THE HISTORY OF SOLID-PROPELLANT ROCKETRY: WHAT WE DO AND DO NOT KNOW

THE HISTORY OF SOLID-PROPELLANT ROCKETRY:WHAT WE DO AND DO NOT KNOW

J. D. Hunley*

NASA Dryden Flight Research CenterEdwards, California

s,he ansatgeacteddst

amof

ar

t tond

Abstract

Contributions to the evolution of solid-propellanrocketry have come from a variety of sources. WorWar II research on large solids enabled one companycapitalize on work in the area of castable double-bapropellants. Separate development of castacomposite propellants led to production of Polaris aMinuteman powerplants. Pivotal to the development these missiles were Edward Hall’s advocacy of tMinuteman missile within the Air Force and contracfunding to resolve problems. The discovery that addilarge amounts of aluminum significantly increased tspecific impulse of a castable composite propellafurther aided large-missile technology. These separlines of research led to the development of large solpropellant motors and boosters. Many more discoverwent into the development of large solid-propellamotors. Ammonium perchlorate replaced potassiuperchlorate as an oxidizer in the late 1940’s, and bindwere developed. Discoveries important in the evolutiof large solid-propellant motors appear to have resulfrom innovators’ education and skills, an exposure contemporary problems, an awareness of theory buwillingness not to let it dictate empirical investigationand proper empirical techniques. Other importacontributions are the adequate funding and exchangeinformation. However, many questions remain abothese and other innovations.

Nomenclature

Al aluminum

AP ammonium perchlorate

CMDB composite-modified double base

1American Institute of Ae

*NASA Dryden Flight Research Center Historian.Copyright 1999 by the American Institute of Aeronautics an

Astronautics, Inc. No copyright is asserted in the United States unTitle 17, U.S. Code. The U.S. Government has a royalty-free liceto exercise all rights under the copyright claimed herein for Govemental purposes. All other rights are reserved by the copyright own

ns

sofrs,

dder

nsern-er.

tld tose

blendofhet

nghentateid-iesntmersontedtot a

s,nt ofut

CTPB carboxyl-terminated polybutadiene

HMX tetramethylene tetranitramine

HTPB hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene

Isp specific impulse, lbf-sec/lbm

JANNAF Joint Army Navy NASA Air Force (an Interagency Propulsion Committee)

JPL Jet Propulsion Laboratory

PBAA polybutadiene–acrylic acid

PBAN acrylic acid, acrylonitrile, and butadiene terpolymer

psi pounds per square inch (lbf/in2)

Introduction

The history of solid- and liquid-propellant rocketry iparticularly difficult to write for a variety of reasonsincluding the technical complexity of the subject and tresultant division of labor among rocket engineers intovariety of disciplines and subdisciplines. Other reasoinclude the comparatively large number of firms thhave contributed various technologies to a very larnumber of large and small rockets and missiles; the fthat customers for rockets and missiles have includthe U. S. Army, U. S. Navy, U. S. Air Force, NASA, ana growing commercial sector; and the fact that mopeople with technical expertise in rocketry know onlypart of the history of their subject, and many of thedisagree regarding technical details or matters interpretation such as the origins of a particultechnology or its relative importance.

For several years, I have been engaged in an efforproduce a general, technical history of the origins aevolution of both solid- and liquid-propellant rocketry ithe United States with the intent to publish my findingin a book in the NASA History Series. Initially, whileworking in the History Office at NASA Headquarter(Washington, D. C.), I was able to devote quite a bit time to my research and writing. For the past four yea

ronautics and Astronautics

,,n,,,

;tods

usisavethatnd

he Ie.

I have been the historian at the NASA Dryden FlightResearch Center (Edwards, California) and have had todevote approximately 50 hours each week to the historyof aeronautics. I now pursue my rocket research in thewee hours of the morning and on weekends.

I have also studied the history of liquid-propellantrocketry in Germany through the end of World War IIbecause members of the von Braun group in Germanyemigrated to the United States after the war andeventually formed the nucleus of the NASA MarshallSpace Flight Center (Huntsville, Alabama), whence theymade important contributions in overseeing thedevelopment of liquid-propellant rocketry. In the UnitedStates, I have studied the work of Robert Goddard; thegroup that founded Reaction Motors, Inc. (Dover, NewJersey); and especially the work of the CaliforniaInstitute of Technology (Caltech; Pasadena, California),the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL; Pasadena,

California), Aerojet General Corporation (AzusaCalifornia), Thiokol Chemical Corporation (TrentonNew Jersey), Hercules Powder Company (WilmingtoDelaware), Lockheed Aircraft Company (BurbankCalifornia), Atlantic Research Corporation (ViennaVirginia), United Technology Corporation (now theChemical Systems Division of Pratt & WhitneySunnyvale, California), and many other contributors rocket technology. But a vast amount of work still neeto be done.

I have been asked to present my major findings thfar about the history of solid-propellant rocketry at thsession and also to present the major questions I hthat are unanswered as well as the major areas remain to be explored. Table 1 shows key missiles arocket boosters studied. Hopefully, members of tsolid-propellant history group could suggest wherecould devote my limited time to the best advantag

2American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Table 1. Key missiles and rocket boosters.

Missile orbooster

Motormanufacturer Propellant Isp* Grain configuration

Operationaldate

Sergeant Thiokol AP/polysulfide ca. 185 5-point star 1962

Polaris A1

Stage 1 Aerojet AP/Al/polyurethane ca. 230 6-point star 1960

Stage 2 Aerojet AP/Al/polyurethane ca. 255 6-point star 1960

Polaris A2

Stage 2 Hercules Powder Company

AP/nitrocellulose/nitroglycerine/Al

ca. 260 12-point star 1962

Polaris A3

Stage 2 Hercules Powder Company

HMX/Al/AP/nitrocellulose ca. 280 slotted cylindrical center port

1964

Minuteman I

Stage 1 Thiokol AP/PBAA/Al ca. 245 6-point star 1962

Stage 2 Aerojet AP/polyurethane/Al ca. 270 4-point star 1962

Stage 3 Hercules PowderCompany

AP/HMX/nitrocellulose/nitroglycerine/Al

ca. 275 core and slotted tube-modified end burner

1962

Titan 3 solid-rocket motor

United Technology Corporation

AP/PBAN/Al ca. 265 8-point star andcircular perforations

1965

Space Shuttle solid-rocket booster

Thiokol AP/PBAN/Al ca. 245 11-point star and tapered perforations

1981

*Under firing conditions, expressed in terms of lbf-sec/lbm (pounds of thrust per pound of propellant burned per second).

ithn

t

rsofhd

heidefn,ess.

in

-h.

elofd

iteentnd

mesn

et

e

lid-nttscalofels,ored

ir

el.

Perhaps promotion of a collaborative effort to gather thehistory of rocketry before it is lost to shredders and trashheaps throughout the country is possible.

Use of trade names or names of manufacturers in thisdocument does not constitute an official endorsement ofsuch products or manufacturers, either expressed orimplied, by the National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration.

Major Findings

The major findings of this research to date include thefollowing:

• Goddard began investigating the use of solids forpropulsion but spent most of his life exploringliquid propellants. His secrecy and penchant forpatents rather than sharing his discoveries withothers interested in the development of rocketry leftlittle in the way of a legacy. Most of his findingshad to be rediscovered by others.1

• During World War II, important work on tacticalmissiles occurred at the Naval Proving Ground(Indian Head, Maryland), Caltech (Eaton Canyon,California), Allegany Ballistics Laboratory (WestVirginia), the Explosives Research Laboratory(Bruceton, Pennsylvania), and elsewhere.2–6

• The Hercules Powder Company appears to havebeen the major beneficiary of this research in thearea of large solids, especially capitalizing on thework of John Kincaid and Henry Shuey in the areaof castable double-base propellants.

• The Hercules Powder Company also participated inthe development of several tactical missiles for theU. S. Department of Defense, including the Nike,Honest John, Sparrow, and Terrier missiles.7 Muchless seems to be known about these developments.

• ln a separate line of development, a group ofresearchers at the Guggenheim AeronauticalLaboratory at Caltech (which formed the nucleus ofwhat became JPL in 1944) was working on jet-assisted takeoff units. In June of 1942, a chemistnamed John Parsons had the idea of combiningasphalt (as a binder and fuel) with potassiumperchlorate (as an oxidizer) to make the firstcastable composite solid propellant.8

• JPL engineer Charles Bartley improved on Parsons’basic discovery by replacing the asphalt with aThiokol polysulfide polymer, LP-2. CombiningLP-2 with an internal-burning, star-shaped grainand case-bonding the combination in a thin case led

to the Sergeant missile powerplant and later, wdifferent ingredients, the Polaris and Minutemamissiles.9 Figure 1 shows a Polaris A2X tesmissile.

• Aerojet (which was founded by some of the leadeat JPL), Thiokol (which had links to JPL because LP-2), and United Technology Corporation (whicwas founded by people with ties to JPL anelsewhere) all used this basic technology.

• These companies might not have made tcontribution to rockets and missiles that they dhad it not been for the vision of a U. S. Air Forcofficer, Edward N. Hall. Hall ensured funding ocontracts to resolve problems with long-duratiofirings of solid propellants, thrust terminationthrust-vector control, and the exposure of nozzlto the heat associated with high specific impulseHe also advocated the Minuteman missile withthe U. S. Air Force.†, ‡, 7, 10–13

• A further line of development that enabled largemissile technology started at Atlantic ResearcCorporation, working under contract with the U. SNavy. Two young engineers named Keith Rumband Charles Henderson found that the addition large amounts of aluminum significantly increasethe specific impulse of a castable compospropellant. The propellant they used was 21 percaluminum, 59 percent ammonium perchlorate, a20 percent plasticized polyvinyl chloride.

• These separate lines of research led frodevelopment of the Polaris and Minuteman missilto development of the large solid-rocket motors oTitan 3 and Titan 4 rockets and the solid-rockboosters on the Space Shuttle.14 Figure 2 shows aTitan 3E launch vehicle, and Figure 3 shows thSpace Shuttle.

Other Developments and Key Questions

Many more discoveries were behind these large sorocket developments than just these propellacontributions. Integral to the stories of the propellanused on large rockets and missiles, smaller tactimissiles, and a host of smaller rockets for a variety rockets and spacecraft were the various binders, fuand oxidizers that went into the propellants. Fexample, the motors for the Polaris A1 missile design

†Telephonic interview of Col. Edward N. Hall (United States AForce, Retired) by J. D. Hunley, Nov. 13, 1998.

‡Hall, Edward N., “USAF Engineer in Wonderland Including thMissile Down the Rabbit Hole,” undated typescript provided by Hal


4

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

(Photo courtesy of NASA.)

Figure 1. A Polaris A2X test missile on the launch pad at the Atlantic Missile Test Range, Cape Canaveral, Florida.The A2X is the prototype for the 1500-nmi Polaris A2 missile that became operational in 1962.

0’se

thebee

onss.

d

e

d

(Photo courtesy of NASA.)

Figure 2.A Titan 3E launch vehicle with a Centaur upper stage. This vehicle featured the five-segment solid rocketmotors shown firing in this photograph together with three liquid-propellant stages, including the Centaur. Thisconfiguration launched the Viking, Helios, and Voyager spacecraft from 1974 to 1977.

by Aerojet featured a cast, case-bonded polyether-polyester-polyurethane composition with 15 percentaluminum and ammonium perchlorate. Karl Klager atAerojet has been credited with being largely responsiblefor developing both the grain and the propellant forthese motors, but the story of their development isevidently quite complex. Klager received the U. S. NavyDistinguished Public Services Award in 1958 for hiswork on the Polaris missile, but the development ofsome of the propellant ingredients predates when Klagerjoined Aerojet in 1950.

In 1948, Aerojet had replaced potassium perchloratewith ammonium perchlorate in certain aeroplexpropellants to reduce smoke and increase specificimpulse. Problems existed with combustion instabilityand the aeroplex binder was not case-bondable, leadingAerojet to convert to a polyurethane binder in 1953 and1954. But the process had started.§ JPL and Thiokolwere also working with ammonium perchlorate as an

oxidizer in the late 1940’s and used it in the early 195on the RV-A-10 missile, an important precursor of thPolaris missile.¶ A significant part of the history ofrocketry involves the full details of how ammoniumperchlorate successfully came to be used and how various ingredients in the Polaris motors came to combined in the proportions that ultimately weremployed.

For subsequent missiles and rockets, similar questiexist about the development of the propellant grainHow, for instance, did polybutadiene–acrylic aci(PBAA); acrylic acid, acrylonitrile, and butadieneterpolymer (PBAN); carboxyl-terminated polybutadien

§Klager, Karl and Albert O. Dekker, “Early Solid CompositeRockets,” unpublished paper, Oct. 1972.

¶Wiggins, Joseph W., “The Earliest Large Solid Rocket Motor—The Hermes,” presented at the AIAA 9th Annual Meeting anTechnical Display, Washington, D.C., Jan. 8–10, 1973.


6

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

(NASA photo 81-HC-829.)

Figure 3. Space Shuttle Columbia climbs skyward on its second mission into space from NASA’s Kennedy SpaceCenter, Florida, on November 12, 1981. This photograph shows one of the two giant solid rocket boosters firing toprovide the lion’s share of the orbiter’s lift for the first 24 nmi of ascent into space.

fw-anedsed

seal

le,ndhefad

ofale

n

ygelyificthhee,ers,hebeserysen

thens

teronel,ch

lseededas

,

(CTPB); and hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene(HTPB) come to be developed as binders? How didtetramethylene tetranitramine (HMX) come to replace atleast some of the ammonium perchlorate in some high-energy propellants? The technical literature seems toleave these kinds of questions unanswered. Moreresearch is needed.

Ernie Sutton’s privately printed and very usefulhistory of Thiokol# provides partial answers to some ofthese questions. According to Sutton, Thiokol begansearching in 1952 for propellants that would raiseperformance while lowering temperatures of the burninggrain. Funded by the U. S. Army, Thiokol chemistssought to reduce or eliminate the sulfur content of itspolysulfides by preparing liquid hydrocarbon polymers.The chemists tried several polymers and combinationsof copolymers but found adding functional groups thatwould cure readily was problematic. Eventually, in1954, the chemists in Huntsville, Alabama, discovered acopolymer of butadiene and acrylic acid—PBAA. Using32-oz soda bottles for mixing, the chemists succeeded ingetting a liquid epoxide resin to react with the carboxylgroups yielded from the acrylic acid and thus produceda cured polymer binder. Sutton does not reveal,however, who the chemists were or exactly how theyarrived at their discovery, although his narrativesuggests that they did so by trial and error with likelypolymers.

Sutton notes that PBAA was a definite improvement,but that it did not possess good tear strength.# Hence,Thiokol introduced PBAN, which offered betterphysical properties, in 1954. According to Sutton,although Thiokol originally developed PBAN, theAmerican Synthetic Rubber Corporation in Louisville,Kentucky (later known as Kentucky Synthetic RubberCorporation), somehow—he doesn’t say how—beganproducing the binder in the late 1950’s. Used inMinuteman missiles, Space Shuttle solid rocketboosters, and Poseidon missiles, PBAN has accumulatedthe largest production tonnages in the industry.#

Later in the 1950’s, Thiokol developed CTPB,although Sutton does not say how. He notes CTPB hasbetter mechanical properties than PBAN but never fullysupplanted the latter, partly because of its higher costand partly because of the emergence of a better polymer,known as HTPB.#

Karl Klager, who is credited with the development oHTPB, was asked how he came to develop this locost, low-viscosity propellant that has become industry standard. He said only that he startdevelopment in 1961 but waited until 1969 to propothe propellant to NASA for the Astrobee D anAstrobee F sounding rockets on which it flewsuccessfully. Perhaps, however, Klager’s responregarding how he came to discover unsymmetricdimethylhydrazine (UDMH) (which is a liquidpropellant used on the Bomarc missile, Titan 2 missiTitan 3 and Titan 4 rockets, and other missiles arockets) applies equally to HTPB. Klager said that simply brought his knowledge of the science ochemistry to bear on the need for a propellant. He hearned a Ph.D. in chemistry from the University Vienna in 1934 and had worked for several chemicfirms in Europe from 1931 to 1948 before moving to thUnited States and starting work for Aerojet i1950.#

, ** , ††

Klager’s explanation is similar to the answer given bCharles Henderson about the discovery that laramounts of aluminum—on the order of approximate16–20 percent—substantially added to the specimpulse of solid propellants. Henderson and KeiRumbel, both chemical engineers trained at tMassachusetts Institute of Technology (CambridgMassachusetts), were aware that other researchincluding some at Aerojet, had calculated that tspecific impulse of composite solid propellants could raised by including aluminum in the ingredients. Theother researchers’ calculations, following contemporatheory, had showed that the aluminum would increathe specific impulse only within a narrow range. Whethe amount of aluminum in the propellant exceeded level of 5 percent of the total content, the calculatioindicated that the specific impulse again declined.

Rumbel and Henderson apparently had betinformation about the actual nature of the combustiprocess and went well beyond the 5-percent levfinding that the specific impulse of the Atlantic Researpolyvinyl chloride propellant climbed significantly asthat level was exceeded. In addition to a lack of faassumptions about the then–still largely unexplornature of the combustion process, what permittRumbel and Henderson to make their discovery w

#Sutton, E. S., “How a Tiny Laboratory in Kansas City Grew into aGiant Corporation: A History of Thiokol and Rockets, 1926–1996,”privately printed, Jan. 1997.

** Short biography of Dr. Karl Klager, provided by him toJ. D. Hunley, Mar. 1997.

††Telephonic interview of Dr. Karl Klager by J. D. HunleyMar. 15, 1997.


inket, the

sbelsedchwot

insnot57.

iesndd,iced

ticandulesse

doreto as,n ofint

good empirical technique. They and their colleagues atAtlantic Research apparently had the proper mix ofskills and knowledge to employ the correct proceduresfor testing the effects of a 21-percent concentration ofaluminum combined with 59 percent ammoniumperchlorate and a binder of 20 percent plasticizedpolyvinyl chloride in test stands at Atlantic Research.Aerojet later verified their findings in an actual 100-lbrocket in early 1956.

Rumbel and Henderson had found that severalconditions were necessary for good combustion ofaluminum: small particles (fortunately available fromboth the Aluminum Company of America, Alcoa,Tennessee; and Reynolds Metals Company, Richmond,Virginia), proper chamber pressure (approximately725–889 psi with measured specific impulse at thosetwo pressures being 230 and 247 lbf-sec/lbm,respectively) and oxidation ratio, and sufficient energycontent in the propellant mixture to ignite thealuminum. They used test motors 5 in. in diameter and14 in. long with a star perforation.‡‡, §§, ¶¶

Henderson, after consulting with Rumbel, alsoprovided a description of Atlantic Research’sdevelopment of composite-modified double-base(CMDB) propellants,## which later became important inrocketry. Although Henderson’s short narrative does notanswer precisely how the discovery occurred, it doesprovide many of the details. He says the developmentbegan at Atlantic Research with a laboratory process forthe preparation of plastisol-grade nitrocellulose. Theindividuals responsible for that process were ArthurSloan and D. Mann, who, Henderson says, patented itwith the rights assigned to Atlantic Research.Nitrocellulose was not suitable in its manufactured stateas an unmodified additive to other propellant ingredientsbeing mixed together because of its fibrous nature.Sloan’s process consisted of dissolving thenitrocellulose in nitrobenzine and then separating thenitrocellulose out again using water under high shear.

##

This process resulted, Henderson adds, in a compact andspherical product with a particle diameter in the range ofapproximately 1 to 20 microns. In this form, thenitrocellulose could readily be combined with liquidnitroplasticizers and crystalline additives and then be

mixed with other propellant ingredients and cast either cartridge-loaded grains or case-bonded roccasings because, when subjected to moderate heatnitrocellulose converted into a solid.

##

Henderson did not furnish a date for thidevelopment, but he said that in 1955 he and Rumbegan scale-up work and propellant development baon Sloan and Mann’s discovery. Atlantic Researconstructed a pilot plant and began development of tCMDB formulations in 1956. Table 2 shows whacomprised the two formulations.

Henderson remembers casting the propellant graand doing static firing, but because his records do include the dates, he guesses the work occurred in 19Henderson says that as Atlantic Research’s activitgrew, its pilot plant became too small for its needs athe Naval Proving Ground at Indian Head, Marylanbegan to produce CMDB at some point. AtlantResearch and other firms in the rocket industry obtainthe product from the U. S. Navy. Because the AtlanResearch plastisol process was much simpler, safer, cheaper than other processes being used, the HercPowder Company and other facilities using double-bapropellants adopted it.##

From the examples of discoveries by Klager anAtlantic Research, the conditions necessary finnovation in rocket technology would seem to includproper education and skills, an exposure contemporary problems, awareness of theory butwillingness not to let it dictate empirical investigationand proper empirical techniques. Another conditiowould seem to be adequate funding and exchangeinformation such as has been provided by the Jo

‡‡Letter from Karl Klager to J. D. Hunley, Oct. 7, 1997.§§Letter from Charles B. Henderson to J. D. Hunley, Oct 16, 1997.¶¶Telephonic interview of Charles Henderson by J. D. Hunley,

Oct. 15, 1997.##Narrative by Charles Henderson and Keith Rumbel dated Sept.

30, 1998, sent to J. D. Hunley as an enclosure to a letter from CharlesHenderson dated Oct. 8, 1998.

Table 2. CMDB formulations.

Content (percent by weight)

Ingredients40-percent

binder50-percent

binder

Pyro nitrocellulose 20 25

Nitroglycerin 14 17.5

Dibutyl phthate 6 7.5

Ammonium perchlorate 32.8 25.45

Aluminum powder 27.2 24.55

Calculated specificimpulse (lbf-sec/lbm)at 1000 psi to 1 atm

261 262


t

to

eltantn]m. Indg

ge

ndataye

ntsnsl

e

ignaitsped

ainn,arm

ketmer ahanm

ry,nd

nntraly

Army Navy NASA Air Force (JANNAF) InteragencyPropulsion Committee and its predecessors, which dateback to the Rocket Propellant Information Agencywithin the Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns HopkinsUniversity (Baltimore, Maryland) in 1946.15, 16

In addition to propellants themselves, other issuesexist, such as testing the propellant grain, materialsresearch for motor cases and nozzles, techniques forignition of the grain, grain configurations, thrust-vectorcontrol and thrust termination, mixing techniques,liners, bonding agents, stabilizers, catalysts, andguidance and control, that still need to be researched. Ihave read a lot of the literature on research into theissue, but still don’t have a crystal-clear notion ofexactly what combustion instability has contributed tosolid-propellant rocketry beyond a greaterunderstanding of internal ballistics.

As mentioned above, one other area needing muchmore extensive research is the contribution of work ontactical missiles to solid-propellant technology. Thispaper mainly concentrates on large rockets and missiles,but Edward Price has stressed that smaller missiles havemade many important contributions. I have not had timeto pursue some leads Price has given me regarding hisown work outside the general area of combustioninstability, but some suggestions are in more readilyavailable literature.

For example, Edward Hall has written that by 1950,the Falcon missile had contributed “quality controltechniques for rubber-base propellants, design data forcase-bonded grains, [and] aging characteristics ofrubber-base propellants.”17 Exactly how the Falconmissile contributed these techniques and data, however,Hall does not say. We do know that although the Falconmissile was built by Hughes Aircraft Company (CulverCity, California), Thiokol developed its motors.10, 18

Some information exists in Sutton’s history ofThiokol about the processes that Hall mentions. At thetime that Thiokol was working on the Falcon missile,the company was also working on a jet-assisted takeoffmotor designated T-40, which used a JPL propellantformulation, and the RV-A-10 missile. Withoutexplaining how the development occurred, Suttonquotes an early Thiokol employee, Jack Buchanan, asstating, “The T-40 was probably the first successfuldemonstration that internal-burning, case-bonded motordesigns using polysulfide propellants could besuccessfully scaled up to larger diameters.”# Suttonreveals that the development occurred in 1949 under the

technical direction of Harold W. Ritchie, a chemistrained at Purdue University (Lafayette, Indiana).

Sutton also quotes Ritchie himself with regard the Falcon missile: “[Liquid polysulfide]-bondedpropellants gave me one of my greatest lifetimheadaches because of the cure exotherm and resushrinkage on curing—just before [the propellant graibecame solid. Propellant voids from shrinkage and fro(air) bubbles were at first two of our greatest problemsinitiated the temperature-programmed cure cycle aalso the slit-plate casting system to remove mixinbubbles.”# Sutton adds, “Later on, pressurized curinwas introduced to allow propellant to flow back into thmotor from the head cap area.”#

These points by Sutton address the quality control aaging issues raised by Hall, and no doubt the design dfor case-bonded grains resulted from this work bThiokol not only on the Falcon missile but also on thjet-assisted takeoff motor. However, the developmeclearly resulted in some degree from interactiobetween JPL and Thiokol, not strictly from internaThiokol discoveries.#, 10, 14 A great deal more researchis needed to clarify and provide the details of thdevelopment process outlined by Hall and Sutton.

Sutton does discuss an improvement in grain desthat Thiokol provided. JPL had been working on Sergeant sounding rocket but had cancelled development in 1950 because cracks in the star-shainternal cavity had resulted in explosions.9 Thiokolovercame this problem as a result of photoelastic grstudies performed by the Armour Institute, later knowas the Illinois Institute of Technology (ChicagoIllinois). These studies led Thiokol to round the stpoints on the RV-A-10 missile to prevent cracks froforming during sub- and full-scale motor firings.#, ***

Concluding Remarks

These details constitute some aspects of rocdevelopment that I have been able to find out froexisting literature and the comparatively small numbof interviews that I have found time to conduct. Butvast amount of research is still needed, much more tI ever expect to have time to do—especially as I aresearching liquid- as well as solid-propellant rocketand liquids have their own separate issues acomplexities.

*** Telephone interview of Lawrence Thackwell (who worked isuccession for JPL on the Sergeant sounding rocket, for Grand CeRocket Company, and then for Thiokol on the RV-A-10 missile) bJ.D. Hunley, Dec. 17, 1995.


l

n,

:.S.

l

s,

9,

er,

lid

e

”

Consequently, I solicit your suggestions and evenyour assistance. Assembling a group of people who arealready experts in specific areas of solid-propellantrocketry and are willing to write chapters on the historyof their areas of expertise should be possible. The groupcould address the major innovations in their area;attempt to find out where, when, and how theinnovations occurred; and discuss which rockets andmissiles have employed those innovations. Someone,possibly myself, could edit the volume for consistencyand write introductory and concluding chapters thatwould cover the background, indicate the nature of theenterprise, and summarize the principal findings. Iwould welcome hearing from anyone who might bewilling to participate in such an effort or can suggestother possible participants.

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Dr. Karl Klager, Col. Edward N. Hall (ret.),Charles Henderson, Robert Geisler, and Dr. John Bluthfor furnishing me copies of unpublished papers used inthis paper; and to Edward Price, Charles Henderson,Wilbur C. Andrepont, and Dr. Klager for extensivediscussions that have added to my understanding ofsolid-propellant rocketry.

References

1Hunley, J. D., “The Enigma of Robert H. Goddard,”Technology and Culture: The International Quarterly ofthe Society for the History of Technology, vol. 36, no. 2,Apr. 1995, pp. 327–350.

2Goodstein, Judith R., Millikan’s School: A History ofthe California Institute of Technology, W. W. Norton &Company, New York, 1991.

3Burchard, John E., ed., Rockets, Guns and Targets:Rockets, Target Information, Erosion Information, andHypervelocity Guns Developed During World War II bythe Office of Scientific Research and Development,Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1948.

4Snyder, Conway W., “Caltech’s Other RocketProject: Personal Reflections,” Engineering & Science,Spring 1991, pp. 3–13.

5Noyes, W. A., Jr., ed., Chemistry: A History of theChemistry Components of the National DefenseResearch Committee, 1940–1946, Little, Brown andCompany, Boston, 1948.

6Christman, Albert B., Sailors, Scientists, andRockets: Origins of the Navy Rocket Program and of theNaval Ordnance Test Station, Inyokern, Naval HistoryDivision, Washington, D. C., 1971.

7Dyer, Davis and David B. Sicilia, Labors of aModern Hercules: The Evolution of a ChemicaCompany, Harvard Business School Press, Bosto1990.

8Hunley, J. D., “A Question of AntecedentsPeenemünde, JPL, and the Launching of URocketry,” Organizing for the Use of Space: HistoricaPerspectives on a Persistent Issue, Roger D. Launius,ed., American Astronautical Society History Serievol. 18, 1995, pp. 1–31.

9Carroll, P. Thomas, “Historical Origins of theSergeant Missile Powerplant,” History of Rocketry andAstronautics, Kristan R. Lattu, ed., AmericanAstronautical Society History Series, vol. 8, 198pp. 121–146.

10United States Air Force Historical Research Cent“Colonel Edward N. Hall,” U. S. Air Force Oral HistoryInterview, K239.0512-1820, July 1989.

11Hall, Edward N., The Art of DestructiveManagement: What Hath Man Wrought?, Vantage PressInc., New York, 1984.

12Neal, Roy, Ace in the Hole, Doubleday & Company,Inc., Garden City, 1962.

13Neal, Roy, “The Minuteman,” Rocket and MissileTechnology, Gene Gurney, ed., New York: FranklinWatts, Inc., 1964, pp. 224–241.

14Hunley, J. D., “The Evolution of Large SolidPropellant Rocketry in the United States,” Quest: TheHistory of Spaceflight Quarterly, vol. 6, no. 1, Spring1998, pp. 22–38.

15Price, E. W., “Solid Rocket CombustionInstability—An American Historical Account,”Nonsteady Burning and Combustion Stability of SoPropellants, Luigi De Luca, Edward W. Price, andMartin Summerfield, ed., Progress in Astronautics andAeronautics, vol. 143, 1992, pp. 1–16.

16“History of JANNAF,” on the Chemical PropulsionInformation Agency’s Homepage, Uniform ResourcLocator http://www jhu.edu/~cpia/jannaf/history.html.

17Hall, Edward N., “Air Force Missile Experience,”Air University Quarterly Review, vol. 9, Summer 1957,pp. 22–33.

18Simpson, Charles G., “Airlaunched Missiles,AAFM (publication of the Association of Air ForceMissileers), vol. 6, no. 3, Sept. 1998, pp. 1–9.


REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

Form ApprovedOMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering andmaintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington,VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS

6. AUTHOR(S)

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES

16. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF REPORT

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF ABSTRACT

20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18298-102

The History of Solid-Propellant Rocketry: What We Do and Do Not Know

WU 038-00-00-L0-XR-00-000

J. D. Hunley

NASA Dryden Flight Research CenterP.O. Box 273Edwards, California 93523-0273

H-2330

National Aeronautics and Space AdministrationWashington, DC 20546-0001 H-2330

Contributions to the evolution of solid-propellant rocketry have come from a variety of sources. World War IIresearch on large solids enabled one company to capitalize on work in the area of castable double-basepropellants. Separate development of castable composite propellants led to production of Polaris andMinuteman powerplants. Pivotal to the development of these missiles were Edward Hall’s advocacy of theMinuteman missile within the Air Force and contract funding to resolve problems. The discovery that addinglarge amounts of aluminum significantly increased the specific impulse of a castable composite propellantfurther aided large-missile technology. These separate lines of research led to the development of large solid-propellant motors and boosters. Many more discoveries went into the development of large solid-propellantmotors. Ammonium perchlorate replaced potassium perchlorate as an oxidizer in the late 1940’s, and binderswere developed. Discoveries important in the evolution of large solid-propellant motors appear to have resultedfrom innovators’ education and skills, an exposure to contemporary problems, an awareness of theory but awillingness not to let it dictate empirical investigations, and proper empirical techniques. Other importantcontributions are the adequate funding and exchange of information. However, many questions remain aboutthese and other innovations.

Solid propellants, Solid rocket booster, Space launch vehicles, Space shuttle A03

12

Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified Unlimited

June 1999 Conference Paper

Presented as AIAA 99-2925 Invited Paper at the 35th AIAA, ASME, SAE, ASEE Joint Propulsion Conferenceand Exhibit, Los Angeles, California, June 20–24, 1999.

Unclassified—UnlimitedSubject Category 15 and 28

THE HISTORY OF SOLID-PROPELLANT ROCKETRY: WHAT WE DO AND DO NOT KNOW

Documents

Transcript of THE HISTORY OF SOLID-PROPELLANT ROCKETRY: WHAT WE DO AND DO NOT KNOW