November 21: "The Day We Launched the Tower"

[CalliArcale]

Only one space history entry today. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />This day in 1960 became known among Cape Canaveral personnel as "The Day We Launched The Tower". It was an embarassing but somewhat amusing failure. MR-1 (Mercury-Redstone 1) was an unmanned test flight of the new spacecraft. Everything appeared normal through the countdown, and the engine ignited correctly. But one second later, after the vehicle had just barely lifted off of the pad, faulty ground-support circuitry caused the engine to shut down again. The Redstone settled back down on its pad. But as far as the spacecraft knew, it had been a successful launch, and it never received an abort signal. So at T+1 second, it received what it believed to be a normal MECO signal. It jettisoned the escape tower, which blasted successfully clear of the rocket. Then, after the correct predetermined time, it fired the pyrotechnic charges to release the parachute, which spat out the top of the vehicle and hung limply at its side. The Mercury spacecraft was otherwise undamaged, and after some work to get it ready, it flew on a later unmanned test mission. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[vogon13]

Pretty benign failure mode for a technology not otherwise known for such things.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[juliemac]

Well we know that the tower jet works...

 

[lampblack]

whoo hah... looks kinda like a case of premature launchaculation to me.<br /><br />But seriously -- that had to be positively terrifying for everybody involved. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

Beats me, newsartist. I've never heard of that story, so I couldn't tell you which launch it was. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> But here are some candidates:<br /><br />Little Joe 1: payload was a boilerplate Mercury; intended mission was a test of Max-Q abort. But things went wrong; half an hour before launch, the escape system fired, resulting in a basically normal off-the-pad abort.<br /><br />Big Joe 1: payload was a boilerplate Mercury and rocket was, as in your story, an Atlas. It was intended as a test of the heatshield. The history page doesn't mention any problems with fitting the spacecraft model to the booster. The heatshield test was successful, but the launcher did not perform perfectly (the spent outboard engines failed to separate) and the impact point was 500 miles short. There was no escape system.<br /><br />The first mission with an actual Mercury spacecraft (Spacecraft #1) was Beach Abort, but that can't be the one in your story, because they didn't actually have a launch vehicle. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> It was a test of the escape system.<br /><br />The first spaceflight with an actual Mercury spacecraft (Spacecraft #4) was Mercury-Atlas 1. This may also be the mission from your story. It was the qualification flight for the Mercury-Atlas combination. NASA's historical archive lists it as a failure, but doesn't give much more in the way of details. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[darkenfast]

I remember reading a book published in the late fifties (I think), that told a story of a Viking rocket at White Sands that had a pressure problem which was solved by a shot from an M-1 carbine. The guys dealing with the Redstone would have known about this, so it may not have been such a far-fetched idea after all!<br />P.S. Calli, thank you for posting this series of historical tidbits. I really enjoy them!

 

[ace5]

For me, the best of the high-level of machinery used for manned spaceflight is that some capsules were indeed used after pad aborts in other flights. Gemini 2 (wich was not involved in any pad abort, I know) was reused in MOL; Soyuz T-10A was refitted to Soyuz T-15 and flew a 125-day mission, and so on. The Launch escape System and parachutes proved that they can not only save the crews but keep the module´s integrity for later re-use. And some Zond descent vehicles were saved and reused. Amazing.

 

[drwayne]

Hmmm, shark repellent - cool, I didn't know that!!!<br /><br />That brought a smile to my face, thanks sir!<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[vogon13]

Did the tower damage anything when it came back down, or did it achive orbit?<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[dobbins]

The tower landed 400 feet from the pad.<br /><br />The story of "The Four Inch Flight" is recounted in NASA's "This New Ocean: A History of Project Mercury"<br /><br />http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4201/ch9-7.htm<br /><br />

 

[CalliArcale]

And at least the crews trying to work out how best to safe a fully fueled and armed Redstone rocket wouldn't have to worry about landsharks attacking them. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> (Sorry, I'm feeling goofy today.)<br /><br />I bought the "Liftoff!" DVD from SpaceCraftFilms and it talks about some early V-2s. There was a somewhat amusing (although undoubtedly frightening) failure early on. Rommel (IIRC) had come to view a test launch. During preflight preparations, the V-2 unexpectedly ignited and lifted off. It didn't go very far, impacting very close to the launch pad and completely destroying the aircraft Rommel had been using. During a speech afterwards, he praised the team, drily remarking that they'd developed a devastatingly effective short-range weapon. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>