Scale Data for the Nike-Nike Smoke

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

PeterAlway

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
315
Reaction score
157
Many years ago, in the early 1990's, when I was first working on my "Rockets of the World" project, I stumbled into some references to the Nike-Nike Smoke. Then back in 2003, someone emailed me a single photo of a Nike-Nike with a smoke payload. Tantalizing, but not scale data. Last year, someone told me about more photos that they found. Great shots, but no dimensions. Then over the winter, I found an Air Force Geophysics Laboratory report on those rockets, with payload dimensions. I was about to draw up some data when my vintage iMac's power supply died. Finally, last month, I manage to do a brain transplant and get the machine up and running again. So now I actually can present to you a drawing of the elusive Nike-Nike Smoke.



Here is a photograph to match.



Unlike the familiar Nike Smoke, the smoke chemicals are forced out by presurized nitrogen in the conical nose. I believe this is because the air was too thin at altitude for ram air pressure to work. This means there is a nice pointy nosecone. The blue cylindrical section held tanks for both Titanium Tetrachloride and an alcohol/water mix. I believe they needed the water/acohol because there wasn't enough moisture at altitude to react with the TiCl4.

Also notice that each stage has 3 fins of a different design from the Nike Smoke we know and love. These are essentially clipped Nike Ajax fins.

This rocket flew in May of 1978 from Wallops Island. There were two flights a couple of days apart, and I have photos of both, but I don't know which is which. They look the same except for the stenciling.

I have to thank Dr. Bob Kreutz for the new photos and for decyphering the stencils from those photos.

I hope someone has fun with this!

Peter Alway
 

jbuscaglia

Rusty-eyed Missile Man
Joined
Jan 25, 2009
Messages
434
Reaction score
10
Location
Hudson, MA
Thanks, Peter. That's a cool looking rocket.

It looks like you've got "STA 279.0" listed three times on the drawing. I assume two of them should be something else.
 

EXPjawa

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Messages
2,205
Reaction score
57
Location
Finger Lakes, NY
Thanks for posting that. Without any solid info to work from, I'd previously assumed that it had been something as straightfoward as basically two Nike Smokes joined together; I'll now have to rework my Rocksim file...
 

PeterAlway

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
315
Reaction score
157
It looks like you've got "STA 279.0" listed three times on the drawing. I assume two of them should be something else.
Good catch. The top one is correct--it's the top of the 1st stage Nike motor, at the base of a 1.5-inch adapter section (actually the adapter has a much longer part that fits into the 2nd stage nozzle). The next one should be 297.75, and the bottom one should be 301.8 (That's the same flange as the one at the top of the 2nd stage, which I got from Stine's Nike Smoke data).

Peter Alway
 

PeterAlway

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
315
Reaction score
157
By the way, I've been poring over single-stage Nike Smoke stuff, I've concluded that some rounds were like the G Harry Stine drawing, with four 2.5 square-foot fins, but others were like the Centuri drawing with four 2.0 square foot fins. That will make the revised drawing fun!

Peter Alway
 

jbuscaglia

Rusty-eyed Missile Man
Joined
Jan 25, 2009
Messages
434
Reaction score
10
Location
Hudson, MA
Good catch. The top one is correct--it's the top of the 1st stage Nike motor, at the base of a 1.5-inch adapter section (actually the adapter has a much longer part that fits into the 2nd stage nozzle). The next one should be 297.75, and the bottom one should be 301.8 (That's the same flange as the one at the top of the 2nd stage, which I got from Stine's Nike Smoke data).

Peter Alway
Thanks, Peter. That's what I thought it was, but I was too lazy to do the math myself. :)
 

Incongruent

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
1,735
Reaction score
5
Many years ago, in the early 1990's, when I was first working on my "Rockets of the World" project, I stumbled into some references to the Nike-Nike Smoke. Then back in 2003, someone emailed me a single photo of a Nike-Nike with a smoke payload. Tantalizing, but not scale data. Last year, someone told me about more photos that they found. Great shots, but no dimensions. Then over the winter, I found an Air Force Geophysics Laboratory report on those rockets, with payload dimensions. I was about to draw up some data when my vintage iMac's power supply died. Finally, last month, I manage to do a brain transplant and get the machine up and running again. So now I actually can present to you a drawing of the elusive Nike-Nike Smoke.



Here is a photograph to match.



Unlike the familiar Nike Smoke, the smoke chemicals are forced out by presurized nitrogen in the conical nose. I believe this is because the air was too thin at altitude for ram air pressure to work. This means there is a nice pointy nosecone. The blue cylindrical section held tanks for both Titanium Tetrachloride and an alcohol/water mix. I believe they needed the water/acohol because there wasn't enough moisture at altitude to react with the TiCl4.

Also notice that each stage has 3 fins of a different design from the Nike Smoke we know and love. These are essentially clipped Nike Ajax fins.

This rocket flew in May of 1978 from Wallops Island. There were two flights a couple of days apart, and I have photos of both, but I don't know which is which. They look the same except for the stenciling.

I have to thank Dr. Bob Kreutz for the new photos and for decyphering the stencils from those photos.

I hope someone has fun with this!

Peter Alway
The water was to increase the visibility of the smoke, since (especially at certain altitudes- 12-18km) there wasn't enough humidity to fully react it. Acetone and acetic acid were also tried as a smoke intensifier, but only worked as well as water.

Not sure about alcohol, but I assume it does the same and maybe it also serves to increase the density of the solution, since the water can fit in between alcohol molecules. That should save some weight since the container is smaller.

Source for the first paragraph: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720021986.pdf
(It's posted on other threads too)
The information is for a Nike Smoke, but chemistry and the atmosphere stay the same regardless.
 

PeterAlway

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
315
Reaction score
157
The water was to increase the visibility of the smoke, since (especially at certain altitudes- 12-18km) there wasn't enough humidity to fully react it. Acetone and acetic acid were also tried as a smoke intensifier, but only worked as well as water.

Not sure about alcohol, but I assume it does the same and maybe it also serves to increase the density of the solution, since the water can fit in between alcohol molecules. That should save some weight since the container is smaller.

Source for the first paragraph: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720021986.pdf
(It's posted on other threads too)
The information is for a Nike Smoke, but chemistry and the atmosphere stay the same regardless.
Thanks for the wisdom and the link!

Peter Alway
 

Incongruent

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
1,735
Reaction score
5
Thanks for the wisdom and the link!

Peter Alway
Anytime! I actually found the link in the 'external links' section of the (abnormally short) Wikipedia article for the Nike Smoke. There can be some really good stuff in that area.

Server for NASA's Technical Reports: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp
(This is from the URL of the document)
When you search, use advanced. The exact phrase (drop down from 'all of these words') is good for narrowing down less relevant files.
(search advice is for anyone that goes to that site. You're a college professor... )

History of Rocket names: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19770010038.pdf

I'm going to start a new thread for these links, so as not to change the topic of this thread. We need more information on Nike Nike Smoke.

-Tony
 
Last edited:

Leo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
1,904
Reaction score
219
Location
Germany
Peter, do you have a higher resolution picture? I need to look at more details for my design.
 

Ez2cDave

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
4,740
Reaction score
1,438
Good catch. The top one is correct--it's the top of the 1st stage Nike motor, at the base of a 1.5-inch adapter section (actually the adapter has a much longer part that fits into the 2nd stage nozzle). The next one should be 297.75, and the bottom one should be 301.8 (That's the same flange as the one at the top of the 2nd stage, which I got from Stine's Nike Smoke data).

Peter Alway
Peter,

I have corrected your drawing of the NIKE- NIKE SMOKE to reflect the changes to the STA numbers you indicated above . . .

May I have your permission to post the corrected file ?

Dave F.
 

Ez2cDave

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
4,740
Reaction score
1,438
Fine, then you fix it . . . It's your error, after all. Fortunately, someone caught it.

BTW - There are several other errors in ROTW, Peter . . . Perhaps, setting up a way to notify you, directly, of specific problems might be advantageous. A group of "proof-readers" could closely examine everything in a relatively short period of time.

Will the drawings be corrected before the next edition is published or will you be doing an "errata sheet" ?

Dave F.
 

PeterAlway

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
315
Reaction score
157
Will the drawings be corrected before the next edition is published or will you be doing an "errata sheet" ?
I will correct any errors that I find or that I am told about that I can confirm.
 

Ez2cDave

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
4,740
Reaction score
1,438
I will correct any errors that I find or that I am told about that I can confirm.
I think a group / team of people going over the book, simultaneously, would yield the best results in the shortest amount of time, while allowing for comparison of findings, for your review.

I volunteer to be "Member #1" . . .

How do you prefer to be contacted, Peter ?

Dave F.
 

Ez2cDave

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
4,740
Reaction score
1,438
Fine, then you fix it . . . It's your error, after all. Fortunately, someone caught it.

BTW - There are several other errors in ROTW, Peter . . . Perhaps, setting up a way to notify you, directly, of specific problems might be advantageous. A group of "proof-readers" could closely examine everything in a relatively short period of time.

Will the drawings be corrected before the next edition is published or will you be doing an "errata sheet" ?

Dave F.
I will correct any errors that I find or that I am told about that I can confirm.
I think a group / team of people going over the book, simultaneously, would yield the best results in the shortest amount of time, while allowing for comparison of findings, for your review.

I volunteer to be "Member #1" . . .

How do you prefer to be contacted, Peter ?

Dave F.
Post here.

Peter,

Per your request, I am posting errors found in ROTW, the ROTW supplements, and individual data created by you . . . In this case, pertaining to Nike M-5 Booster Dimensions. My main concern is that, in instances of length discrepancies, the entire drawing will be affected, in terms of accuracy.

CORRECT DATA NIKE BOOSTER Length and Diameter . . . Length = 134.75" . . . Diameter = 16.44" ( 16.248" I.D. w/ .096" Wall Thickness, per Original Blueprint . . . NASA Drawing # 807031 "Ordinance Corps . . . Department Of The Army . . . Redstone Arsenal . . . # 8025001" ( Source Images below )

NIKE BOOSTER DISCREPANCIES : ( ROTW / ROTW Supplements / Individual Drawings )

ROTW Book - Nike-Deacon . . . Dia. 16.5" . . . Length 134.9" . . . ( STA 306.0 - STA 171.1 )
ROTW Book - Nike-Cajun . . . Dia. 16.5" . . . Length 135.2" . . . ( STA 303.0 - STA 167.8 )
ROTW Book - Nike-Asp . . . Dia. 16.50" . . . Length ( Correct ) 134.75" . . . ( STA 311.8 - STA 167.8 )
ROTW Book - Nike-Apache . . . Dia. 16.50" . . . Length 138" . . . ( STA 327 - STA 189 )
ROTW Book - Nike-Tomahawk . . . Dia. 16.44" ( Correct ) . . . Length 132.7" . . . ( STA 368.9 - STA 236.2 ) Also, no line of 9 Allen Screws on Fin Can.
ROTW Book - Nike Smoke . . . Dia. 16.50" . . . Length ( Correct ) 134.75" . . . ( STA 236.58 - STA 101.83 )
ROTW Book - Argo D-4 Javelin . . . Dia. 16.46" . . . Length ( Correct ) 134.75" . . . ( STA 383.74 - STA 247.11 )
ROTW Book - Trailblazer 1 . . . Dia. 16.5" . . . Length 133.82" . . . ( STA 463.84 - STA 330.02 )
ROTW Book - Aerobee 350 . . . Dia. 16.5" . . . Length ( Correct ) 134.75" . . . ( STA 626.37 - STA 491.62 )

DRAWING - Nike-Nike Smoke . . . Dia. 16.5" . . . Length ( Correct ) 134.75" ( STA 413.75 - STA 279 ) - * NOTE " Triple STA 279 on drawing.
DRAWING - Nike 10 Degree Heat Transfer Test . . . Dia. 16.50" . . . Length 135" . . . ( STA 235 - STA 100 )

2002 Supp - BBVIII - Black Brant VIII . . . Dia. 16.5" . . . Length ( Correct ) 134.75" . . . ( STA 330.25 - STA 215.50 )
2003 Supp - Nike-Orion . . . Dia. 16.5" . . . Length ( Correct ) 134.75" . . . ( STA 0.00 - STA 134.75 )
2004 Supp - Nike Iroquois . . . Dia. ( Correct ) 16.44" . . . Length ( Correct ) 134.75" . . . ( STA 352.8 - STA 218.05 ) - * Only instance of correct dimensions.
2004 Supp - Terrier Nike . . . Dia. 16.46" . . . Length ( Correct ) 134.75" . . . ( STA 226.590 - STA 91.840 )

Dave F.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

PeterAlway

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
315
Reaction score
157
Ah, yes, the Nike length contradictions in the source material. My main concern is that, in instances of length discrepancies, the entire drawing will be affected, in terms of accuracy. So I will find a drawing of an entire rocket from a technical report, technical book, or technical article. That is usually the first quoted source. Then I will use component drawings, like a Nike motor drawing, to fill in details.

There are several reasons for these discrepancies. They can be rounding errors, for instance.

There were at least two versions of the Nike booster (the taper from the 17.5" forward flange to the main 16.5" diameter can be a straight conical taper as shown in your blueprint, or a concave curved transition). I don't have firm information that the length didn't vary as well.

The length of the Nike stage includes the fin can, which may or may not extend beyond the nozzle exit plane.

I do appreciate your list of discrepancies. The extreme outliers are worth closer examination. On the other hand, if a NASA or NACA technical reports give a length 1/4" different from a motor blueprint, I'll stick with the NASA or NACA document.
 

Ez2cDave

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
4,740
Reaction score
1,438
There were at least two versions of the Nike booster (the taper from the 17.5" forward flange to the main 16.5" diameter can be a straight conical taper as shown in your blueprint, or a concave curved transition). I don't have firm information that the length didn't vary as well.
Peter,

The length of the Flange is 4.281", for both styles of taper . . . Confirmed by the same blueprint. The overall length remains constant, at 134.75".

Dave F.
 

Attachments

Ez2cDave

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
4,740
Reaction score
1,438
Could the discrepancy between 16.5" and 16.44" dia in the Nike measurements simply be paint ?
Hi, Tim !

Frankly. I am more concerned over the variations in length, ranging from 132.7"-138", a "range" of 5.3", -2.05" - +3.25", ( actual length - 134.75" ). Those variations in length "skew" the Station Numbers and adversely affect the accuracy of the drawing of the entire prototype.

Dave F.
 
Top