This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
-- 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)
The article states:
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)
Trying to wrap my head around the uses of Redstone:
Is this correct? Is this all? --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 14:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
Why is there no section titled "As a spacecraft launch platform"?
The figures for propellant mass look wrong. A 28 ton rocket wouldn't have a dry mass of 11 tons. DonPMitchell ( talk) 04:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
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...
This is uncited. I don't think that there's any way to call a 3-ton, 4 Megaton warhead a "small" warhead, so I'm adding a "citation needed". Geoffrey.landis ( talk) 14:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
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 talk 20:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
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)
Is it worth a small section to discuss the Redstone Transport version to reference Army efforts at looking at the Redstone for rocket logistics?
https://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/riding-rocket-battlefield/
It's an interesting footnote and well worth some historical preservation
Patbahn (
talk)
21:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
-- 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)
The article states:
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)
Trying to wrap my head around the uses of Redstone:
Is this correct? Is this all? --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 14:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
Why is there no section titled "As a spacecraft launch platform"?
The figures for propellant mass look wrong. A 28 ton rocket wouldn't have a dry mass of 11 tons. DonPMitchell ( talk) 04:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
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...
This is uncited. I don't think that there's any way to call a 3-ton, 4 Megaton warhead a "small" warhead, so I'm adding a "citation needed". Geoffrey.landis ( talk) 14:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
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 talk 20:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
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)
Is it worth a small section to discuss the Redstone Transport version to reference Army efforts at looking at the Redstone for rocket logistics?
https://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/riding-rocket-battlefield/
It's an interesting footnote and well worth some historical preservation
Patbahn (
talk)
21:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)