What it says on the tin. Starting in 1903ish, what can a rocket program (started for whatever reason) do with a modest but steady amount of funding? What can they get done by 1910? 1920? 1930? 1940?
How Far Can The Early 20th Century Advance With Rockets?
- Thread starter Puget Sound
- Start date
To clarify things, "modest but steady" can mean anything from a small team of five to ten people or a small government project of 100 to 500 people.
marathag
Banned
Potassium Perchlorates where well known of before 1900. Once you have 99% purity in manufacture, you can do this, a Solid Fuel motor using Asphalt.
GALCIT 61-C, the following composition: 76% potassium perchlorate and 24% fuel. The fuel component was 70% Texaco No. 18 asphalt and 30% Union Oil Company Pure Penn SAE No. 10 lubricating oil. The fuel was liquefied at about 275 deg F, the pulverized potassium perchlorate added to it, and the mixture thoroughly stirred. The mixture was then poured into the combustion chamber, which had been previously lined with a material similar to the fuel component, and allowed to cool and become hard. This propellant, when burned at a chamber pressure of 2,000 psi., had a chamber temperature of 3,000-3,500 deg F, a specific impulse of 186, and an exhaust velocity of about 5,900 ft. per sec. Storage temperature limits were from -9 deg F to 120 deg F.
Now an ISP of 186 is pretty poor, today.
But in 1900, Black Powder Rockets had an ISP of 80, and did not store well, with the rocket exploding if the BP rockets had experienced more than a 30 degree temperature swing from where they were made.
These early asphalt rockets from WWII are endburning, and were the first real composite solid rockets, and could be don done anytime once 'modern' industrial processes are in use in the 1870s.
Development of these during the 50s replaced the asphalt with synthetic rubber and added fine metal particles for more efficiency, to where todays Solids are not far off from liquid propellant, and can be scaled up to as large as transport to he launch pad allows
GALCIT 61-C, the following composition: 76% potassium perchlorate and 24% fuel. The fuel component was 70% Texaco No. 18 asphalt and 30% Union Oil Company Pure Penn SAE No. 10 lubricating oil. The fuel was liquefied at about 275 deg F, the pulverized potassium perchlorate added to it, and the mixture thoroughly stirred. The mixture was then poured into the combustion chamber, which had been previously lined with a material similar to the fuel component, and allowed to cool and become hard. This propellant, when burned at a chamber pressure of 2,000 psi., had a chamber temperature of 3,000-3,500 deg F, a specific impulse of 186, and an exhaust velocity of about 5,900 ft. per sec. Storage temperature limits were from -9 deg F to 120 deg F.
Now an ISP of 186 is pretty poor, today.
But in 1900, Black Powder Rockets had an ISP of 80, and did not store well, with the rocket exploding if the BP rockets had experienced more than a 30 degree temperature swing from where they were made.
These early asphalt rockets from WWII are endburning, and were the first real composite solid rockets, and could be don done anytime once 'modern' industrial processes are in use in the 1870s.
Development of these during the 50s replaced the asphalt with synthetic rubber and added fine metal particles for more efficiency, to where todays Solids are not far off from liquid propellant, and can be scaled up to as large as transport to he launch pad allows
Posting some stuff from Discord here by @e of pi , @TimothyC , and another person whose name here I forget. Thanks for their help!
Mary: Main issue is turbopumps and material science
Designing things that can pump enough fuel for a motor is one thing, having quality materials that dont fling apart when that happens is another
Also, telemetry
A pre radio age could have serious issues with rockets
E of pi: Fortunately the 1910s aren't pre-radio.
Lack of materials is definitely a problem with getting very good engine performance.
All the things you can do have to be pretty mediocre.
(One reason a lot of early rockets use lox-alcohol instead of LOX/kero: it burns cooler. Worse for ISp, better for making engines that don't melt when you don't have inconel.)
For a small team, hitting the Von Karman line within the 20s or 30s would be an achievement.
For a project with a team on the level of 50-100 people and enough funding to build a lot of prototypes, getting a V2 class vehicle a decade or two early is probably possible.
So a decently large suborbital vehicle by the mid to late 20s, and then stick an upper stage on that to go orbital in the early to mid 30s?
Mary: in fact
iirc, the british rocket society considered liquid motors impractical
in the 30s or so
perhaps if the secrets to high performance solid fuels were uncovered earlier
early rocketry could have been more advanced
E of pi: They might have considered them impractical, but Von Braun and Goddard just went and built them anyway and they were fine.
IIRC, there was some shenanigans with British law and what types of engines were legal to test.
"When originally formed in January 1933, the BIS aimed not only to promote and raise the public profile of astronautics, but also to undertake practical experimentation into rocketry along similar lines to the organisations above. However early in 1936, the Society discovered that this ambition was thwarted by the Explosives Act of 1875, which prevented any private testing of liquid-fuel rockets in the United Kingdom."
Mary: Mmm
Puget Sound: Didn't they look into gunpowder rockets because of that?
E of pi: Yep.
Safer! (not)
One of the big things Goddard came up with (and then Von Braun used) that made his liquid rockets rockets possible was turbopumps.
HTP decomposition, initially, which helped keep temperatures down for the turbine.
Goddard apparently screwed around with what he called a "boiler," which was basically a LOX-based expander cycle engine:
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/260916864027328512/618214152787460114/unknown.png
E of pi: I know who would really get an RL-10.
TimothyC: Oh?
E of pi: Goddard seems to have basically been on the general trend.
That as described there (turbopump, driven by expansion of gaseous cryo propellent) is the expander cycle the RL-10 uses.
But driven off LOX.
I'm sure he'd be all over the RL-10.
To him, it'd be this super-engine.
Hydrolox!
More than 22,000 lbf!
Mary: Main issue is turbopumps and material science
Designing things that can pump enough fuel for a motor is one thing, having quality materials that dont fling apart when that happens is another
Also, telemetry
A pre radio age could have serious issues with rockets
E of pi: Fortunately the 1910s aren't pre-radio.
Lack of materials is definitely a problem with getting very good engine performance.
All the things you can do have to be pretty mediocre.
(One reason a lot of early rockets use lox-alcohol instead of LOX/kero: it burns cooler. Worse for ISp, better for making engines that don't melt when you don't have inconel.)
For a small team, hitting the Von Karman line within the 20s or 30s would be an achievement.
For a project with a team on the level of 50-100 people and enough funding to build a lot of prototypes, getting a V2 class vehicle a decade or two early is probably possible.
So a decently large suborbital vehicle by the mid to late 20s, and then stick an upper stage on that to go orbital in the early to mid 30s?
Mary: in fact
iirc, the british rocket society considered liquid motors impractical
in the 30s or so
perhaps if the secrets to high performance solid fuels were uncovered earlier
early rocketry could have been more advanced
E of pi: They might have considered them impractical, but Von Braun and Goddard just went and built them anyway and they were fine.
IIRC, there was some shenanigans with British law and what types of engines were legal to test.
"When originally formed in January 1933, the BIS aimed not only to promote and raise the public profile of astronautics, but also to undertake practical experimentation into rocketry along similar lines to the organisations above. However early in 1936, the Society discovered that this ambition was thwarted by the Explosives Act of 1875, which prevented any private testing of liquid-fuel rockets in the United Kingdom."
Mary: Mmm
Puget Sound: Didn't they look into gunpowder rockets because of that?
E of pi: Yep.
Safer! (not)
One of the big things Goddard came up with (and then Von Braun used) that made his liquid rockets rockets possible was turbopumps.
HTP decomposition, initially, which helped keep temperatures down for the turbine.
Goddard apparently screwed around with what he called a "boiler," which was basically a LOX-based expander cycle engine:
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/260916864027328512/618214152787460114/unknown.png
E of pi: I know who would really get an RL-10.
TimothyC: Oh?
E of pi: Goddard seems to have basically been on the general trend.
That as described there (turbopump, driven by expansion of gaseous cryo propellent) is the expander cycle the RL-10 uses.
But driven off LOX.
I'm sure he'd be all over the RL-10.
To him, it'd be this super-engine.
Hydrolox!
More than 22,000 lbf!
Last edited:
From Pluto on the Spacecord Discord server:
"Depending on the technology it could take some time to develop a understanding of material design as many of the main rocketry components used a refined aluminium, this is the same with the fuel as during that time cryogenics would be very difficult, but! This is being well funded and has a large crew the foundation for a small liquid rocket could begin to form. In an economic view there wouldn't be much point to creating a rocket at this time as The tech for satellites and others wouldn't exist. This would be a better platform for a military project such as an early icbm. In my opinion it would require the advancements from ww1-2 to create a solid base for a rocket program
It would take quite an amount of time to accomplish what happened during the 60s without the advancements in tech but I could see a moon program being created in the 1950s if the program gained continuous support, this would greatly impact our lives today though as it could mean a boosted economy and a strong colony somewhere in the solar system, this is all fiction and only simulates the best conditions so in real life this would be near impossible"
"Depending on the technology it could take some time to develop a understanding of material design as many of the main rocketry components used a refined aluminium, this is the same with the fuel as during that time cryogenics would be very difficult, but! This is being well funded and has a large crew the foundation for a small liquid rocket could begin to form. In an economic view there wouldn't be much point to creating a rocket at this time as The tech for satellites and others wouldn't exist. This would be a better platform for a military project such as an early icbm. In my opinion it would require the advancements from ww1-2 to create a solid base for a rocket program
It would take quite an amount of time to accomplish what happened during the 60s without the advancements in tech but I could see a moon program being created in the 1950s if the program gained continuous support, this would greatly impact our lives today though as it could mean a boosted economy and a strong colony somewhere in the solar system, this is all fiction and only simulates the best conditions so in real life this would be near impossible"
At work.
How and where might a "Big, dumb rocket" like the proposed 'Sea dragon' fit into people's thinking?
No turbopumps. No excess heating of bits. Large ship yards and construction know how available.
Cheers.
How and where might a "Big, dumb rocket" like the proposed 'Sea dragon' fit into people's thinking?
No turbopumps. No excess heating of bits. Large ship yards and construction know how available.
Cheers.
Turpentine and nitric acid are fine enough rocket fuels and available in large quantitis since the mid 1800s. It's even hypergolic thus saving you having to come up with an ignition system.
The downside is that it's hypergolic, and the nitric acid will eat the tank if you let it stay for an extended amount of time, though there's nothing really preventing them from coming up with "inhibited" nitric acid.
The downside is that it's hypergolic, and the nitric acid will eat the tank if you let it stay for an extended amount of time, though there's nothing really preventing them from coming up with "inhibited" nitric acid.
There is a saying in engineering, it is the sheer laziness of the material science guys that prevents the engineers from doing the really cool stuff. The lack of high temperature Alloys would hurt the development of rocketry but the budget for the rocket program would allow more research into high temperature alloys.
I predict something like the German A-4 (V-2) would show up in the 1930s the first satellites would be launched around 1940 and the first man in space before 1950 the moonshot would probably take place around 1960. Pretty much a 10-year jump
I predict something like the German A-4 (V-2) would show up in the 1930s the first satellites would be launched around 1940 and the first man in space before 1950 the moonshot would probably take place around 1960. Pretty much a 10-year jump
Nitric Acid wasn't really useful as an oxidizer until it was stabilized in the 50s after massive amounts of research involving at one point every propellant chemist in the US. Turns out nobody really knew anything about the stuff. Suggest reading IGNITION! An Informal History of Liquid Rocket Propellants by John D. Clark for a good rundown on how that worked out.
To quote the opening of the chapter regarding nitric acid:
Regarding engineers and propellants....
Last edited:
I did read that funny little book. And i'm aware of just how much of a bit** it is to work with, it's just the "simplest" fuel/oxidizer combo to start with at that time, by no means is it good or safe. It should be ok to do sounding rocket tests with it, not to be used as something to push a dog or ape over the Karman Line, nevermind a human.
On solid rocket motors, it's a bit surprising to read just how much we are not sure how we got where we are today 
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88635main_H-2330.pdf
Randy
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88635main_H-2330.pdf
Randy
marathag
Banned
On solid rocket motors, it's a bit surprising to read just how much we are not sure how we got where we are today
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88635main_H-2330.pdf
last stand of empirical testing, the nice way of people with degrees saying 'You'all hold my Beer, I gotta idea'
marathag
Banned
Not as safe or as easy to use as asphalt(C35H62? whatever it is) and KClO4
Yeah perchlorates are nasty, not not non-inhibited RFNA nasty. I;d rather play with asphalt and KCLO4 anyday over
Aniline/RFNA in the 1940s.
That ease of use( you can use a big Hobart Mixer) and safe storage, it's worth giving up 70 ISP for
I don't think nitric acid is that much worse than nitrogen tetroxide, which after all has flown in...well, actually nearly every American crewed spaceflight, and powered the Titan and Long March booster rockets used for the Gemini and Shenzhou missions. Is it fun, no, could it be made to work, yes.
It was made to work by putting the entirety of the US propellant research community on it for several years and was still made by a few lucky coincidences, the research into this also incidentally led to Dinitrogen tetroxide being figured out (Being a major component of RFNA) and replacing RFNA.
Yes, and that doesn't actually have anything to do with my point, which is that IRFNA is perfectly fine for launching dogs, apes, or even people with once you figure it out; it's no worse, from a handling standpoint, than other oxidizers that are routinely used in human spaceflight. And we're not exactly on a short timeline here, so someone's going to figure out inhibition sooner or later.
At the micro level the gentle reader could take a look at Goddards 1918 design for a shoulder fired rocket. The Army wanted a lighter and cheaper weapon to build in lieu of the French designed 37mm light infantry cannon, a relatively complex and heavy tho useful weapon. Goddard provided the ordnance officers with a small rocket motor they attached to rifle grenades and launched from a metal tube aimed from the shoulder. Development ceased in 1919 & was not picked up again until 1941 when the old documents were dusted off and handed over to some junior ordnance officers. They used a AT grenade as the basis for their new version.
Its not a big step from Goddards small motor of 1918 to assorted larger versions, with explosive payload measured in kg vs grams of a rifle grenade. I'll leave to the experts to judge how much earlier Goddards motor of 1918 could have been made. Or something of similar performance.
Its not a big step from Goddards small motor of 1918 to assorted larger versions, with explosive payload measured in kg vs grams of a rifle grenade. I'll leave to the experts to judge how much earlier Goddards motor of 1918 could have been made. Or something of similar performance.
Last edited:
marathag
Banned
It took Hercules Powder company from starting in the 1940s, a decade or so to get reliable nitrocellulose and nitroglycerin doublebase grains that could burn longer than a few seconds
Like with the Bazooka, the smokeless powder charge burned in a fraction of a second, it was coasting before it left the tube.
By 1945, the Hercules 3-DS-47000 JATO unit, that could do 50,000 pounds of thrust for three seconds. They started work for longer burn times, and that lead to adding Ammonium Perchlorate and Aluminum powder, and reached ISPs of 260, as good as some liquid fueled engines
Making it work as reliably as today but in the early 1900s would not be that easy, ideally you use it for the first parts of the program and then along the way, after you hopefully looked into the chemistry of rocket launching, you ditch it for better, easier to handle fuel/oxidizer combos. Kerosine and liquid oxygen will not eat away your fuel tank made out of questionable steel while they're just about as hard/easy to source.
Hey just so we're clear IRFNA was worth an extra $75 bucks a month just being stored "near" the building I worked in early in my AF career. I don't get anything for working around nitrogen tetroxide these days.
Which in and of itself is great but note the main complaint in the article is "nobody wrote anything down at the time" which tends to be a peeve for historical types
Part of the 'requirement' for advancing the technology is of course a, well, requirement to NEED to advance the technology. Goddard's early RPG work was to allow bunker busting to breach the WWI trench lines which with WWI going away was dropped. The fact the Army let Goddard "know" the program was over was by refusing to let him in the gate and then not paying him for the fullfillment of the contract, oh and then locking up and classifying his work in no way helped him 'trust' the government. (A fact the Navy in WWII had to work VERY hard to overcome)
I'd still love to have seen someone getting a clue about the properties of H2O2 a bit earlier since there really should have been some pretty extensive clues early on but I'm still stunned it took till the mid-70s to get its storage and handling properties nailed down and even today most people don't know them.
Randy