Talk:Saturn (rocket family)
|WikiProject Spaceflight||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Rocketry||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
Off to a Good Start
This article seems to be well rooted in historical fact. Even though the Saturn programs were originated by the von Braun group at Huntsville, this article seems less compromised by the sort of exaggerated expression of the German contribution to U.S. rocketry that plagues most other article on U.S. space launch vehicles. At least this article acknowledges that Atlas and Titan were primarily the product of largely independent Air Force programs that went on to benefit the Saturn programs--as opposed to the popular misconception that the reverse was true. Let us hope that as the article progresses, proper credit continues to be given to unique U.S. contributions to rocketry without someone pushing the tiresome "everything came out of Germany" theory of rocket development. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magneticlifeform (talk • contribs) 09:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Super-Juno and Super-Jupiter
In the current version of the page, the designation "Super-Juno" is introduced abruptly in the section Sputnik stuns the world. Until then, only the term "Super-Jupiter" is used. Are these two terms synonymous? If not, what are differences?
Over at Encyclopedia Astronautica, the only mention of "Super Juno" is on the entry for the Jupiter IRBM:
The Army's Jupiter differed from the USAF Thor in being ground-mobile, albeit requiring a caravan of 20 vehicles to deploy, survey, set-up, fuel, and launch a single missile. While Thor was developed into the Delta launch vehicle, which remained in use in the next century, Jupiter was abandoned except for a few Juno launches made by the von Braun team for NASA. However from Juno came the Super Juno, later called the Saturn I, using a cluster of Jupiter tanks and engines to produce the world's first heavy-lift launch vehicle.
On the other hand, there are multiple references to Super-Jupiter and its evolution into Juno V, chief among them being the one in the entry on Super-Jupiter:
The design effort began in April 1957, with variants studied with a single F-1 engine, four E-1 engines, or 8-9 H-1 engines. In at least one variant the second stage was powered by a single E-1 engine, and the third stage by an S-4, a variant of the Rocketdyne LR105. The propellant tankage seems to have consisted of a cluster of Redstone tanks, given the total diameter indicated. The empty masses of the stages seem remarkably optimistic. In the event, ARPA indicated that they did not want the two year delay waiting for E-1 development would entail, and Von Braun's team turned to a cluster of 8 H-1 engines in the first stage and two in the second. This was designated Juno-V and led to the Saturn series. Super-Jupiter withered away by September 1959.
American orbital launch vehicle. By 1958 the Super-Jupiter was called Juno V and the 4 E-1 engines were abandoned in favor of clustering 8 Jupiter IRBM engines below existing Redstone/Jupiter tankage. The A version had a Titan I ICBM as the upper stages.
Is the term "Super Juno" actually a reference to "Juno V" or is it a reference to the original design in ABMA's Proposal: A National Integrated Missile and Space Vehicle Development Program? If latter, how does it differ from "Super-Jupiter"? - wneo (talk) 10:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)