Abandoned Aerojet facilities - Florida

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

bigone5500

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
2,122
Reaction score
1
Found this online and thought it was interesting. Illegal to be there but still interesting...

https://www.abandonedfl.com/?p=627
[video=youtube;v0mCPW0CrNc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=v0mCPW0CrNc#![/video]
 
Last edited:
There's a really interesting DVD about this. Let me look for info and I'll post it here. An Interesting example of politics at work, if you ask me (which you didn't LOL)
 
Adventures in urban archaeology. Fan rotating in wind really helps set desolate mood.
 
hey! this is my backyard ! I've always wanted to go visit it.
It's sad that people are vandalizing it and stripping metal off
to sell it as scrap.
I wonder if the engine still has fuel ?
 
I remember one of these solid rocket motor firings being reported briefly in I think Life magazine. The 260-in diameter motor was fired in the ground with the nozzle pointed up. Probably, the motor was fired where it was cast, because it was so huge to move anywhere. The igniter was actually a small solid rocket fired from the forward end of the giant motor and was aimed vertically upward, so that as it flew out of the giant motor its exhaust plume ignited all of the surface propellant of the giant motor on its way out. There was a photo showing a small rocket flying up in the sky above the plume of the giant motor as it came up to full pressure after the ignition transient.
 
I remember one of these solid rocket motor firings being reported briefly in I think Life magazine. The 260-in diameter motor was fired in the ground with the nozzle pointed up. Probably, the motor was fired where it was cast, because it was so huge to move anywhere. The igniter was actually a small solid rocket fired from the forward end of the giant motor and was aimed vertically upward, so that as it flew out of the giant motor its exhaust plume ignited all of the surface propellant of the giant motor on its way out. There was a photo showing a small rocket flying up in the sky above the plume of the giant motor as it came up to full pressure after the ignition transient.
Wow ! thats cool !
It would be nice if the picture was shown :rolleyes:
 
I'm amazed that the silo isn't completely filled with water.
 
I bet it would still fire... you might need a little more than a copperhead... unless you scratch the grains up first...
 
https://www.rocketryforum.com/showt...ary-Dock-Launch-of-Solid-Propellant-Saturn-IB

https://www.rocketryforum.com/showt...ndling-and-Launching-Large-Solid-Rockets-quot

The 260 inch monolithic SRM was an interesting idea, but hardly practical... there were a number of issues that simply weren't solved and would pose ENORMOUS impediments to its actual use...

First, the motor casings were built by submarine hull contractors in drydocks... simple enough, but moving the massive casings was fun... Second, when cast full of propellant, the things were absolutely incredibly heavy... just handling and transporting the things would have been a complete nightmare, and one that wasn't really solved satisfactorily when the program was canceled. Another thing is, the operational characteristics of the motors... they would have created unbelievable amounts of vibration in the launch vehicle... so much so that engineering the structures around it or on top of it to survive would have been problematical. They only tested a half-size motor IIRC... the full 260 inch diameter but only half-length... and it vibrated SO badly it cracked the test stand! Now imagine sticking a lightweight structure like an S-IVB stage on top of it filled with liquid propellants at supercold temperatures, and a fragile spacecraft and payload with humans on top of it... Who would want to ride in a paint shaker, and what condition would you be in when it stopped??

The 260 inch monolithics suffered from some physical problems too which were never really addressed... propellant slump was a big one... imagine a pencil eraser 22 feet in diameter... how do you pick it up?? How do you keep it from collapsing under its own weight?? This was basically the problem with the 260 inch motor... the propellant, roughly the consistency of a pencil eraser, was cast inside the casing 21.6 feet in diameter... when it's turned upright, the propellant tends to 'slump' under its own weight, sagging in the middle... the propellant was projected to sag by as much as a foot or so IIRC... that's a HUGE amount inside a rocket motor! Plus, this "sagging" or slumping tends to exert ENORMOUS forces on the propellant grain itself... at the top, the "pulling inward" by the sagging propellant below pulling downward and inward on the propellant grain above it is trying to pull the propellant away from being tightly bonded to the casing wall liner at the top of the casing... at the bottom, the propellant's massive weight is trying to shear the propellant grain loose from the wall so the entire mass can slide downward in the casing above the nozzle... maintaining the integrity of the propellant (not having it crack or tear under it's own weight) and the propellants bond with the casing wall (remember what can happen with a propellant seperation or crack?? a cato!) were going to be HUGE problems that nobody was entirely sure could be solved... they were optimistic, but they didn't know for sure...

The test motors (there were two of them fired) avoided these problems by being cast in the silo pit and fired from the same pit... the motors were never removed from the pit and subjected to ground handling and inversion onto a launching pad, so there was never an issue of having to deal with the propellant slump or ground handling and transportation difficulties... just theoretical studies, as posted above.

The massive weight of the motors would have completely ruled out their use on the existing space launch complex 39-- they were simply too heavy for the VAB or for a crawler to transport, and the existing pads weren't designed for them. The plans to use them for boosters for the Saturn V would have COMPLETELY changed the operations at Complex 39... the Saturn V would be stacked in the VAB, transported to the pad via the crawler, then the crawler would have to retrieve a solid motor stacking and mating fixture-- essentially a set of cranes and hardware capable of being transported atop the crawler and moved into position around the MLP/LUT at the pad, and the crawler would then have to bring out motor segments (this was for the 156 inch SRM's, which were also proposed around this time) and then they would be hoisted up into position, flanking the Saturn V, with a pair on BOTH sides of Saturn V (a total of four)... Once the boosters were stacked and attached to the Saturn V at the pad, the crawler would remove the solid motor stacking facility and bring up the mobile service structure (MSS) for final checkout and preparation of the Saturn V.

While this model was designed for the four 156 inch SEGMENTED booster version of Saturn V, there were also plans for a 260 inch MONOLITHIC (the Aeroject motor) booster version using four of the behemoths... (which seems like total overkill... two I could see, but FOUR??) At any rate, I don't think this got far enough past the concept stage to even look at the ground handling and stacking issues. I suppose they'd have been moved to the pad individually via crawler-- but getting them off the barge and onto the crawler would have been fun, and then have a PORTABLE crane strong enough to lift them off the crawler at the pad and then erect them and mate them to the Saturn V, already at the pad, would have been a minor miracle... and at any rate, it would have required either new pads or a complete rework of the existing pads, both to support the weight and deflect the thrust blast from such a mega-booster... plus you'd shatter every window from the Cape to Orlando every time you launched the thing... (another issue not really looked at).

The 260 inch booster was also looked at as a booster for some truly GIGANTIC post-Saturn rockets... we're talking rockets 70 feet or more in diameter, well over twice the size of Saturn V... and larger! https://www.rocketryforum.com/showt...d-Post-Saturn-Earth-Launch-Vehicle-Study-quot

And of course this one, which specifically shows the gigantic rocket planned to use the 260 inch boosters... note the first stage is 860 inches in diameter! (nearly 72 feet in diameter!) https://www.rocketryforum.com/showt...e-Large-Launch-Vehicles-Technical-Report-quot

https://www.rocketryforum.com/showt...turn-LV-Part-II-Condensed-Summary-Report-quot

https://www.rocketryforum.com/showt...unch-Vehicles-Utilizing-Solid-Propellant-quot

https://www.rocketryforum.com/showt...d-Boosted-Nova-Vehicle-System-Study-quot-1963

https://www.rocketryforum.com/showt...-of-Large-Solid-Propellant-Boosters-quot-1959

https://www.rocketryforum.com/showt...ch-Vehicles-for-AAP-Earth-Orbit-Missions-quot

Here's an interesting one... looks at various launch "solutions" for the 260 inch solid motor... including a "piston launched" 260 inch solid motor Saturn IB replacement fired from a SILO!!!

https://www.rocketryforum.com/showt...-of-260-inch-Solid-Rocket-Launch-Studies-quot

https://www.rocketryforum.com/showt...al-Launch-Potential-Saturn-IB-using-SRMs-quot

https://www.rocketryforum.com/showt...tudies-of-Very-Large-Solid-Rockets(1961)-quot

The Saturn V Improvement Study, showing the various Solid Booster concepts being evaluated...

https://www.rocketryforum.com/showt...ied-Launch-Vehicle-Saturn-V-Improvement-Study

https://www.rocketryforum.com/showt...S-OF-IMPROVED-SATURN-V-AND-INTERMEDIATES-quot

https://www.rocketryforum.com/showt...ary-Dock-Launch-of-Solid-Propellant-Saturn-IB

https://www.rocketryforum.com/showt...udy-summary-JPL-Solid-Propellant-Nova-vehicle

Not all of those are specifically alluding to the Aerojet 260 inch monolithic solid; some studies predate the AJ-260, but foreshadow it... Thinking along these lines had been going on for a LONG time before the AJ-260 came along...

Thing is, after operating the shuttle system for 30 years, we have a pretty good idea of the benefits and costs of SRM based launchers, and the limitations of vehicles designed around SRM's... Personally, from my studies on the subject, we'd be FAR better off to abandon SRM based boosters (except for smaller GEMS and such used on the EELV's, which make MUCH better logistical and cost sense) and go to an all-liquid booster like Saturn V was... and NOT like SLS is, at its best, proposing to do it (with a pair of liquid F-1 based boosters surrounding a hydrolox core... I'm talking just clone the Saturn V and get it over with... it'd be the cheapest in the long run-- correction-- have SPACEX clone the Saturn V (develop their Falcon XX) as a replacement for SLS and a "modern Saturn V equivalent"...

Later! OL JR :)
 
Back
Top