Reaching for the Stars

Reaching for the Stars
An Alternate Space Race

Vab1K3Rl.png

(Roundel of the League of Nations, post-Second Covenant)

It was the dawn of a new age on Earth. The three remaining great powers, the victorious allies of the Second World War, had drawn up a permanent treaty of friendship and international governance, turning the League of Nations into a true law of peoples. Beating swords into ploughshares, they now turned their attention to the skies above: this new age would be the age of rockets.

The origins of space exploration can be traced to before the two world wars. All the great powers had their pioneers, but perhaps the greatest was Konstanin Tsiolkovsky of Russia, who had worked out most of the fundamental theories before the First World War. Aviation was the big thing however, and Tsiolkovsky’s equations lay unnoticed for some time. In the interwar years, rocketry grew in popularity, as clubs and universities launched sounding rockets to probe the upper atmosphere, much as had the balloonists of the Belle Epoque. In America, Robert Goddard, a keen follower of Tsiolkovsky’s work, launched the first liquid-fueled rocket in 1921. His claims that such a rocket could one day reach the moon were met with mockery by a Times editorial, but some knew better. Tapped to head the Guggenheim Aeronautical Laboratory at CalTech, Goddard quickly gathered to him a group of fellow rocket aficionados.

A similar situation developed in Germany, with young scientists and engineers like Irene Bredt and Adolf Thiel working with the renowned expatriate aerodynamicist Theodore von Karman at RWTH Aachen; together they founded the Verein für Raumschiffahrt, the Spaceflight Society. They were quickly launching sounding rockets of their own, helped by the philanthropy of the Kaiser and of the Lilienthal-Junkers Foundation (and its close ties to the often-ruling SPD).

In Tsiolkovsky’s native Russia, blue-sky research took a backseat to rearmament. Indeed Tsiolkovsky himself was forced into exile as the crackdown on the RSDLP and the SRs (or anyone who sounded the least bit like a socialist) intensified after the First World War. Many later-famous scientists and engineers would share his fate, escaping before the Second World War; an expatriate community of rocketeers formed around Tsiolkovsky in Britain. Across the channel, France, Russia’s First World War ally and partner in defeat, was itself all too busy rebuilding. The other second tier powers--Japan, Italy, the Ottomans--made their own experiments, but they too had their own problems. The British Empire was no second-tier power, but did not claim any firsts in rocketry in the interwar period--indeed British law, dating to 1875, precluded the private launching of liquid-fueled rockets, so the British Interplanetary Society, founded soon after the VfR, and counting both native Britons and expatriate Russians in its number, could only dream, not build. The British made a different contribution to high speed flight: the jet engine. While the invention soon spread, throughout the Second World War British jets would remain the best in the world, a great advantage for the Allied cause.

The ground was well-laid for an explosion in rocketry; theory, experiments, technology from other fields. All that was needed was a spark. The Second World War provided that spark. Both continental opponents--the German Empire and the Russian Empire--poured massive sums of money into their rocketry programs. The German goal was simple: develop a missile that could hit Petrograd from launch sites in East Prussia, and later (after its loss) from central Germany. Russian research, given the strength of Russian panzer armies, was focused more narrowly, primarily on smaller tactical military rockets--rocket artillery and SRBMs designed to pierce German and British air defenses. In the United States, rocketry also saw much interest, both for research and for war. Missiles seemed the only hope of staving off the Russian Bear in the early, dark days of the war--if Germany were overrun and metropolitan Britain cowed, only a radical new weapon, the nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missile, could give America the chance of victory. If things went better, as they eventually did, then the Army and the Air Force could use shorter-ranged missiles that could overfly and avoid Russian air defenses and provide standoff capability for carrier-launched aircraft. As the Russians were gradually pushed back and eventually forced into surrender, the Allies scrambled to pick over the pieces of Russian technology. The Russians had advanced far with solid fuels--necessary for convenient battlefield usage--and these were quickly tested and copied. But solid fuels alone would not yield the stars.

In Russia, the Left SR-RSDLP coalition that took power after the final collapse of the Tsarist regime was far too busy rebuilding to focus on any kind of space race. But a race there was. First, it was just a resumption of the interwar competition to see who could launch the most advanced, highest-and-fastest-flying sounding rocket or aircraft. But soon it intensified. The Americans, British, and Germans had just signed the first attempt at a permanent, empowered international order--the famous Second Covenant of the League of Nations--and had forsworn all war under its auspices. Antagonism was dead, rockets needed new use, but nationalism was still alive. And German SRBMs had kissed the edge of space on their way to Petrograd.




German Armbrust (Crossbow) SRBM, range 500km, warload 1 ton.
See also: Postwar range test with late-war improvements.
 
Notes

This is my attempt at an AH space race. While the POD is during the US Civil War (and thus perhaps this should go in Pre-1900?) the timeline begins in 1945-46 or so, and deals with a space race, so I felt Post-1900 more appropriate.
(If anyone remembers the short "Better Angels" ACW/Reconstruction timeline I started posting to SHWI about 10 years ago...this is its future, nearly a century on.)

It will be a multimedia timeline, relying heavily on pictures taken when I actually fly the missions reported on in KSP (using every realism mod I or others have written, including most importantly making everything sized and looking like our real solar system). It's cross-posted to the KSP Forums' Mission Reports section, where you can get a list of mods involved and download all craft used.

I am happy to answer questions about what led up to the current time, though perhaps some might prefer gradual reveals of the differences from OTL.
 
A Second Great War in which Britain, Germany, and the United States fought against France and Russia? Sounds like a curbstomp to me! And surviving Japanese and Ottoman Empires? How delightful! I must concur on being impressed at the sheer ambition involved here. I am curious as to how rocketry took off (if you'll pardon the pun) since the development of rocketry IOTL was, in part, a direct response to the Paris Gun (or anything like it) having been banned in the Treaty of Versailles.

This is my attempt at an AH space race. While the POD is during the US Civil War (and thus perhaps this should go in Pre-1900?) the timeline begins in 1945-46 or so, and deals with a space race, so I felt Post-1900 more appropriate.
Custom dictates that this thread really does belong in Before 1900, given the Civil War-era POD. Other threads in Before 1900 have included "far-future" segments.

Whatever forum this thread finds itself in, I look forward to more! Consider me subscribed :)
 
Subscribed!

I imagine we might learn more about the constellation of geopolitical situations that threw the French and Russians against an Anglo-German alliance, and allowed for the Romanov regime to somehow survive defeat, and also just how the USA related to the two wars. I'm guessing maybe we stayed neutral in the first war. Otherwise the Anglo-German alliance would be too overwhelmingly strong with the USA onside, whereas the hard-to-imagine contingency of the US joining the Franco-Russian side would really churn things up, making for bitter hostility between the Yanks and British, presumably after the latter lose Canada despite winning the main war in what would be a bloody, costly front leaving a bitter and sullen legacy in North America--I honestly don't think Britain could defend Canada, though they and the Canadians could make the cost of taking it terribly high, whereas if the USA were at odds with Britain we could hardly do otherwise than try to conquer it. That evidently did not happen so I suppose the USA sat it out. Then there seems to be clear evidence the US was involved in the second war, on the Anglo-German side.

But all of that is clearly by the way, mere stage-setting here; I imagine we'll learn more of what is relevant by and by.

Still, since your story offsite is the background to the background, could you provide a link to it?

-----

For various timelines I've tried to imagine if an attempt to develop suborbital mail rockets might be a plausible step in the evolution of orbital space tech, in a peaceful world with some cautious restriction of the development of ICBMs.

On one hand there is a bit of OTL precedent; someone whose name you or others reading might recall better than me, I believe a person from Central Europe, did propose rocket mail in the 1920s or '30s. And moving mail has often been the pioneering application of many transport technologies.

OTOH there are a lot of arguments against it as a preposterous concept. Merely to convey information fast, radio and intercontinental telegraphy would always be available before suitable rocketry and you can't beat the speed of light! Compared to any attainable airspeed of any aircraft, a suborbital trajectory, though slower than full orbital speed, is very fast indeed in terms of how much ground the trajectory covers. But as we all know to our sorrow, speed of the primary mode of transport is only one factor in total time from source to destination. One has to first transport a letter to the nearest launch center, then wait for a rocket going in the right direction to be ready for launch, then when it arrives at its destination its payload has to be retrieved then sorted; given suborbital trajectories many, indeed most of them, would have to be routed to a second or third rocket to be moved on, then finally delivered by conventional means to the recipient. Even allowing very quick retrievals, which means very well-aimed rockets indeed, despite the very high speed of the rocket flights, launches from each center would have to take place very frequently--no less than one every two hours or so--for the average speed of motion toward the destination to beat a fast subsonic airplane.

And so, while moving mail is a much less demanding task than moving people (since the rockets can have very high accelerations on launch, and on reentry) still the benefits are dubious and marginal, and the costs still very high. I put it forward because it's a thing I've thought a reconstituted League of Nations might conceivably promote, with an eye toward advancing rocket technology for peaceful uses.
 
First, a hearty thanks to all! I hope to prove worthy of the interest.

I was aware of the rule but had seen some recent threads with pre-1900 PODs floating around this forum; if the rule remains in force I'd be more than happy if a mod could move this over.

Regarding ambition: don't expect rapid updates, alas. It may be some months before we get to crewed spaceflight.

I must admit to not entirely having filled in the gap between the 1880s and the 1940s, nor truly precisely nailed down the coalitions. What I can say is that the First World War featured Britain and Germany (and thus Italy) coming to the aid of their Ottoman allies, and facing off against an Austro-Franco-Russian coalition (the latter coalition representing the abject failure of German diplomacy, which had sought a rapprochement with France). The United States, already prejudiced in favor of the two Saxon democracies (and against autocratic Boulangist France and the ancient despotisms of the East), once too provoked by France's guerre de course, would join as well (this sounds like an expy of OTL, but guerre de course, particularly the submarine variety thereof, remained France's best option against the British Empire).
Where Japan and China fit in I have not yet decided (and will probably create a thread to ask others' views on this); at the moment I lean towards Russian-Chinese rapprochement in the 1920s and 30s as a check against Japan, with Japan either sitting out the Second World War or playing an Allied role against that unlikely pairing.
Regarding the Second World War, Brainbin, it might on the face of it appear even more of a curbstomp than you imagine, since France sits it out; but a victorious liberal-socialist Germany, horrified by the price of war, will be no more prepared for Deep Operations than France was for the cut of the sickle. Further, this Russia is less devastated by war, and with a more totalist government than Tsardom implies--think the Russia in Snake Featherstone's "Up with the Star" (impressive parallel evolution, actually, that TL and this one) or postwar Integralist Russia in Es Gelobyte Aretz.

Regarding rocketry: I am of the opinion that while Versailles stimulated German *military* rocketry efforts, it was not the cause of the "Rocket boom" of Weimar Germany, nor (of course) did it prompt Goddard's 20s and 30s experiments. I posit here that Goddard, whose tuberculosis is butterflied away, meets more academic and professional success in a United States that is more friendly to modern technology and in a world that is on average five years ahead of our own.

Shevek: Here is the first of my Better Angels posts on SHWI (more can be googled). It was more recent than I recalled, actually, and comes replete with Mike Stone pooh-pooing any more radical Reconstruction (never saw that coming!). He did catch me out on quite a blooper, though, so I remain grateful.

The mail rockets were a proposal in Austria, IIRC, though I too forget whom by. I think they may have even been tested. The Alps, of course.
While I don't see, even here, rocketry being advanced enough in the 30s for this to be terribly practical, expect some interesting civilian uses later on--certainly we will see a different kind of launch vehicle than OTL, simply because so many OTL launch vehicles are converted missiles. Though ICBMs will nonetheless play a role in the evolution of rocketry.
 
...The United States, already prejudiced in favor of the two Saxon democracies (and against autocratic Boulangist France and the ancient despotisms of the East), once too provoked by France's guerre de course, would join as well (this sounds like an expy of OTL, but guerre de course, particularly the submarine variety thereof, remained France's best option against the British Empire).
As long as the RN is in the first class of navies and they aren't being fought by another power with quite a comparable navy (that is, only potentially the USA and maybe Germany) then, once it becomes technically feasible, submarine commerce raiding seems to be in the cards for anyone challenging them, given Britain's logistical vulnerability. So it sounds quite reasonable, indeed logically necessary, to me.
... Further, this Russia is less devastated by war, and with a more totalist government than Tsardom implies--think the Russia in Snake Featherstone's "Up with the Star" (impressive parallel evolution, actually, that TL and this one) or postwar Integralist Russia in Es Gelobyte Aretz.
So, the Romanovs did not survive in power? Or do the totalists involved prop up a puppet Tsar, of that dynasty or a new one? Or have they dispensed with the need for a hereditary monarch completely?

Oh, well, it doesn't matter, they get dispatched out of power eventually, before our current story unfolds.
Regarding rocketry: I am of the opinion that while Versailles stimulated German *military* rocketry efforts, it was not the cause of the "Rocket boom" of Weimar Germany, nor (of course) did it prompt Goddard's 20s and 30s experiments. I posit here that Goddard, whose tuberculosis is butterflied away, meets more academic and professional success in a United States that is more friendly to modern technology and in a world that is on average five years ahead of our own.
I thought Goddard's problems went beyond physical illness, that as a personality he was just not disposed to scientific-engineering teamwork, even as nominal head of the team. He was personally wounded by the mockery his modest paper on a moon shot brought down on his head, and this shame combined with a deep desire to get full and exclusive credit for his work made him secretive and reclusive.

OTOH with a POD in the early 1860s there are those here who would deny your right to use Goddard as a character at all and those of us who defend it would certainly expect a lot of latitude in the alternate formation of his character!
Shevek: Here is the first of my Better Angels posts on SHWI (more can be googled). It was more recent than I recalled, actually, and comes replete with Mike Stone pooh-pooing any more radical Reconstruction (never saw that coming!). He did catch me out on quite a blooper, though, so I remain grateful.
Thanks! I was able to locate and read through Part 7 but there I hit a stone wall. At the rate the posts were going though there would need to be hundreds to get to the 1880s, so I guess we should just take what you've given thus far as background and let it be sketchy!

The Better Angels stuff is quite good reading for its own sake. I don't see it as much of an indication of how we get from there to here though.
The mail rockets were a proposal in Austria, IIRC, though I too forget whom by. I think they may have even been tested. The Alps, of course.
While I don't see, even here, rocketry being advanced enough in the 30s for this to be terribly practical, expect some interesting civilian uses later on--certainly we will see a different kind of launch vehicle than OTL, simply because so many OTL launch vehicles are converted missiles. Though ICBMs will nonetheless play a role in the evolution of rocketry.

1930s? I was assuming 1940s tech, of the post-1945 war-wanked variety in fact. How can the Americans be proposing to develop not just nuclear weapons, and not just ICBMs, but the two mated together, with a general level of tech below OTL 1940? And the British too have their jet planes, also a good half-decade past 1940.

It could be that tech has been advancing at a moderately faster pace since the 1860s and we've accumulated a 15 year jump on the OTL calendar by say 1935. If the first war was less devastating than OTL's Great War (and having right-wing reactionaries, however modernist, stay in power in defeated Russia suggests it was not quite as bad) maybe some of the improved pace came in the peace-time years between the wars. Certainly if in the USA Jim Crow had its back broken and there is a politically robust working-class movement on both sides of the Atlantic, I can believe that could translate overall into somewhat more rapid technical progress.

Anyway for any of this stuff--jets, long-range rockets with reliable enough aim to be useful, nuclear power--I'd think we'd need a late 1940s-early 50s general substrate anyhow, whatever the calendar says. And that it could hardly be orders of magnitude faster in development than OTL--maybe a factor of 2 at the extreme most, but having it all in say 1938 is more modest than that. Still, that's a dizzying pace of progress!

Oh, I just belatedly noticed this:

...and in a world that is on average five years ahead of our own.

No, I think you need more than 5 years for any of this to be operational before the end of 1940. Even if all of it is the outcome of hero projects spending a whole lot of money. Perhaps rockets, in the sense of their engines though not guidance systems, could have been pushed forward by a decade or two--that depends on just how advanced the metallurgy of say state of the art 1950 OTL engines was; if they were using ultra-high temperature alloys developed just years before then no. Or we might be talking really big, inefficient alcohol-oxygen burners perhaps? But they'd still need some pretty advanced electronics for their guidance, though I suppose really ingenious clockwork might do some of the job. Perhaps. Jet engines, though, I'm pretty sure absolutely had to wait for the most cutting-edge alloys for the compressor and turbine; those developments were driven by the needs of advanced turbosuperchargers that also had to wait on the materials. The Luftwaffe's exploding Jumo engines show what happens when you try to push the tech using inferior materials. (The Germans knew better of course but the wartime blockades deprived them of the strategic metals they knew they needed, wartime necessity compelled them to try with stuff they knew was marginal).

So either "1930s" is a typo unless you refer to the bare beginnings of all this, or the general level is not 5 but more like 15 years ahead of ours. I might settle for 10 if by 1930s you mean 1939 and 40!:p

Regarding civil versus military priorities--at first glance, it doesn't matter much, does it? A rocket is a rocket, it doesn't care where it is going. "'Vunce the r-r-rockets are up, who cares vhere they coom down!?! That's not my department!' says Wehrner von Braun!":p This applies to first-generation work anyway. Once the art matures a bit there are choices to make--the Russian choice to concentrate on storable hypergolic fuels and the American one to develop solid fuel missiles, both driven by the need for weapons systems to stand by ready to launch on a moments notice; this would not ever apply to civil applications. Such weapons are also generally more robust, and both approaches involve engines (with a solid, essentially the whole rocket of course) that are quite reliable and relatively simple as well, and these are desirable features to set against higher efficiency of other fuels that might recommend them to civil use too. But in the beginning the project is to get it to work at all, and so first-generation ICBMs on both sides of the Iron Curtain were kerosene-oxygen and fragile, slow-to-launch things. Unless we count a V-2 as a successful IMRB in which case alcohol fuel took precedence.

But yes, OTL I would agree the existence of the military market did overshadow the civil programs and force adoption of technologies the purely civil programs would have been less likely to develo on their own.

OTOH, would we have had civil space at all without the military demands to build the infrastructure and talent pool to draw from?

I guess that is what this ATL is all about addressing.

If the mail rockets are too silly, that's fine; I never got the point of convincing myself they could work. Technically they could, I believe, but operationally they'd cost so much more than the obvious benefits I can't see anyone following through on developing the system. Maybe scraping enough together for a demonstration shot or two, but support for an operational system would not be forthcoming, not when urgent information can simply be sent by radio.

I am in suspense about your civil applications, wondering which of them might be something we'd all be slapping our heads about, wondering why we don't do that OTL. Or anyway rushing to our favorite ATLs with the suggestion someone there think of it, pronto!

I keep wondering what will happen in space in Jonathan Edelstein's Malê Rising, but so much else of wonder happens there I can wait years to find out. I actually thought of the mail rockets thing in reference to the Czechoslovakia ISOTed to 1938 timeline, as something the victorious CS might suggest to the League of Nations as a global project using their Soviet-derived domestic missile industry as a base.
 
zert, thanks!

I thought Goddard's problems went beyond physical illness, that as a personality he was just not disposed to scientific-engineering teamwork, even as nominal head of the team. He was personally wounded by the mockery his modest paper on a moon shot brought down on his head, and this shame combined with a deep desire to get full and exclusive credit for his work made him secretive and reclusive.

OTOH with a POD in the early 1860s there are those here who would deny your right to use Goddard as a character at all and those of us who defend it would certainly expect a lot of latitude in the alternate formation of his character!
Oh, shoot, I forgot to add that disclaimer too. As this was originally written for a non-AHonaut audience I have kept a bit of a butterfly net over names, despite being personally very pro-butterfly. Then again (despite occasional voluntarist sympathies) I'm enough of a materialist that I think similar conditions will lead to similar offspring who make similar choices (and advances). This Robert Goddard will certainly not share the same genes, for instance, and may well not be the frail and sickly child and man of OTL. I think, also, once he does receive credit that will form a virtuous, rather than vicious, circle regarding secretiveness. That said I don't want to get into the weeds of psychoanalysis; let's merely say that of course this *Robert Goddard is not quite OTL's Robert Goddard, and not just his genes but his career begin and proceed differently.

Thanks! I was able to locate and read through Part 7 but there I hit a stone wall. At the rate the posts were going though there would need to be hundreds to get to the 1880s, so I guess we should just take what you've given thus far as background and let it be sketchy!
I didn't mean I had ever published until the 1880s, just that it's rather firmer in my head than the height of the Belle Epoque and the FWW. Alas Better Angels does peter out around there (never did write more...), but I can tell you where things are headed.

The Better Angels stuff is quite good reading for its own sake. I don't see it as much of an indication of how we get from there to here though.
Thanks!
Here are some spoilers on how we get from there to here.

<snip tech talk>
I'm not sure where you're getting the idea this is starting in the 1930s; my post above this was in repsonse to your mail-rocket point, which OTL was a 30s thing, IIRC. Hence why I mentioned the 1930s. The intro post talks a lot about interwar developments, but the timeline proper doesn't begin until the end of the Second World War (which runs from 1940 to winter 44/45, and ends with Korean War-era technology). The ICBM proposal is made during the war, and you'll soon see how long it takes to *actually* get built.

Regarding civil versus military priorities--at first glance, it doesn't matter much, does it? A rocket is a rocket, it doesn't care where it is going. "'Vunce the r-r-rockets are up, who cares vhere they coom down!?! That's not my department!' says Wehrner von Braun!"
Ah, but consider how, except for Titan and Saturn I/V, basically all US carrier rockets have followed the "mammoth first stage, small upper stage" formula, often because the lower stage started life as an IRBM and they slapped an upper stage on it to make it an LV. If you're starting from scratch designing an LV rather than a missile, what you get may look rather different.

OTOH, would we have had civil space at all without the military demands to build the infrastructure and talent pool to draw from?

I guess that is what this ATL is all about addressing.
You see part of the reason at the end of the intro post: nationalism does not die a quick death. When you can't show up your fellow countries with dreadnoughts or polar expeditions, and you're not spending half your budget on the military, a space race is a pretty reasonable road to prestige.

I am in suspense about your civil applications, wondering which of them might be something we'd all be slapping our heads about, wondering why we don't do that OTL. Or anyway rushing to our favorite ATLs with the suggestion someone there think of it, pronto!
We'll see!
 
I hope you realize I'm not ignoring your response; rather I was unable to see it until today, because the recent crisis of the site (which I still don't know the reason for) locked me out until just now.

That said--I might not have said much anyway because it's a very good reply; what it leaves unanswered is what you are going to tell in your own good time!:)

Then again I just looked at the linky. Are you going to simply port the Kerbal forum timeline posts over to here and work on both sites in parallel, or might they diverge? Should I read ahead there, or wait for revised stuff here?

I don't actually need another site to distract me!:p:eek: And I doubt KSP would even run on my computer, which is quite old by now, and anyway I don't have it, so I'd be a misfit over there.

I can't read any of the Drop-box info on the various bits of tech. If you include them here, will they be offered in a more open format?

-----
It just so happens in the past couple days when I've been unable to load this site, I've wandered around the Net and read up a little bit on an OTL scheme for developing a cheap launching system. As is my wont I went on about it for quite some time, but rather than inflict it on your open thread I've decided to PM it instead, and to include a few other rocket heads whose threads I've thus hijacked in the past, for their review if they choose to as well.
 
No worries. :)

As I mention downthread over there I'm needing to retcon Chapter 1, which is why I haven't posted it here yet. I'll post to get this up to speed with the version on those forums, then keep both in sync. So, alas, don't get used to the pace of the next few posts; things will slow down after that. The point of this endeavor is to make a (decently) rigorous AH "illustrated" by KSP; thus I certainly won't be diverging here or there.
So in sum, I'd suggest holding off reading ahead for now, since the thing you would read (Chapter 1, US Sounding Rockets) will shortly be replaced. Chapters 2 and 3 should stand, though.

The "various bits of tech" are craft files you can load and play with in KSP. I don't really see how I could put them in a "more open format"--they're not pictures or 3D models or sets of stats, they're savegames (well, saved craft files from the craft builder) for a game. However the first picture of any album showing off a craft/mission will be the stats page, so you should be able to get most technical information you desire from that or from the writeup--this, being an intro post, lacks technical detail on the craft shown off.
Or just ask, of course.
For instance, the Armbrust SRBM has the delta V specified in the first picture of the linked album (2861m/s in vacuum), masses 12.921t wet / 4.333t dry (including 1t warhead), carries 4,297.2 liters of Ethanol 75/25, 4,429.3 liters of Liquid Oxygen, and 100 liters of hydrogen peroxide (for the turbopump), and includes a B7 engine. The B7 develops 285kN thrust in vacuum, at a specific impulse of 241s in vacuum and 211s at sea level. TWR at liftoff is 1.97, peaking at about 7.5G at burnout. Total burn time is 75 seconds. TVC is by carbon vanes in the exhaust.

Got your PM; reading.
 
I: Higher, Faster Part 1

I: Higher, Faster Part 1
US Sounding Rockets and their Wartime Roots


During the Second World War, rocketry finally got the funding many in the American Rocketry Society had begged for from the government--but not in a way they had anticipated. GALCIT was a key player in Project Prometheus and nearly all research and engineering revolved around that massive project to build an intercontinental ballistic missile. For this, reliable upper-atmosphere readings were necessary, and so sounding rockets received some of the windfall of funding. Late in the war, when it was obvious that Prometheus would not be ready in time, and that a heavy bomber would be sufficient to carry nuclear bombs, sounding rockets retained considerable priority, along with continuing Navy balloon flights, since a fast, high-flying bomber would itself need high atmospheric data.

While GALCIT focused primarily on Prometheus, that program, done mostly in cooperation with the Air Force, was joined with another project of the newly established Jet Propulsion Laboratory at GACLIT (JPL) --JATO. Jet Assisted Takeoff--although later jets would come to mean air-breathing jets rather than rockets, the name for both JATO and JPL stuck--was a program run in concert with the Navy to provide small disposable boosters which could be used to drastically shorten takeoff runs for carrier aircraft and increase their maximum takeoff weight, as little time for acceleration on a short deck was a limiting factor for payload (land-based aircraft could manage larger payloads with long runways to accelerate down.) The JATO project at first used Goddard's preferred liquid propulsion, but it soon proved inadequate for service needs; instead JPL turned to solid fuel rockets, which were safer and could be built and then stored for months at a time. Frank Buturović and other students, postdocs, and fellows at JPL had been testing various solid fuel combinations for use in Navy and Air Force rocket-propelled weapons, and a cluster of these rockets--in a longer, thinner form such that the burntime would be longer and peak thrust lower--would enter service as detachable boosters for Navy aircraft (and Air Force aircraft flying from unprepared strips) in the final year of the war.

In the closing months of the war, with the Mighty Mouse and Fat Albert rockets and the JATO packs no longer in such high demand, Buturović mated an old Fat Albert Mk. 1 thrust section with the sounding rocket he had designed years before for his doctoral thesis, the Wren. Hitherto the Wren had reached an apogee of only about 25km--perfectly high enough for use "testing the waters" for aircraft, but still only a bit into the stratosphere. Mated to an obsolete Fat Albert Mk. 1 booster, Buturović hoped to be able to reach high into the stratosphere and perhaps determine if it merely continued up and up in a single atmospheric "bloc" until it faded away altogether, or whether there was a third layer of atmosphere, distinct from the troposphere and stratosphere, extending above the stratosphere.

The Wren was a simple design, and already showing its age. Thin steel-braced aluminum skin enclosed two pressurized propellant tanks: a large tank of red fuming nitric acid (the oxidizer) in the fat cylinder at the base, and inside the conical section above that a smaller tank of aniline, the fuel. The propellants were toxic, but they at least had the merit of being hypergolic, which greatly simplified the engine. The engine, a later model of which was designated LR22, was a very simple affair: pressure-fed and needing no ignition system due to its hypergolic propellants, with a very simple bell nozzle that JPL had developed from the first, conical, efforts. The engine produced 11.53kN of thrust at sea level, rising to over 15kN as air pressure decreased. Specific impulse was 182 seconds at sea level, rising past 235s in the best vacuum JPL could create to test the engine (later testing would yield figures of 15.2kN and 240s in near-perfect vacuum). The other main components of the rocket were the nose cone, sided with heavier, thicker steel and insulation to protect the sensors from heat, and the sensor bay immediately below the nosecone. Inside were a barometer and a thermometer, and a small radio to transmit results back to the ground. This was necessary since the rocket was unrecoverable and was expected either to break apart under heat and stress on return, or crash and be destroyed. Finally, three fins were added near the rear; these would provide stability in flight and keep the rocket pointed into the airstream; beyond this, the rocket was without attitude control.

Mission Control: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Vehicle: Boosted Wren
Launch Site: Prometheus Project testing site, Sinclair AFB, California.
Launch Date: September 12, 1944
Objective: Return readings from the upper atmosphere
Intended Orbit: Suborbital
Description: Launch the Wren sounding rocket on a Fat Albert Mk. 1 booster, attempt to exit the stratosphere (if there is something beyond the stratosphere), return temperature and pressure readings.
Outcome: Success.​
Wren

T-02:00:00 Engineering statistics; Boosted Wren being assembled in a hanger at Sinclair.



T+0:00:00 Liftoff from Pad 3 at Sinclair. (Note scorchmarks from LR18 static fires). Since Wren is without attitude control, it lifts off at a slight angle to ensure it will not land on the pad.



T+0:00:02 Fat Albert booster burnout and separation.



T+0:00:03 The Wren's LR22 lights.



T+0:00:06 Burning skyward. It's a beautiful day, and the ground crew expect to be able to track the rocket visually for quite a distance.



T+0:00:42 Burnout, fuel exhausted. The Wren is well past the speed of sound.



The California coast can be seen below.



T+0:01:56 Apogee. The Wren has been returning good data, but as of its 43km apogee it looks like the stratosphere is all there is; pressure has been decreasing steadily and there has been no discontinuity since the tropopause.



T+0:02:30 The Wren has stabilized in attitude for the long fall to Earth.



Screaming in towards the headland.



Well past the sound barrier on descent.



T+0:03:40 just prior to impact.



Fat Albert
Fat Albert was in simple terms a large clustered solid rocket booster, and a 340kg 11in (28cm) shell, originally designed for the main armament of the Alaska class of supercruisers but surplus after they were cancelled. Since the diameter of the booster was quite a bit larger, some steel fairing bridged between the shell's 28cm width and the 50cm of the booster. Intended to give naval carrier attack aircraft standoff capability, it was to be carried in lieu of a torpedo or 2000lb bomb by torpedo and dive bombers respectively. The Mighty Mouse, with only a 400lb warhead, was sized for fighters doing suppression or light attack duty. As an air-launched weapon it was accurate out to about a mile. It was also considered for deployment as a ground-launched bunker-buster for the Marine Corps. The following is a range test of the first model of Fat Albert, the Mk1 (later marks would include larger solid rockets, nearly quadrupling the burn time and greatly extending range).


Mounted for testing



In flight; launched at a 45 degree angle for maximum range.



Burnout. The eight clustered solid motors can be easily seen.



Impact: 29 seconds from launch, 3.3km downrange, 900m apogee.
 
Top