This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlabamaWikipedia:WikiProject AlabamaTemplate:WikiProject AlabamaAlabama articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RocketryWikipedia:WikiProject RocketryTemplate:WikiProject RocketryRocketry articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
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. Ilikefood22:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Anynobody09:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I see where the hole came from, it's how they suspended the rocket. It was not supported on the ground, see picture:File:Redstone in Grand Central2.gifCable 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. Anynobody22:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.) Anynobody02:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Anynobody04:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I made this quick animation to show what I mean, I definitely think there were other wires. Anynobody00:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]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)[reply]
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. Anynobody01:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
'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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Redstone family
Trying to wrap my head around the uses of Redstone:
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.
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)[reply]
Therefore the unfueled weight would be 24,002 pounds or 12 tons. -— Gadget850 (Ed)talk
Product of the ABMA?
The article states that the redstone is "A product of the Army Ballistic Missile Agency (ABMA) at Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama under the leadership of Wernher von Braun...". However the article on the ABMA states that it was founded Feb 1 1956. Should the mention of the ABMA be removed or should the context of it's involvement be changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olsdude (talk • contribs) 23:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Inertial guidance
It should not require a citation that a guidance sytem that does not accept external input cannot be jammed. I've made this fix several times now, asking that if anyone has a substantive objection they note it on the talk page. Since this hasn't happened, I'm stuggling to implement WP:AGF here. If you have a LEGITIMATE reason why you believe this requires citation, explain below, or do not make further non-constructive edits. Alereon (talk) 06:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The entire statement requires a reliable source to remain per WP:RS, as it makes too many specific claims. I removed it because there had previously been a request for citation, which you removed without providing the requested sources. Please do not readd the claims without citing published reliable sources for all claims made, including that of the guiadance system being immune to jamming. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 06:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The citation needed tag has been with the statement since September 2011, not 2013, as I had misread the year in the tag. That's more than enough time per WP policies for a citaion to have been provided, and thus is an entirely "LEGITIMATE reason" for the statements to have been removed. - BilCat (talk) 07:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a case of WP:BLUE. It requires a citation, and once it was removed for lack of one cannot be readded without an appropriate citation. (If it is indeed such an obvious fact, citing it should be easy.) - The BushrangerOne ping only10:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on PGM-11 Redstone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 2 external links on PGM-11 Redstone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
The Redstone program proved to be a bone of contention between the Army and Air Force due to their different ideas of nuclear warfare. The Army favored using small warheads on mobile missiles as tactical battlefield weapons...
Yes, it's not clear - presumably what's meant is "proved to be a bone of contention ... and the Air Force prevailed" (for Redstone). Certainly their respective subsequent missiles (the Army's Pershing and the Air Force's Minuteman) are consistent with those divergent goals. But we certainly needs a source for that, and when the decision to fit the big warhead was made - presumably it was right at the project's inception (because they'd make a quite differently sized missile if it was to carry a smaller warhead). So this whole paragraph probably belongs much earlier in the History section. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk15:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
hydrogen peroxide
The infobox lists "hydrogen peroxide: 790 pounds" in the fuel capacity field. But hydrogen peroxide is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. I'd guess that the hydrogen peroxide is not used for the main thrust but is used to drive the turbo-pumps but I'm only guessing. Does anybody have a more informed answer for where the hydrogen peroxide is used? Stepho talk20:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That would be correct: the H2O2 was used to run the A-7 steam generator that (in turn) supplied steam for running the turbopumps, detailed here; that pulls from This is Redstone[12] which if anyone has it would make a good source for improving this article. - The BushrangerOne ping only23:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"... which if anyone has it would make a good source for improving this article" ... I just noticed this. This is Redstone is available from here, broken into three parts; it is one of several Redstone documents available at this page on the "My Army Redstone Missile Days" website. By the way, anyone interested in improving this article should take a good look at the French version, which has been massively expanded in recent months. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Questioning reversion of my recent edit here
After previously discussing this with Stepho-wrs, they suggested I bring the matter here, so here goes:
A couple of days ago, I made this edit. User Stepho-wrs then reverted it with the explanation that "Explorer 1 was launched by Jupiter-C, not Redstone", pointing out differences between the two in the edit summary. I disagree with this reversion. Yes, there are differences, but my claim was that it was a rocket in the Redstone family that launched Explorer 1, just as Alan Shepard's Freedom 7 flight was launched by a rocket in that family. The differences Stepho-wrs mentioned aren't big enough to justify excluding the Jupiter-C (renamed "Juno I" for satellite launches) from the family. In particular, the Jupiter-C's engine was not as different from the Redstone's as claimed; it was merely a minor variant of the same Rocketdyne North American Aviation 75-110 engine that had been used throughout the Redstone missile's development. The use of Hydyne fuel doesn't mean much; Redstone engines had been flown with Hydyne as well as with alcohol. The Jupiter-C's greater length was shared by the Mercury-Redstone, since both needed longer propellant tanks to achieve their missions. The main reason the Mercury-Redstone didn't also use Hydyne was because that fuel was more toxic than alcohol and there were safety concerns about employing it for a human-crewed launch. It's notable that discussions of the Redstone family such as John W. Bullard's History of the Redstone Missile System, the NASA report The Mercury-Redstone Project, and Wernher von Braun's autumn 1963 article "The Redstone, Jupiter, and Juno" in Technology and Culture treat the Jupiter-C as a member of that family. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My reversion was based on the distinction between the Redstone (which the Jupiter-C is not) and the Redstone family (which the Jupiter-C is). I'm not dogmatic about this, so I'm happy to follow other editor's suggestions. Stepho talk22:08, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redstone Transport Version
Is it worth a small section to discuss the Redstone Transport version to reference Army efforts at looking at the Redstone for rocket logistics?
.jpg){kind=small}
