First visit to KFC; what to see???

Ed Kyle wrote:

The bus will pass right past the big Navaho
launch pad, for example, but the guide may forget to
mention it, etc.



That's still there? I thought they converted it into an Atlas pad.

Pat

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 18:28:28 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Assuming you're being tongue in cheek, my recollection was "Red on
yellow, kill a fellow, red on black, you're all right Jack." The non
sexist version of the latter one was "red on black, venom lack," which
isn't as rednecky.

Well, I wonder why I can google the "venom lack" version?

I don't know - and you might be careful with your attributions, as you
wrote the para you are replying too.

In passing I note that the 'jack' version was what I was taught, right
before being told "don't try and remember it - just run like hell.
Between Corals, Copperheads, rattlers, and cottonmouths - you were
much safer in North Florida simply avoiding any snake that wasn't
bright green.

No, he's being accurate... Rather than trying to remember a
complicated mnemonic, just avoid anything that looks like a Coral
snake. (That's what I, and everyone I knew in Florida was taught
while growing up.)

Then how in the world would you catch the scarlet king snakes to put
in the teacher's desk drawer?

We settled for grass snakes when I was in parochial school - the
teachers were by and large young, female, urban, and yankee. Any
snake, lizard, or interesting (to a young male) bug[1] was sufficient
to elicit the desired response. (Which usually lead to the undesired
response - the Summoning of the Nun or Monsignor.)

[1] Of which Florida has many.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Peter Stickney wrote:

It was the mosquitoes that get me. One of 'em landed on the ramp at
Patrick, and they put 1500 lbs. of JP-4 in it before they realized
that it wasn't a helicopter.

When I was stationed at King's Bay, the Simon Lake still had AA guns
on either side of her stack - we used to tell the nubs they were for
combating the mosquitoes.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Pat Flannery wrote:
Ed Kyle wrote:

The bus will pass right past the big Navaho
launch pad, for example, but the guide may forget to
mention it, etc.


That's still there? I thought they converted it into an Atlas pad.

Pat

Yep, it is still there. I saw it a few weeks ago. You
might be thinking of the new Atlas V pad having been
built on top of the old Titan III/IV pad?

Navaho XSM-64 flights lifted off from Launch Complex 9,
which was a fairly massive concrete hard stand equipped
with a big erector contraption. A big mobile hanger
would roll over the top of the pad and erector when the
erector was laid back horizontally with the booster and
missile mounted on top. Complex 9 was south of the skid
strip, just south of the fenceline of existing Launch
Complex 31/32. A second, flat pad, Launch Complex 10,
was also part of the Navaho site. Pad 10, which was
never used for a launch, was located a bit north and
east of Pad 9.

During the early to mid 1950s, until it became clear that
ballistic missiles could be made to work, Navaho was the
nation's top priority missile effort - an effort that
consumed more than $2 billion of today's dollars but
produced no operational missile system. The money wasn't
all wasted. Atlas development was eased by the already-
available Navaho booster rocket engines, for example.
Today's Delta II RS-27A will apparantly be the final
descendent of the Navaho engine.

Atlas, BTW, was launched from a completely different
set of pads north of the skid strip, an area known
as ICBM Row. The early Atlas launches occurred while
the Navaho Complex was still active. It quickly became
clear that Atlas was working and Navaho wasn't.

Soon after Navaho was shut down, in 1958, Launch Complex
10 was bulldozed to make way for Minuteman Launch
Complex 31/32. The Minuteman complex was oriented on a
slightly different launch azimuth, so a small portion of
the Navaho launch site remained outside the fence,
including the massive Launch Complex 9 concrete hard stand
that still stands next to an access road today.

I did a writeup on this a few years ago, at:

"http://www.geocities.com/launchreport/navaho1.html"

Here is a 1999 aerial photo of the old Navaho pad, in
the center of the oval concrete area:

"http://www.terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=1&S=10&Z=17&X=2715&Y=15736&W=1&qs=%7c cape+canaveral%7cfl%7c"

The erector used to fold back to the east (right). The
hanger used to roll back to the east as well.

- Ed Kyle

Ed Kyle wrote:

That's still there? I thought they converted it into an Atlas pad.

Pat



Yep, it is still there. I saw it a few weeks ago. You
might be thinking of the new Atlas V pad having been
built on top of the old Titan III/IV pad?

Navaho XSM-64 flights lifted off from Launch Complex 9,
which was a fairly massive concrete hard stand equipped
with a big erector contraption. A big mobile hanger
would roll over the top of the pad and erector when the
erector was laid back horizontally with the booster and
missile mounted on top. Complex 9 was south of the skid
strip, just south of the fenceline of existing Launch
Complex 31/32. A second, flat pad, Launch Complex 10,
was also part of the Navaho site. Pad 10, which was
never used for a launch, was located a bit north and
east of Pad 9.


Yeah, I just dug out my Navaho book, and that's the set-up all right, I
don't know where I got the idea that Complex 9 had been converted for
Atlas work.
There was a launch from the mobile launcher from Complex Ten though;
after a lot of delays missile G-26 number four (S.N. 53-8271) riding
booster number nine was launched on August 12th, 1957.
The flight was intended to go to St. Lucia, but suffered control
problems that caused its ramjets to fail one after the other only 7.5
minutes into the flight, and it crashed into deep water just off Great
Abaco Island after only flying 230 miles.
They had originally erected this missile at Complex Nine for launch, but
it suffered one technical problem after another, so it was sent to be
repaired, and then ended up at Complex Ten on the mobile launcher.
There's an odd little mystery regarding missile G-26 number two;
although it was launched from Complex Nine, Cape Canaveral records state
that the missile was launched from Complex Ten.

I did a writeup on this a few years ago, at:

"http://www.geocities.com/launchreport/navaho1.html"

Here is a 1999 aerial photo of the old Navaho pad, in
the center of the oval concrete area:

"http://www.terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=1&S=10&Z=17&X=2715&Y=15736&W=1&qs=%7c cape+canaveral%7cfl%7c"

The erector used to fold back to the east (right). The
hanger used to roll back to the east as well.



Nice info, thanks!

Pat

"Ed Kyle" wrote:

During the early to mid 1950s, until it became clear that
ballistic missiles could be made to work, Navaho was the
nation's top priority missile effort - an effort that
consumed more than $2 billion of today's dollars but
produced no operational missile system. The money wasn't
all wasted. Atlas development was eased by the already-
available Navaho booster rocket engines, for example.
Today's Delta II RS-27A will apparantly be the final
descendent of the Navaho engine.

The SINS used onboard SSBN's are a descendant of the Navaho guidance
system - Though only one remains in service and is slated for
replacement next year.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Pat Flannery wrote:
Ed Kyle wrote:

Navaho XSM-64 flights lifted off from Launch Complex 9,
which was a fairly massive concrete hard stand equipped
with a big erector contraption. ...
A second, flat pad, Launch Complex 10,
was also part of the Navaho site. Pad 10, which was
never used for a launch, was located a bit north and
east of Pad 9.

Yeah, I just dug out my Navaho book, and that's the set-up all right, I
don't know where I got the idea that Complex 9 had been converted for
Atlas work.
There was a launch from the mobile launcher from Complex Ten though;
after a lot of delays missile G-26 number four (S.N. 53-8271) riding
booster number nine was launched on August 12th, 1957.

Right. I forgot about that. That's what Gibson's book
says anyway. I have never seen a photo of a Navaho
lifting off from the mobile launcher though.

There's an odd little mystery regarding missile G-26 number two;
although it was launched from Complex Nine, Cape Canaveral records state
that the missile was launched from Complex Ten.

Gibson says that the second launch was originally
planned to go from the mobile launcher at 10, but
the plan was changed not long before the launch
date, which might explain the garbled records
(the Cape was very busy back then, with a launch
every few days). There is a photo showing the
second launch going from the fixed pad.

- Ed Kyle

Ed Kyle wrote:

Right. I forgot about that. That's what Gibson's book
says anyway. I have never seen a photo of a Navaho
lifting off from the mobile launcher though.



It might have been considered semi-classified. That was a mighty big
thing to be hauling around on a trailer. The booster exhaust blast out
of the trailer exhaust deflector chutes would really have been something
to see though.



There's an odd little mystery regarding missile G-26 number two;
although it was launched from Complex Nine, Cape Canaveral records state
that the missile was launched from Complex Ten.



Gibson says that the second launch was originally
planned to go from the mobile launcher at 10, but
the plan was changed not long before the launch
date, which might explain the garbled records
(the Cape was very busy back then, with a launch
every few days). There is a photo showing the
second launch going from the fixed pad.



I went looking on the web to see if I could find any photos of a launch
from the mobile unit; I didn't find any, but I did find this photo of
the aftereffects of launch attempt number three:
https://www.patrick.af.mil/heritage/...s/12navwrz.jpg

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote in
:

https://www.patrick.af.mil/heritage/...s/12navwrz.jpg

Ouch.

They had a lot of those in that era.

--Damon

Damon Hill wrote:

Pat Flannery wrote in
:



https://www.patrick.af.mil/heritage/...s/12navwrz.jpg



Ouch.

They had a lot of those in that era.



Ever see its Soviet equivalent- Burya? That could crash fairly well
also: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/burya.htm
Burya looked more primitive than Navaho, but I think they may have made
a wise move with the nose intake; Navaho had a problem where a sharp
turn could lead to one of the ramjets flaming out due to disturbed
airflow over the fuselage going into the side intakes.
The thing that looks like a canopy on the spine of Burya is the glazed
quartz cover over the guidance system's star tracker; we obviously could
do these a lot smaller than the Soviets could.
What's interesting about Burya is that the March 7th, 1955, "Life
Magazine" had an article about a rocket powered bomber that was supposed
to be sled-launched like the Antipodal Bomber with the aid of two
jettisonable underwing booster rockets.
Although the Soviets did play around with a Antipodal Bomber knock-off,
it was supposed to use wingtip ramjets, not rocket boosters. but the
thing does look more than a little like a Burya lying on its side, and I
always wondered if life had some leaked intelligence info that they were
basing the article on.
Real old-timers will remember mention of Soviet rockets in the 1950's
before we knew much about them; the Life Magazine one portrays the T-4A
winged missile in a manned form. The T-4 was supposed to be a souped-up
far longer ranged V-2, and this is the Soviet variant of the
A-9/Antipodal Bomber concept in a horizontally launched form.

Pat