the re-entry problem, three missiles designated as JUPITER C’s were flown. As to the tally, 20 of the 25 JUPITER A’s were rated as mission achieved, two registered partial successes, and three were considered to be unsuccessful." See http://history.redstone.army.mil/space-jupiter.html

Jupiter C was renamed Juno I when modified as a satellite launch vehicle to meet the Eisenhower administration desire that a non-military vehicle be used to launch the first American satellite. (See: McDougal, Walter A. the heavens and the Earth a Political History of the Space Age, 1985 Basic Books NY ISBN 0-465-02887-Xpg 123) The Army considered the "Juno !" as a Jupiter C. (See http://history.redstone.army.mil/ihist-1958.html)

Scope of the Jupiter C program

The Jupiter C was created to perform nose cone development for the Jupiter IRBM. "Several of these rockets were assembled, but only three were flown as Jupiter reentry test vehicles (RS-27 on 20 September 1956, RS-34 on 15 May 1957, and RS-40 on 8 August 1957)." " Eighty-four days later, on 31 January 1958, the Army Ballistic Missile Agency launched the first U.S. satellite-Explorer I-into orbit. Following this successful launch, five more of these modified Jupiter-C missiles (subsequently redesignated Juno I) were launched in attempts to place additional Explorer satellites in orbit. Three of these attempts ended in failure. They were: Explorer II, RS-26, on 5 March 1958; Explorer V, RS-47, on 24 August 1958; and Explorer VI, RS-49, on 23 October 1958 The other two successful ones were Explorer III, RS~24, on 26 March 1958 and Explorer IV, RS-44, on 26 July 1958." See: http://history.redstone.army.mil/space-explorer.html

That is there were nine Jupiter C/Juno I launches Mark Lincoln (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

As for the renaming of the Jupiter C the credit for coming up with the name Juno goes to Dr. William Pickering. "On November 18, 1957 Dr. William Pickering, head of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, suggested to Medaris that the satellite-bearing version of the Jupiter C be renamed Juno." See: http://spaceline.org/rocketsum/jupiter-c.html Today not even NASA adheres to the fiction that Americas first satellite was launched by a "civilian" rocket. See: http://history.nasa.gov/sputnik/expinfo.html

The Jupiter C was developed into the Mercury Redstone vehicle See: http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/mercury/msfc_role.html

The name Juno II was used for the Jupiter missile when used to launch space probes See: http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/juno/juno.pdf

Why two changes

First the name of the Jupiter C's engine was 75-110-A-7. "A-7" was just a nickname. http://www.enginehistory.org/Museums/USSRC/USSRC_Redstone.shtml

Most Jupiter C's had four stages. The first three Jupiter Cs were limited to 3 in order to keep the Army from launching a satellite. "For these tests, the Agency used the composite rocket, first proposed for use in Project Orbiter. . . The final stage, intended to orbit a satellite in its former configuration, was replaced by a scaled-down Jupiter nose cone."

Mark Lincoln (talk) 22:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Per JPL Technical Report No. 32-31 Juno Final Report Volume I Juno I: Re-entry Test Vehicles and Explorer Satellites

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2096664633806173&set=p.2096664633806173&type=3&__cft__[0]=AZWbcYlAD222BBLv-ZtZ9dnIYVM8E6BkK9XNZgkJxkSZ6rF4bcGNSmrvAS52vi2DlztNdYk7YQY73LApt4RAkE5LX6hNUBdRW778qA34kzHpjN42TOA3RU_y4IViphgJdPtVI7LJH9AGWG3Veryyo6xjoUY6fgkWCjV82n_FyqNGOfU3ECxV2skgaeFeG8Sj34Y&__tn__=R]-R — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.145.132.121 (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

References