No German scientists/technology for the Wallies - impact on the Cold War?

[T. A. Gardner]

The Rocketdyne NAA75-110 engine:



The V-2 rocket engine:



Quite clearly, North American's design does not rely on anything the V-2 engine design had in it.

[paulrward]

Hello All:

To Mr. Gardner:

You posted a link to an on line article. I am quoting the article directly, with highlights on certain portions:

After a period of examining and experimenting with captured V-2 rockets, US engineers,
sometimes in conjunction with the German engineers and scientists who had immigrated to the
US, began working on designs of their own. North American Aviation developed the XLR-43-NA-1,
a LOX/alcohol engine based on V-2 technology for its Navaho cruise missile project. This engine
had half the mass and 34% more thrust (75,000 lb) than the V-2 engine. The complex and costly
V-2 combustion chamber, with its 18 thrust chambers, spherical shape, and LOX plumbing maze,
was replaced by a flat plate injector and conical combustion chamber. A straight-sided 15°
divergent nozzle section was retained. Similar to earlier V-2s, the XLR-43-NA-1 had a turbopump
driven by high-pressure steam generated by catalyzing hydrogen peroxide with potassium
permanganate pellets in the steam generator. This engine was the ancestor of all future
North American Aviation (later Rocketdyne) engines. Thrust chamber and nozzle film cooling
was achieved by fuel jets from the injector instead of the more complex rings of holes used
on the V-2 engine.

Initially, this new single thrust chamber, with its flat plate injector, exhibited combustion
instability, the same problem that had led to the V-2's complexity. But Rocketdyne engineers
persevered and solved the problem, gaining experience that would be of great use in the future.

When the Redstone development team, led by V-2 rocket scientist Wernher von Braun, needed
an engine capable of 75,000 lbT, Rocketdyne was asked to modify the XLR-43-NA-1 to meet the
new requirements. The new engine was designated NAA 75-110, and the first one was ready for
shipment to Redstone Arsenal by the end of July 1953.

Essentially, the US. with its. German Scientists, led by Von Braun, were able, in the years of Post War
Peace, to develop the technologies that had eluded them under the stresses of the war. The development
of the Waterfall Injector made scaling up the engine possible. But, as it is quoted in Wikipedia:

The H-1 is one of a series of engines developed from the wartime V-2 ballistic missile.
During the war, North American Aviation (NAA) was given several 59,600 lbf (264.9 kN)[3] V-2
engines to examine and convert from metric to SAE measurements. They formed their
"Propulsion Division" to handle this work, later becoming Rocketdyne.

NAA had also been given a wealth of technical documentation on the engine. Engineers studying
them came across plans to improve the V-2 engine using a new "waterfall" fuel injector. The
Germans were unable to get the design to work and it never went into service. NAA engineers
decided to attack this problem and quickly came up with solutions. This allowed them to raise
the thrust of the design to 75,000 lbf (330 kN), and then 78,000 lbf (350 kN) for the Redstone
missile.

It is fairly obvious that, had the Germans had more time, and were given more resources during the War,
they would have solved the Waterfall Injector problems, and doubled the V-2's range and payload, as
they did in the late 1940s working in the U.S.

As for illustrations, here is a comparison between the A-4 engine and the H-1 engine:

Von Braun Engines.jpg

The permanganate turbo pump on the H-1 is clear to see, as is the resemblence in the combustion chambers,
the H-1 chamber being essentially identical to the A-4 chamber, simply scaled up to utilize a greater quantity
of fuel/oxidizer per second.

Mr. Gardner, it is, in my opinion, somewhat parochial to deny that, after the end of WW2, Operation Paperclip
did not give the U.S. a tremendous boost, technologically. Delta Wings, Rockets, improved Diesel Engines,
guidance systems, and certain chemicals that nature of which we should not discuss, all came over from
Germany in the form of Scientists and Documents.

I think the following sums it up perfectly:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYco0UsWhLc


Respectfully :

Paul R. Ward

[Michael Kenny]

I think the following nailed the mindset.....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww7WlSP ... nucklehead

[Takao]

The Rocketdyne H-1 was used on the Saturn I rockets, not the Redstone.

You are getting way ahead of yourself.

More research and less sarcasm is needed.

[T. A. Gardner]

The Rocketdyne H-1 was used on the Saturn I rockets, not the Redstone.

You are getting way ahead of yourself.

More research and less sarcasm is needed.

Paulward is just cherry picking his information. Rocketdyne was developing engines for other missile and rocket projects with Redstone being just one of many. For example, the concurrent development of the XLR89-NA-series engines for Atlas is ignored by him. These put out somewhere between double and triple the thrust of a V-2 engine, run on different fuel (refined kerosene and LOX), and are multi-nozzle. The earlier XLR35-NA-series engines used on projects like MX 774 HIROC were developed independently of German technology as the later wasn't available yet for study.

The point here is the US was more than capable of developing rocket and missile engines every bit as good or better than German technology had that technology not been available, which is the original premise of this thread.

Another area where Redstone used improved German technology as a basis was in guidance, in contrast to longer ranged missiles like Atlas or Saturn that used Hughes (Raytheon) developed ASUZA guidance because of its much greater accuracy over longer ranges.

https://military-history.fandom.com/wik ... a-farm.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AZUSA
(as an introduction)

Again, had the US had no German wartime technology to go on, they could have gotten to the same outcomes in the same amount of time they historically did. German technology and scientific / engineering input was gravy, not essential to the process.

[paulrward]

Hello All ;

To Mr. Takao ;

Here are the drawings of the S-3D and the H-1 engines - as can be seen, the H-1 is simply a modernised,
simplified S-3D, in effect, it is the late 1950s version of a 1940s engine.

Von Braun H 1 engine.jpg

Respectfully :

Paul R. Ward

[paulrward]

Hello All ;

Mr. Gardner posted :

Another area where Redstone used improved German technology as a basis was in
guidance, in contrast to longer ranged missiles like Atlas or Saturn that used Hughes
(Raytheon) developed ASUZA guidance because of its much greater accuracy over longer
ranges.

Yet, curiously enough, the Redstone used exhaust steering vanes made from Carbon, exactly like
the V-2, and this was a technology that the U.S. had NEVER experimented with prior to getting their
hands on the V-2s and Von Braun's team of engineers and scientists. ( Robert Goddard used stainless
steel thrust steering vanes on his rockets ) The Redstone had fixed, non gimballing engines, as can
be seen in my previous posting, and engine gimballing was added for the Saturn 1, which is when the
engine was re named.

This was the reason for the development of the AZUSA system - it was more tailored for rockets
that used gimballing thrust steering rather than vaned thrust steering.

Mr. Gardner also spoke of different fuels - but, it is interesting to note, that when Alan Shepherd
went into space on top of a Redstone, it was burning LOX - Ethanol, and NOT LOX - Kerosene.

The US had, during WW2, mainly developed solid fuel rockets for use as RATO / JATO units, as well
as mortar shells, Air to Surface Rockets, and ASW rockets. Only Robert Goddard had been doing
extensive work with liquid fuel rockets in the 1920s and 1930s, and his death in August, 1945, meant
that the US had a gap in rocket expertise. Which, coincidentally, was filled by Von Braun and his
team.

Mr. Gardner, you may call the German technology and experts nothing but gravy. But without them,
there would have been no successful U.S. moon project. And, if you doubt that, just look at how, at
this moment, NASA has sunk billions of dollars into two outdated, non re-usable boosters and two outdated
space capsules, none of which, as I write this, are capable of flight, much less getting man- rated.

The death of Von Braun, and the gradual retirement of his team, has left NASA spinning it's wheels
trying to get something into space, while at the same time, Elon Musk is sending up a rocket every
few days, and recovering the boosters and the payload shrouds for re-use, again and again.


To Mr. Kenny:

If you go to

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-xyXDiC92s&t=3926s


Mr. Tim Dodd will give you an excellent lecture on how the Soviet Rocket Program descended from the
original work by the Germans. In fact, the only Russian Rocket Booster that has ever been Man Rated
uses engines that are essentially a single mixing chamber that feeds into four exhaust nozzles, and
the exhaust nozzles are copper lined clones of the original nozzles used on the V-2. It is worth watching,
if you want to learn more about rocket engines than any human being needs to know.

Respectfully :

Paul R. Ward


P.S. Tell me, Mr. Kenny........ Have you ever heard of........ Flouridation.........?

[Takao]

Hello All ;

To Mr. Takao ;

Here are the drawings of the S-3D and the H-1 engines - as can be seen, the H-1 is simply a modernised,
simplified S-3D, in effect, it is the late 1950s version of a 1940s engine.

Von Braun H 1 engine.jpg


Respectfully :

Paul R. Ward

Actually, the H-1 is a 1960's version, of a 1950's version, of a 1940's engine.

But, hey, you could probably make the case that the 1970's Abrams was a version of the 1930's Panzer I.

But, that is for another thread.

[Takao]

The V-2 used gimbaled engines? Do tell!

Goddard came up with the theories and patented an articulated engine, but never built a proof-of-concept.

The Germans tried articulated engines and failed, discarding them.

The first successful articulated(swiveling) rocket engine was not German...

[paulrward]

Hello All :

Mr Takao : I NEVER stated that the V2 used a gimballed engine, in fact, I stated that the Germans
used Exhaust Vane Steering, utilizing carbon vanes. And that the Redstone Rocket, and it's derivatives,
used the same system. Gimballed engine steering becomes necessary when you have multiple nozzles.

Please go back and re read my posts.

Respectfully

Paul R. Ward

[T. A. Gardner]

Hello All :

Mr Takao : I NEVER stated that the V2 used a gimballed engine, in fact, I stated that the Germans
used Exhaust Vane Steering, utilizing carbon vanes. And that the Redstone Rocket, and it's derivatives,
used the same system. Gimballed engine steering becomes necessary when you have multiple nozzles.

Please go back and re read my posts.

Respectfully

Paul R. Ward

Actually, Rocketdyne used it first on their XLR35 engine on the MX 774 HIROC. They got it to work where the Germans couldn't during the war. Even a single gimballed nozzle is far better than using steering veins because it doesn't reduce usable thrust like the veins do.

https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-o ... 9850114000

Gimbaling of the nozzles became standard as time went on. The contemporary Atlas missile used gimbaled nozzles.

All of this still argues that the US / Western Allies could have accomplished these things regardless of having German technology and / or assistance.

[Michael Kenny]

All nations steal each others ideas but the basic point being argued here is absurd. That Germany was several generations in advance of the whole world with its U-Boats, tanks, jets, infantry weapons. That any post-war Allied weapons that were developed that used any captured German technology, no matter how small, were successful ONLY because of the German input. The claim no other nation could have ever have duplicated or improved any of the German advances independently is patently absurd.

[paulrward]

Hello All ;

Actually, the XLR35-RM-1, which powered the MX 774 Hiroc, had four combustion chambers and four
nozzles -

from:

https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-o ... 9850114000

the XLR35-RM-1, the liquid fuel rocket engine that powered the MX-774 test missile,
a predecessor of the Atlas intercontinental ballistic missile. The engine produced 8,000 pounds
of thrust from four chambers and was also gimballed. This meant it could be steered by the
swivelling of each of the four chambers.

Here is a photo of it.

XLR35-RM-1 Rocket engine.jpg

Knowledgeable observers will quickly discern that this is just an uprated XLR11 engine, which was used
in the Bell X-1. The engine was very primitive, and the design of the combustion chambers was well
behind those of the V2's engines.

The driving force behind this program was Karel J. Bossart, who emigrated from Belgium in the 1930s,
and led the program at Convair that developed the Atlas missile. He was the genius who developed
the concept of a monocoque missile body that was held stiff by the pressure of the internal propellant,
or, when in storage, by a pressurizing amount of nitrogen. His rockets had a very high fuel weight to
structural weight ratio, but, in the early days, their reliability was, shall we say, problematic ?

The XLR35 engine had a total of 8000 lbs of thrust. Compare that with the V2's 56.000 lbs, and you
have some idea of how far ahead of the U.S. the Germans were in 1945.


As I stated: The use of Gimbaling for control was developed for rockets with multiple engines, or, in
this case, a single engine with multiple thrust chambers.


The Soviets did the same thing with the engines they developed for the R-7 Semyorka Rocket - ( for those
who are not rocket geeks, think Sputnik, Vostock, Soyuz ) though, in the case of this rocket, the main
chambers are fixed, and there are additional swivelling gimbal engines on both the strap-ons and the central
core.


To Mr. Michael Kenny :

All nations steal each others ideas

but the basic point being argued here is absurd. That Germany was several
generations in advance of the whole world with its U-Boats, tanks, jets,
infantry weapons.

That any post-war Allied weapons that were developed that used any captured
German technology, no matter how small, were successful ONLY because of the
German input.

The claim no other nation could have ever have duplicated or improved any of
the German advances independently is patently absurd.

I am going to handle this in sections:


That's right. All nations steal. And that was why Great Britain was so pissed off at the United States
after the end of WW2, when, after taking all their work on the Tube Metals Project, and promising to
share nuclear weapons technology with them, the United States reneged on the deal, and cut Britain
off. It was only because a number of British Scientists who had been part of the Manhattan Project
chose to return to Britain despite lucrative offers to stay in the United States that Britain was able
to develop it's own nuclear program. At Windscale.........


The Germans were NOT several generations ahead of the U.S. in technology. But, in wartime,
being just a year or two behind your enemy can be fatal. Just think Japan and Radar...


Post War, the United States, Britain, and the Soviet Union ALL developed weapons that
used German wartime technology. That was why all three nations were practically fighting each
other to get their hands on it as Germany surrendered ! ( Operation Paperclip, Watson's Whizzers,
etc ) And, in the post war environment, as the Cold War developed, keeping up with the Jones's
was a vital element in national survival - so a few years advantage that was gained from using German
technology was the difference between world dominance and sliding into International Irrelevance.


No one here has made the claim that no other nation could have duplicated the German developments-
but some of us are intellectually honest enough to concede that, in some areas, like Jet Engines, Rocket
Engines, Diesel Engines, and Hydrogen Peroxide Engines, that the Germans had gotten a few years lead
on us. We could have duplicated them. Just like the Soviets duplicated the United States development
of the B-29 bomber and the Plutonium Atomic Bomb. Of course, the Soviets were a few years behind
the U.S., but, well, that isn't important. Unless you are fighting a ..... War......



Respectfully :

Paul R. Ward

[Takao]

Sorry Paul,
the XM-774B did NOT HAVE "gimballed engines."

I would hope an Engineer such as yourself would know that gimballed engines can rotate two axis.
However, the XM-774B engines only rotated in one axis - so, the are not gimballed, but they are swiveling.

Again, Paul...More research, less sarcasm.

[paulrward]

Hello All :

To Mr. Takao :

According to the dreaded Wikipedia :

A gimbal is a pivoted support that permits rotation of an object about an axis.
A set of three gimbals, one mounted on the other with orthogonal pivot axes, may be
used to allow an object mounted on the innermost gimbal to remain independent of
the rotation of its support.......................................... For example, on a ship,
the gyroscopes, shipboard compasses, stoves, and even drink holders typically use
gimbals to keep them upright with respect to the horizon despite the ship's pitching
and rolling.

Thus, Mr. Takao, a Gimballed Engine is simply an engine which can be pivotted about
an axis to change it's direction of thrust. It need not have three axis movement.
And, in fact, the Gimbal Rockets used on the Russian R-7 Rocket only gimbal
on ONE axis - yet are still considered gimballed thrusters.


Mr. Takao - More Knowledge, Less Sarcasm - lest you be mistaken for a Historian.....

Respectfully :

Paul R. Ward