AHC: Better solid-fuel rockets

What it says on the tin.:p

I know gunpowder rockets have their limits, but solids up to the performance of the SRB have appeared. So, how credible is it for advanced solid rockets to appear by 1900? (Or before WW1.) Something like the front-nozzle (or front-engine, rear-warhead) design? Or "hollow-core" types? Or burn from the top models? (Or a combination of all of them?;))

Beyond that, how difficult would it be to develop a *thiokol motor?

In short, your challenge is to make a better R4M or FROG ready for use in WW1.;)

Bonus points if you can give them wire guidance.:p
 
What it says on the tin.:p

I know gunpowder rockets have their limits, but solids up to the performance of the SRB have appeared. So, how credible is it for advanced solid rockets to appear by 1900? (Or before WW1.) Something like the front-nozzle (or front-engine, rear-warhead) design? Or "hollow-core" types? Or burn from the top models? (Or a combination of all of them?;))

Beyond that, how difficult would it be to develop a *thiokol motor?

In short, your challenge is to make a better R4M or FROG ready for use in WW1.;)

Bonus points if you can give them wire guidance.:p
Quite plausible, more so for the later date than the earlier. There were two key breakthroughs that enabled modern solid rockets. The first was a theoretical breakthrough by von Karmen, where he did a more detailed analysis of the ideal solid rocket than had previously been accomplished and realized that it was not fated to burst, as had previously been thought, but in fact would have a constant chamber pressure under certain conditions. This requires something of a theory of aerodynamics to exist, so it's not likely to appear by 1900, but it's possible for the key analyses to be made by 1914; it's a theoretical advance, after all, so what it needs is someone who is interested in analyzing the problem and who can actually do the math to come together (or be the same person). There were plenty of people interested in rockets at the time, and there were more than enough people interested in airplanes, so it is eminently reasonable to posit someone who is interested in both, or at least the meeting of two people who are each interested in one.

The second was an experimental breakthrough, from the realization that gunpowders were not the only, or even the best, propellants that one could use in solid rockets, but that a "composite" propellant (the first type consisting of asphalt as a binder and as the fuel and potassium perchlorate as the oxidizer, later types using a variety of binders and oxidizers) could be used, and in fact offered very much superior performance to gunpowders, particularly in environmental stability. Evidently, an improved method of manufacture of potassium perchlorate was essential here to provide the required stability (i.e., so that it wouldn't explode spontaneously), which it may or may not be reasonable to set up before hand. Otherwise, this is essentially a chance discovery--spurred by an active research program at GALCIT, yes, but it would be entirely reasonable for someone to have a brain wave after much less work than JPL had to go through to get to that point. Developing the more advanced types of propellant, like the Thiokol-developed types you mentioned, is unlikely by that point, though, since they mostly use synthetic rubbers as their binder/fuel, which of course did not yet exist.

The fact that all of this took place at JPL explains a great deal about why Americans use solid rockets so much more than, say, the Soviets, incidentally, but that's quite beside the point...
 
This is what kinda essentially happens in my Victoria Timeline. They get quiet a head start to figure things out however. I'll try to give a short summary:

1.
Tipu Sultan or one of his rocket experts (he had special manufacturing villages) discover candy rockets.

2.
William Congreve studies these alternate fuel rockets as he did the OTL ones.

3.
Joseph Clinton Robertson founder of the Mechanics Magazine publishes the recipe for homemade, safe candy rockets, which become a new British hobby for the scientifically curious upper and middle class.

4. The inventor Francis Maceroni. writes in the Mechanics Magazine 1824 about his plan for a "Double Range Carcass or Shell Rocket for Distant Parabolic Projection, or Feu Verticaux".
The plan included „wings being placed with a very slight diagonal direction, causes the whole to revolve on its axis like an arrow or a rifle ball, and trebles their directing effect".
This connectional leap drastically increases the accuracy of rockets.

5.
The life and antics of Ruggieri. The Italian rocket-maker was born into a family which for centuries had been famous for its firework displays. To advertise the reliability of his fireworks, Ruggieri gave a number of public demonstrations, as early as 1806, using large rockets to carry small animals such as mice and rats, which were ejected and brought back to earth safely by parachute.

These flights were undertaken as publicity stunts, and not with any intention of obtaining scientific data however. They are still of interest thou as they appear to be the first occasions on which rockets were used to carry living creatures. Ruggieri continued making bigger and better rockets and, in 1830, while living in Paris, announced that he would fire a large "combination-rocket", designed to lift a ram into the air. This announcement attracted the interest of young man who volunteered to take the place of the ram. The offer was accepted and Ruggieri announced that the great ascent would take place, appropriately, from the Champs de Mars. Just before the appointed launch, however, the "young man" was discovered to be a boy of 11, whereupon the French authorities intervened and cancelled the event. (This part Nr.5 is OTL so far)

6. The rest is too complicated to properly summarize.

This little setback didn’t deter him from looking for even more spectacular, interesting ways to demonstrate his rockets. Since the discovery of Rocket Candy, he began his own investigations, substituting for example the saltpeter/potassium nitrate/KNO3 with chlorates. As James Cubush wrote in his System of Pyrotechny (1825): “Mr Ruggieri is of opinion, that chlorate, or hyperoxymuriate of potassa may be employed with advantage in the composition of rockets, but we have not heard that I has been used successfully so far.” (1)

Indeed the resulting mixture was not ineffective but potentially rather highly explosive. In fact the stuff became later known as the partisan's mixture. It earned that name from it use by revolutionaries and such. It can be exploded by concentrated sulphuric acid that eats through a metal container in a few hours or days. Any revolutionaries using chlorates usually blew themselves up however, sooner or later. Ruggieri’s trials were part of a larger revolution that took place in pyrotechnique at the time.

So far Roman candles, rockets, wheels, table fireworks, aerial bombs, all of them had employed pyrotechnic mixtures containing potassium nitrate along with sulfur and charcoal and certain other combustible materials. The variety of the ingredients was small and the variety of possible technical setups had been exhausted.

A new era began with the introduction of potassium chlorate, that saw improved effects, louder sharper explorations,, differing colors and more. It all began when Claude Louis Berthollet in 1786 first recognized potassium chlorate as a new compound and was able to purify it. Fourcroy said after the discovery that the “superoxygenerated muriate of potash seems to contain the element of the thunderbolt in its molecules. ….Nature seems to have concentrated all her power of detonation, fulmination and inflammation in this terrible compound”

The colored flame composition of the pyrotechnique revolution was helped by chlorate but also new compounds that were tested in its wake such as strontium and barium who produce nice, brilliant colors, respectively red and green.

The problem with the scientific discussion was pyrotechnics was as in the case of Ruggieri a family business. Thus most people kept their exact formula for themselves. Fortunately in his desire for recognition he publicized some of his most important innovations. He was cautious enough to not do it in any exact detail.

Now, Ruggeri’s stroke of genius was to combine potassium chlorate/ammonium chlorate with asphalt. During the thirties there were two other revolutions, aside of the pyrotechnique one sweeping trough France. The first was the political uprising, July Revolution, but far more important for this story was a sudden surge of interest in asphalt.
It became widely used for “pavements, flat roofs, and the lining of cisterns” It was a phenomenon that caught all of Europe by surprise. In France it was fueled by the re/discovery of natural deposits in Osbann and the Parc l'Ain as well as the Puy-de-la-Poix. One of the earliest uses was the laying of about 24,000 square yards of Seyssel asphalt at the Place de la Concorde in 1835.

Ruggeri tried if mixing asphalt with chlorate could reap similar or better results than combining it with melted sugar. The goal either way was to knead the mass into the desired shapes. He tried both using the volatile potassium chlorate as well as the newly discovered ammonium perchlorat. The later was recently discovered by the German chemist Eilhard Mitscherlich, in 1832 to be exact.

Ruggieri presented his model rockets in front of an interested audience and gained quiet some fame in intellectual circles. Especially in London’s rocket obsessed social circles he gained a heroic reputation. Two big hurdles still remained. All of these chemicals were only available in laboratory quantities and could not be reasonably mass produced before the age of electrification.

The other minor announce was that it took a few more decades until the superior components of synthetic rubbers as well as potassium perchlorate were discovered. Nevertheless Ruggeri opened two windows. He first showed the world that living beings/scientific instruments could be transported with rockets. Second he also promoted the fact that there were other options for solid fuels waiting to be discovered besides sugar or gunpowder.

Notes and Sources

( 1) People had way too much time back then. Case in point the full title of the book:
A system of pyrotechny: comprehending the theory and practice, with the application of chemistry : designed for exhibition and for war : in four parts, containing an account of the substances used in fire-works : the instruments, utensils, and manipulations : fire-works for exhibition : and military pyrotechny : adapted to the military and naval officer, the man of science, and the artificer

Tenney L. Davis , (1948): The Early Use of Potassium Chlorate in Pyrotechny: Dr. Moritz Meyer's Colored Flame Compositions.
University of California Press

Flash! Bang! Whiz! An introduction to propellants, explosives, pyrotechnics and fireworks
https://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/bang.htm

Harry W. Mace (1961): Ammonium Perchlorate Asphalt Base Propellant.
Patent Nr. 2978306 April
Glendale California

Army Department (1984): Technical Manuel, Military Explosives.
Washington D.C

Wikipedia: Asphalt
Sorry if its a bit long but these things often require a bit more of a set up than a POD like "X invents Y, done!"
 
Last edited:
Workable Goblin said:
Quite plausible, more so for the later date than the earlier. There were two key breakthroughs that enabled modern solid rockets. The first was a theoretical breakthrough by von Karmen ...This requires something of a theory of aerodynamics to exist,...; it's a theoretical advance, after all, so what it needs is someone who is interested in analyzing the problem and who can actually do the math to come together (or be the same person)....

The second was an experimental breakthrough from the realization that gunpowders were not the only, or even the best, propellants that one could use in solid rockets, but that a "composite" propellant (the first type consisting of asphalt as a binder and as the fuel and potassium perchlorate as the oxidizer, later types using a variety of binders and oxidizers) could be used, and in fact offered very much superior performance to gunpowders, particularly in environmental stability. Evidently, an improved method of manufacture of potassium perchlorate was essential here to provide the required stability (i.e., so that it wouldn't explode spontaneously)...
My first thought on the aerodynamicist was George Cayley, though I'm not at all sure he had the math (or the Wrights' careful approach, tho AIUI he was more systematic than the others). I generally agree on the path.

On the second, I also tend to agree. I honestly have no clue what would drive the development of more stable propellants, compared to OTL; what rocketeers (or missileers) there were didn't make any improvements...
ComradeHuxley said:
1. Tipu Sultan or one of his rocket experts (he had special manufacturing villages) discover candy rockets.
2. William Congreve studies these alternate fuel rockets as he did the OTL ones.
3. Joseph Clinton Robertson ...
4. The inventor Francis Maceroni. writes in the Mechanics Magazine 1824...
5. The life and antics of Ruggieri.
That gets me almost exactly where I wanted.:cool::cool: (Except I have no clue what a candy rocket is.:eek: I presume this.)
So throw in Cayley to apply the work of the others, & get fin-stabilized rockets, or rocket gliders? There were a few other experimenters in the 1830s & 1840s building gliders (names of whom I can't recall...:eek::eek:) who might try adding rockets, too. Drawback, as noted, I can't offer a reason why they would, when they didn't OTL...:eek:

I find myself wondering if fireworks companies have a use for this.

I also wonder if there are countries weak in artillery who'd take up rocketry, instead. (Yeah, that's very post-Versailles.)
 
Last edited:
how about Otto Lilienthal not perishing, and also getting interested in rockets?
Lilienthal did a lot of mathematical foundations of modern flight
 
My first thought on the aerodynamicist was George Cayley, though I'm not at all sure he had the math (or the Wrights' careful approach, tho AIUI he was more systematic than the others). I generally agree on the path.

On the second, I also tend to agree. I honestly have no clue what would drive the development of more stable propellants, compared to OTL; what rocketeers (or missileers) there were didn't make any improvements...

That gets me almost exactly where I wanted.:cool::cool: (Except I have no clue what a candy rocket is.:eek: I presume this.)
So throw in Cayley to apply the work of the others, & get fin-stabilized rockets, or rocket gliders? There were a few other experimenters in the 1830s & 1840s building gliders (names of whom I can't recall...:eek::eek:) who might try adding rockets, too. Drawback, as noted, I can't offer a reason why they would, when they didn't OTL...:eek:

I find myself wondering if fireworks companies have a use for this.

I also wonder if there are countries weak in artillery who'd take up rocketry, instead. (Yeah, that's very post-Versailles.)

Yep, rocket candy was what I meant. If you look further into it you'll find the advantages that moldable fuel on its own has for rocket designs.

If you want rocket planes and possible inventors I would recommend looking up those links and/or my Victoria Timeline's post on Rocket Airplanes:

Shevek23: Airplanes before 1903?
AlternateHistory.com

Donald D. Baals u.a: Whirling Arms and the First Wind Tunnels.
In "Wind Tunnels of NASA"

Wikipedia: William Samuel Henson (Experimental Aircraft Inventor)

Wikipedia: Matthew Piers Watt (Invented controlled flight by Aerlion but somehow was forgotten for the next 60 years)

Journal of Aeronautical History (2011): Sir George Cayley: The Invention of the Aeroplane near Scarborough at the Time of Trafalgar.
Manchester, UK

I just kept the whole airplane stuff out to trim a bit of the fat and focus on rockets alone.
 
On the second, I also tend to agree. I honestly have no clue what would drive the development of more stable propellants, compared to OTL; what rocketeers (or missileers) there were didn't make any improvements...

The main reason was that rockets were deemed to be worthless for military applications (with good reason), the limitations of gunpowders were well-known, and so the few experimenters there were (all post-1900, so far as I know) focused on liquid rockets. It wasn't until the very late 1930s and the 1940s that there was a really systematic development of solid rocket propellants and a realization that solid rockets were far from useless or impractical.

As far as I know, the improved methods of manufacture for potassium perchlorate were driven by its use as an explosive, certainly not the need for solid propellants. This isn't something that a few lone inventors are likely to be able to drive on their own, but on the flip side it's something that should show up more or less automatically at a certain point.
 
ComradeHuxley said:
Shevek23: Airplanes before 1903?
AlternateHistory.com

Donald D. Baals u.a: Whirling Arms and the First Wind Tunnels.
In "Wind Tunnels of NASA"

Wikipedia: William Samuel Henson (Experimental Aircraft Inventor)

Wikipedia: Matthew Piers Watt (Invented controlled flight by Aerlion but somehow was forgotten for the next 60 years)

Journal of Aeronautical History (2011): Sir George Cayley: The Invention of the Aeroplane near Scarborough at the Time of Trafalgar.
Manchester, UK
Thx for the leads. I'll give them a look.
Workable Goblin said:
The main reason was that rockets were deemed to be worthless for military applications (with good reason), the limitations of gunpowders were well-known, and so the few experimenters there were (all post-1900, so far as I know) focused on liquid rockets. It wasn't until the very late 1930s and the 1940s that there was a really systematic development of solid rocket propellants and a realization that solid rockets were far from useless or impractical.
Yeah, there's kind of a vicious circle: rockets were lousy as weapons, & so nobody worked on making them better.
Workable Goblin said:
As far as I know, the improved methods of manufacture for potassium perchlorate were driven by its use as an explosive, certainly not the need for solid propellants. This isn't something that a few lone inventors are likely to be able to drive on their own, but on the flip side it's something that should show up more or less automatically at a certain point.
Agreed. I'm wondering if the German chemical industry might not stumble on a better solid fuel, through research into artificial rubber. (Yeah, offhand that looks like 1920s, not 19th Century...:eek:) Maybe Macintosh (or, at least, his company)?
 
Last edited:
I also wonder if there are countries weak in artillery who'd take up rocketry, instead.
Some that are short of metal?

The metal to make a cannon can be turned into a lot more rockets.
Metal isn't even a requirement, some bamboos can grow in Europe after all.

Countries with a lot of rough terrain might favor them too, a pack mule with a load of rockets can be easier to move than a cannon.
 
Pesterfield said:
Some that are short of metal?

The metal to make a cannon can be turned into a lot more rockets.
Metal isn't even a requirement, some bamboos can grow in Europe after all.

Countries with a lot of rough terrain might favor them too, a pack mule with a load of rockets can be easier to move than a cannon.
I was thinking more Japan or Russia or China, or Central or South America, which don't have the industrial capacity to manufacture artillery, but could build rockets (which are a bit simpler).
 
Top