WAKEUP CALL

On December 22, 2019 I watched NASA’s live coverage of Boeing’s Starliner CST-100 spacecraft’s reentry and recovery. The vehicle, after suffering an event timer glitch in the initial orbital insertion and thus ending up in a contingency orbit, returned to earth flawlessly. This was a critical step toward the true goal of Commercial Crew- which is to send U.S. astronauts to the ISS from U.S. soil aboard U.S. launch vehicles and spacecraft once again.

Shortly after the landing and successful recovery the predictable social media dribble began and I saw the following comments:

“… NASA PR team haven't learnt [sic] to write notes to each other. First time was amusing, since then it's unprofessional. Every now and then you will hear whispered conversations - like it's dead air, or give a shout out to a team who've been up since 10pm.... Check your feeds and mics....”

And

 “Lots of dead air. Need to work on the PR side of things.”

Here’s a little wakeup call to those of Generation Whatever, from someone who not only grew up with the space program, but who has also been employed to cover manned spaceflight from the KSC Press Site.

NASA PAO (that’s Public Affairs Office for you in Gen. Whatevers ) is NOT there to entertain you. Their job is to present applicable facts to the general public as the mission proceeds. PERIOD!

It is up to us in the media to take that raw feed and try and make it interesting yet accurate.

The problem here, in my opinion, is that the glitzy dog and pony shows put on by SpaceX has blurred the line between what NASA PAO must do and what Elon Musk likes to do during and surrounding a flight.  

During the Apollo era no one listened PAO Jack Riley giving mission reports and then complained, “Well he’s no Walter Cronkite.” That’s because they had two differing jobs. The same holds true today. If you’re working at the press site and you want mission audio- they will give you the raw audio, and then it is up to us in the medial to take out the “dead air” and “whispers in the background” and broadcast it to the public. In SpaceX land, however, it’s totally their show. They can have cheerleading crowds of employees shouting and applauding in the background while their hipster commentators chatter between and over CGI video and really cool live onboard video. There is nothing wrong with that. I actually love the onboard video. But, you cannot expect the same thing from NASA. Such is not their job.

Further, it is important to keep in mind that the next step for the commercial crew providers will not consist of launching wheels of cheese, or space suited dummies in discarded roadsters. The next step is far more serious because it involves launching humans into space. This won’t be CGI and if something goes wrong the consequences will go far beyond a rash of bad tweets. They will not be able to just cut the feed and explain away the results on good old social media. Additionally, when manned flight does resume from the Space Coast we’re going to require thoughtful, correct information coming out of NASA as opposed to hip babble and forced smiles coming from the contractor.

Spaceflight is a serious, life and death pursuit and it is not intended to entertain you no matter how SpaceX has come to package it lately. If you do not like it NASA PAO’s way, you would be best served by sitting down with your video games.

Spaceflight as it happened- click HERE

Catch my interview on ERAU's "Talon Talks"

Catch my interview on ERAU's TALON TALKS

500-F: BEAUTY QUEEN WITH FEET OF LEAD.

Apollo 11 fever is spreading and along with it are tons of images of what many think is the most photogenic of the Saturn V vehicles. Its image is being replicated on T-shirts and space packages and anywhere else that the newborn space hucksters can find a use for it. Most of them have no idea as to which Saturn V it actually is… it just looks cool. And that whim is hard for any space buff to argue.

Saturn V configurations circa 1964

 As with all of their Saturn boosters, the von Braun team tested the Saturn V in stages using assorted full-scale dummy Saturn V vehicle components. One of those, seen in this plan, was vehicle 500-F, the “F” standing for “Facilities” checkout.

Vehicle 500-F was never intended to fly, instead it had a more critical role to play. This complete Saturn V was set to test all of the systems and connections that would be required for the flight vehicles. It would test the assembly techniques and tools in the VAB, prove the Mobile Launch System could work, test the fuel and electrical connections at Pad 39A and most importantly, allow systems to fail. The idea was that if you were going to have a system failure, let it happen to this vehicle, and not the flight vehicles.

If you like this stuff, check out Wes' book Apollo Part One
HERE!

This image of 500-F was on the cover of a loose-leaf
notebook that my best friend, Jimmy Brink, brought
back for me from his vacation to Florida in the summer
of 1972. I used that notebook to record all of my crazy
model rocket projects all the way up until I left for
college in 1977. I still have it today as a treasure.
Back in the day I studied every detail of the 500-F
rollout photo endlessly

On May 25, 1966 the first fully stacked Saturn V, vehicle 500-F, rolled out of the VAB perched upon a freshly painted brand new Mobile Launcher.

Considering the significance of this event, it is no wonder that vehicle 500-F was one of the most photographed of the Saturn rockets. Both NASA and the news media had an army of photographers on hand to capture the event. NASA maintained their photographic army during the entire 500-F test run, and the vehicle seems to show up on every post card and NASA publication to this day.

Aside from black "T" roll pattern and the extra patterns
on the S-IVB-F stage, note that the American flags are
not applied (the were huge decals by the way) and
 the anti-sway arms are attached to the S-IVB
adapter rather than at the Launch Escape Tower where
it would be on future flights.

500-F can always be identified by its paint scheme. No other Saturn V carried this paint scheme out of the VAB. The “T” shaped black stripes on the S-IC stage are what instantly tells the space buff that they are looking at an image of 500-F. 

Anti-sway arms seen here on Apollo 14

Areas of the roll pattern that were painted white are
clearly seen here on Vehicle 501, Apollo 4.

This paint scheme, however, was dropped from later Saturn V vehicles. The reasons were that the black colored band around the interstage area, which is where the LOX tank and RP-1 tanks were the closest together, readily soaked up the Florida sun and caused the open space to become so hot that some of the sensors in the area failed or gave incorrect data. Additionally, the heat made it dangerous for pad technicians to work inside that space. Unfortunately, the S-IC stages for Apollos 4 through 10 had already been assembled and painted with the black band “T” roll pattern. The stages for Apollos 4, 6, and 8 had to be repainted in the VAB to have the “T” pattern around the interstage whitened out. Apollos 9 and 10 had theirs repainted before being barged to KSC. All of the others had their interstage painted white prior to assembly.

 

Mobile Service Structure being
crawlered up to 500-F

The 500-F tests also allowed the Mobile Service Structure to be placed around a Saturn V launch vehicle for the first time. When you look at this image, you can see the importance of the 500-F test. Everything had to fit, and 500-F made sure that everything did indeed fit. Interestingly, although 500-F had been mounted on Pad 39A on May 25, it stood there alone with the LUT for more than two months. The Mobile Service Structure didn't get its first ever crawler lift and ride to the pad until July 20, 1966!

Of course the best thing about 500-F was that it left us with some really cool pictures to admire. 

Yet the real purpose was to check fittings and systems.

You can have this sort of history right in your hand
APOLLO PART ONE

Here is a clear view of the mass-simulators (arrows) seen
as S-IC-F was lowered onto the mobile launcher's
platform in the VAB's high bay number 1 on  15 March 1966.

What many space buffs do not know is that the S-IC-F first stage of 500-F only had one F-1 engine, and that was a mockup. In the place of the other four F-1s were four “mass simulators” which were simply dead weights with the same mass as an F-1 engine. Although the S-II-F had been constructed with J-2 engines, it too was switched to five mass simulators before being stacked as a part of vehicle 500-F. Interestingly, S-IVB-F first arrived at KSC on June 30, 1965 and was used for facilities checkout on Launch Complex 34. S-IVB-F never had an engine or mass simulator installed.

Seen here are the five S-II J-2 mass simulators.
Thanks to Stephen Isherwood
Facebooks "VAB Past, Present & Future" page.

Each and every component that made up the Saturn V launch system had, until this point, been simply drawings on paper on the desks of thousands of engineers around the country. This was the first time that they had all been physically put together.

500-F even provided for an unexpected test of emergency procedures when Hurricane Alma came blowing past the Cape. In a test under actual conditions, the vehicle was removed from the pad and returned to the protection of the VAB. At 1:00 pm on June 8, 1966 the order was given to move 500-F back into the shelter of the VAB. It took three hours to unplug and detach everything and the crawler began to move the stack at 5:33 pm.  By 11:43 pm the trip was successfully completed in driving rain and winds of up to 65 miles per hour.

Although 500-F provided critical systems data that was key in the success of the flight versions of the Saturn V, it continued to provide really cool photo opportunities. In this one we see an Air Force Titan III launch.

In this photo (the author’s favorite, by the way) Gemini 11 is seen lifting off on September 12, 1966. In the background can be seen Launch Complex 37 (arrow) and vehicle 500-F (longer arrow) on Pad 39A.

And in this one Don Knotts poses in front of 500-F which was his costar in the movie “The Reluctant Astronaut.” That movie, which was Knott’s own concept inspired by a mild fear of flying that he had developed in the mid 196os but overcame some years later. He was on an airliner fearful of every bump when he picked up a newspaper and began to read a story about an astronaut. “What if there was an astronaut who was afraid of heights?” he thought- and the “Reluctant Astronaut” concept was born. They were given 23 days by the studio to shoot the entire movie- and did so. Along the way they asked NASA if the crew could shoot at Houston’s Manned Space Center and Kennedy Space Center expecting to be turned down. Instead, NASA opened the doors and let them shoot where ever they wanted! They even shot on the mobile launcher for vehicle 500-F.

On October 14, 1966 vehicle 500-F was rolled back to the VAB from Launch Complex 39A and de-stacking of the stage was completed seven days later. The S-IC-F stage was then barged back to MSFC Huntsville- I’ve uncovered no firm record of its end. The S-II-F stage was transferred to MSFC Huntsville and in June 1969 and it was given five J-2 engines and made into a display. Eventually it became a part of MSFC’s horizontal Saturn V and was declared a national landmark. Likewise, at the same period in time S-IVB-F was also placed as a part of that display.

Check out the whole Growing up with Spaceflight series HERE
and save a lunar module.

WHY DID THE SKYLAB SATURN IBs HAVE WHITE TANKS?

NASA image KSC-73PC-349, AS-206, Skylab 2.

Here’s another question that often comes up on spaceflight social media. Why were the Saturn IB first stage tanks on the Skylab (and ASTP) missions painted all white instead of the usual black and white? Considering all of shots in the dark that people who think they can answer this question post, I guess it’s time for the correct answer.

AS-206

To be factually correct, the RP-1 fuel tanks on those vehicles were not painted all white specifically “for Skylab.” In fact the first Saturn IB with all white tanks, AS-206 was stacked on Pad 37B on or about January 22, 1967 and was intended for use as the booster for the first unmanned lunar module Earth orbital flight. When that mission was handed over to AS-204, the booster intended for Apollo 1, and the Apollo schedule was reduced due to the Apollo 1 fire, AS-206 was placed in long term storage. It was later brought out to boost Skylab 2.

So, why the all white tanks? You may ask.

Beginning with the very first Saturn I tanks, those constructed for S-I-D, the dynamic test stage, the S-I stage’s RP-1 fuel tanks were painted black on the outward facing surfaces and zinc chromate on the inward surface. That stage had its birth on March 7, 1961 at MSFC. The black area had a vertical white strip in which the red lettered words “UNITED STATES” were monikered. The black tanks were painted as such for visual and photographic tracking purposes. 

Get this book autographed and personalized Just click HERE

for more on Skylab/ASTP try my book

You can get your e-book version HERE!

Early Apollo Applications cluster.

As the Saturn I program began to roll, plans were advanced to build and fly the “up-rated Saturn” which later became the Saturn IB. At that time the plan was to fly a huge amount of Saturn IBs. In fact on December 5^th, 1966 the schedule for ONLY the Apollo Applications Program (which later became Skylab) called for 15 Saturn V launches and 22 Saturn IB launches! (Ref; Skylab: A Chronology, p. 100) 

That didn’t include any of the hardware needed for the Apollo lunar program. The folks building the tanks had to get moving on the production line.

Saturn I boosters. Likely SA-4 far right
SA-5 on the left.

Thus, having seen this coming, the production of Saturn IB tanks was already in high gear. In fact the tanks and other components for the S-IB-5 stage was started on January 8, 1965, more than a year before the very first Saturn IB, AS-201 was launched on February 26^th, 1966.

On April 19^th, 1965 the AS-201 stage had just completed static firing in the test stand when ripples in the black fuel tank, F-3, were noticed. Later consideration determined that the heat of the sun on the tanks was causing the distortion. The answer to the problem was just to paint those tanks white from then on- which would better reflect the sun’s heat. It was too late to alter the tanks for the S-IB stages that had already been produced, S-IBs 1 through 5, (S-IB-5 became AS-205 and boosted Apollo 7) but work on the construction of the tanks for S-IB-6 (which became AS-206 and boosted Skylab 2) and the others that would follow had not yet begun.

Saturn IB tanks for AS-210 lay
 waiting at Michoud with black tanks
already in the stages in the background.
Photo from "Michoud Assembly Facility"
by Cindy Donze Manto- see ad below.

So, when construction of the tanks for S-IB-6 began in October of 1965, all of the tanks were painted white. As it worked out, S-IB-6 would, by default alone, become the booster for Skylab 2 after being in long term storage since 1967. It would show off the all white S-IB tanks for the very first time. Likewise all of the following Saturn IB vehicles had all white tanks.

AS-210, Apollo/Soyuz booster. The last
Saturn IB to fly.

Now, once again, you have the facts. Please do not bother arguing with people on social media… just send them here.

Buy it HERE!

If you like the facts you read here... try one of my books HERE!

Or get an autographed and personalized  copy HERE

NASA'S SECOND LEAST SUCCESSFUL BOOSTER

A

From the Art LeBrun collection

Author's note: Many of the cool photos seen in this piece are from the courtesy of the late, great Art LeBrun's collection. About nine years ago we connected when I posted some photos on NASAspaceflight.com's "L2" area in a thread about historic rockets. He chided me for "finally" joining the discussion and we later began swapping e-mails. I ended up sending him my full high resolution images of the LC3/4 blockhouse and mentioned that I was doing research for the Juno II flying model rocket for my Dr. Zooch Rockets kit. Art said he had some pictures that may help and he sent me a cash of Juno II images in return for my blockhouse images. Art was an amazing collector, but unlike others he very freely shared photos from his collection. Art passed away in 2013 and to his memory and friendship and skills in rocket history this blog post is dedicated. 

Art- we miss you.

Perhaps the most un-glamorized booster ever produced by von Braun’s team at ABMA (Army Ballistic Missile Agency in Huntsville) was the Juno II. Only ten of these vehicles were launched in a two and one half year period, and only four of those were able to be called  successful, yet today nearly every “rocket garden” seems to have one on display!

Juno II
cutaway.
author's

The Juno II was derived by taking a Jupiter IRBM, lengthening its tank section by 36 inches and then adding the same upper stage configuration as had been used on the Jupiter C to place Explorer I into orbit. This configuration could place a 100 pound payload into earth orbit or send a 15 pound payload toward the moon. The latter of those two options being very tasty in 1958, following the success of Explorer I, when the concept of the Juno II was first proposed. Although the Air Force was snapping up every Jupiter missile that came off the production line as part of a crash program to deploy them in Europe, ABMA had already sealed a bid for five of the missiles for their own use. In February 1958, von Braun had flown out to JPL ( the Cal Tech Jet Propulsion Laboratory) right after the success of Explorer I and sat down with William Pickering for what was called a “Juno Meeting.” There they planned to fly the Juno II and to shoot for the Moon before the end of 1958.

The high speed section
minus the barrel. ABMA

Keep in mind here that the concept of staging as it would become known in the later Titan boosters, had yet to be perfected. Likewise complex electronic commanded stabilization of space vehicles was also still on the drawing boards. Nearly every space vehicle launched by the United States was spun in order to provide initial stability after booster separation. At ABMA their partnership with JPL came up with a spinning drum and clustered solid fuel upper stage concept. 

High speed section showing its spin barrel being hoisted
from a truck and placed aboard vehicle  AM-19G.
Art LeBrun collection

It used “Baby Sergeant” rocket motors. Each Baby Sergeant solid-fueled motor produced 1,573.66 pounds of thrust to a maximum 6 second burn, that normally lasted about 5.5 seconds. Each measured 46 inches long by 6 inches in diameter. The second and third stage Baby Sergeant motors also burned 50 pounds of T17-E2 solid fuel. The fourth stage Baby Sergeant motor burned 50 pounds of JPL-532A solid fuel, a slightly more efficient fuel than that burned in the second and third stages. Oddly the Baby Sergeant  were nothing like their namesake Sergeant which had a takeoff thrust of 45,000 lb, burned for 34 seconds and measured 31 inches in diameter and a length of 34.5 ft. The link below will take you to some animation showing this process for a Juno II.

Juno II flight animation

Unpainted high speed
section shroud. ABMA

That three stage assembly was dubbed “the High Speed Section” or the “velocity package.” The boost process of the Juno II itself is fairly interesting with the first stage firing for a total of 180 seconds burning RP-1 (refined kerosene) and LOX (liquid oxygen) as the upper stages spun up to just under 450 RPM. Then high-speed section containing the upper three stages would separate and ignite. The second stage contained a cluster of 11 baby sergeant solid propellant rockets. Following that the third stage made up of 3 baby sergeant motors while the fourth stage consisted of a single baby sergeant motor. The high speed section also was equipped with 12 square fiberglass “windows” that allowed payload antennas better reception of radio signals.

Spin testing was critical with the High Speed Section because the Juno II had no hold-downs and was secured to the launch stand by nothing more than its own weight, an unbalanced, high RPM spinning of that section could actually cause the whole stack to fall over before the engine ever ignited. 

Jupiter/JunoII launch launch stand ABMA

Additionally, during flight the high RPM, and fairly heavy high speed section,  could vibrate its housing to pieces if it were unbalanced. Each section was unique and in spin testing it was balanced in a similar method to wheel balancing on a car as small pieces of metal on the rim were moved around to achieve perfection. One question that cropped up in the early planning stages of the High Speed Section on the Jupiter C was the thought that the centrifugal force of spinning may cause the solid propellant motors grain to bend out of shape and improperly burn. For that reason an early spin test took two of the baby sergeant rocket motors and spun them up to above 400 rpm where they were both fired. The motors burned correctly under those conditions.

Live fire spin test

The first Juno II and her
pad rat crew. Art LeBrun collection

On the first day of May, 1958 ARPA, (the Advanced Research Projects Agency) took over supervision of the Juno II from the Army and suddenly ABMA’s supply of Jupiter boosters doubled to 10. When NASA was formed in October of that same year, it elected to take up the Juno II program. Then on December 3, 1958 JPL became a part of NASA and everyone was looking toward the first launch of this “new” rocket. By the end of 1958 the von Braun team, on behalf of the newly created NASA, assembled and launched the first Juno II from Pad 5 at Cape Canaveral. NASA was itching to go from space planning to space flying and the Juno II, although developed by the ABMA, would give the public appearance of being a NASA vehicle and NASA project- so much so that the first two Juno II’s had the black letters “NASA” painted on their first stages.

Pioneer III probe. JPL

AM-11. Art LeBrun collection

On December 6, 1958 the first launch of a Juno II, vehicle AM-11, took place and lofted the Pioneer III probe- it’s target, the Moon and a lunar fly-by. The mission objectives were to measure the radiation intensity of the Van Allen radiation belt, test long range communication systems as well as the launch vehicle and other subsystems. Pioneer III and Pioneer IV were both tiny gold, cone-shaped probes that were packed with 1950s era electronics yet still light enough for the launch vehicle to shoot them past the Moon and into solar orbit.

Ignition of the booster’s single engine, which was the grandfather of the later Saturn I’s LOX/RP-1 powered H-1 engine, lit up the night at Cape Canaveral. All appeared normal as the rocket faded to little more than a fast moving star in the night’s sky. The Juno II’s first stage, however, was consuming its propellants at a slightly higher rate than planned and it shut down 3.7 seconds early. Although all of the high speed section’s rocket motors fired normally the payload failed to reach proper orbital escape velocity. It did, however, reach an altitude of 109,740 miles (measured from the center of the Earth) before it was recaptured by the home planet’s gravity and drawn back. The probe re-entered the Earth's atmosphere over Africa at 2:51 am Eastern Standard Time and burned up on December 7, ending its brief mission.

AM-11 MSS rollback
Art LeBrun collection

AM-14 Art LeBrun collection

AM-14 fueling.
Art LeBrun collection

Undeterred by that first failure NASA gave it another try on March 3, 1959 as AM-14, the second Juno II, was launched with Pioneer IV aboard. After a successful launch Pioneer 4 achieved its primary objective (an Earth-Moon trajectory), returned radiation data and provided a valuable tracking exercise. The probe passed within 37,280 miles of the Moon's surface on March 4, at a speed of 4,492 mi/hr. The distance was not close enough, however, to trigger the probe’s photoelectric sensor so it did not detect any lunar radiation. After passing the moon it went into solar orbit along with its cylindrical fourth stage casing tumbling several miles behind.

AM-16 blowing up. Art LeBrun collection

"Biography of a Missile"

This video not only shows the production of  AM-14, but it shows the abort and  what happened inside the blockhouse when it happened! Although Periscope Video spoils it with their banner it's still cool to watch and listen to what it was like to be there.

The third launch of a Juno II, monikered AM-16, became one of the most re-run rocket blow-ups ever recorded on film in a flight that lasted just five seconds. A short in two diodes in inverter #1’s voltage regulator caused a power loss to the guidance control system which caused a loss of control. The Juno II was blown up by Range Safety near the ground on July 16, 1959.

Remains of AM-16
Art LeBrun collection

AM-16 in a happier moment.
Art LeBrun collection

One of the few images of AM-19B
Art LeBrun collection

Some confusion surrounds AM-19B, the fourth Juno II flight, but most records say it was launched on August 15, 1959 and failed to insert its payload into orbit because the first stage shut down early. There are other notations that add the fact that the “guidance compartment” depressurized early and caused the high speed section to become unstable. This is likely the fuel supply for the cold fire reaction control jets. The payload was the Navy’s 5 pound “Beacon 2” navigation satellite.

If you like the way Wes writes spaceflight history, check out his best selling book APOLLO PART ONE the Apollo 11 edition.

AM-23 liftoff. Note that the ruptured
pressure sphere caused by a bad solder
connection can already be seen venting
to the left. Art LeBrun collection

AM-19A, the fifth Juno II flight was actually a success on October 13, 1959 and placed Explorer VII into orbit. The launch was delayed  for two weeks due to the pad explosion of a Jupiter IRBM, AM-23.  On September 15 the Juno II was on LC-5 being prepared for a late September launch when pad activity was cleared so NASA could launch the Jupiter from LC-26B. The IRBM went out of control almost immediately after liftoff and before Range Safety could hit the command destruct button the Jupiter’s RP-1 tank collapsed and the vehicle exploded. Pieces of the exploding rocket peppered the area and some struck the Juno II. Casualties were 14 dead… mice. They’d been housed in the Jupiter’s nosecone as biological specimens for NASA. 

AM-19A ready for launch
Art LeBrun collection

The slight damage to the Juno II and resulting inspection delayed the launch to October 13, however. Explorer VII is still in orbit today- in fact it just passed over my head as I was writing this (no foolin’). The satellite itself was designed at JPL to detect Layman-alpha flux, measure solar X-rays, heavy cosmic rays, micro meteorite penetration, trapped energetic particles and anything else that the folks at JPL could think of without exceeding the 100 pound payload limit. Although it was powered by solar cells and 50s era NiCad batteries the satellite only transmitted data until February of 1961 and went silent on August 24 of that same year. Today it still orbits as NORAD ID 22 and international ID of 1959-009A and you can track it live here: https://www.n2yo.com/satellite/?s=22

High speed shroud for AM 19C
being hoisted into place.
Art LeBrun collection

On March 23, 1960 another Juno II failed as the second stage of AM-19C failed to ignite. Some reports say that the first stage re-contacted the second stage after separation. Aboard as payload was the Explorer S-46 satellite that had been commissioned by the DOD and the Air Force. That satellite ended up splashing into the Atlantic.  

AM-19C liftoff.
Art LeBrun collection

Explorer VII cut-away study.
JPL drawing

AM-19D poised on the pad
is the 7th Juno II booster.
Art LeBrun collection

AM-19D, the seventh Juno II, placed Explorer VIII into orbit on November 3, 1960. The satellite was designed to gather and transmit data in real time about distribution of micrometeorites, electron temperature and electron density, temporal and spatial energy as well as ion concentrations. The vehicle went silent on December 27, 1960- just 54 days after it was launched. Amazingly, it remained in orbit until March 28, 2012.

If you were doing what Wes is doing in 1961 you can relate to his book Growing up with spaceflight PROJECT MERCURY Click HERE to check it out!

Rare image of AM-19F
Art LeBrun collection

Another failure took place on February 25, 1961 when the eighth Juno II’s third stage failed to ignite. Lifting off from LC-26B the booster monikered AM-19F lofted normally through its first stage burn and after separation enjoyed a normal coast period. All 7 of the second stage’s rocket motors ignited and burned properly, but no indication of second stage burn was received. Thus the S-45 satellite that was slated to study the ionosphere got a close up study of the eastern Atlantic ocean instead.

There are very few images of the later
Juno IIs. In this image of a Jupiter in
pre-launch assembly the vehicle in
the right background is believed to
be AM-19E the next to last Juno II
Art LeBrun collection

On April 27, 1961 Juno II number 9, AM-19E, placed Explorer XI into orbit. Also launched from LC-26B the booster successfully placed the astronomy satellite into a 290 mile by 905 mile elliptical orbit where it provided data on gamma-rays until November 17 of that same year. It remains in orbit as of this writing in 2019. You can track it at this link: https://www.n2yo.com/satellite/?s=107

The only known image of the final Juno II on the pad is thing
one showing Freedom 7 in radio frequency testing with
AM-19G the last Juno II enclosed in its MSS in the background.
NASA image

May 24, 1961 saw the final launch of a Juno II. The rocket was secured in its gantry as Alan Shepard’s Freedom 7 launched from nearby Pad 5 on May 5. 

This is the high speed section shroud
for AM-19G the 10th and last Juno II.
Art LeBrun collection

AM-19G was slated to boost solar astronomy satellite S-45A which was a twin to the S-45 vehicle that had been aboard the eighth Juno II when it failed the previous February. The luck for S-45A was no better. The first stage burned as planned, but there was no indication of second stage ignition as the entire stack ended up in the Atlantic ocean.

Here's another of Wes' spaceflight bookabout to go best-seller; PROJECT GEMINI Click HERE to see it!

By mid 1961 other space boosters- such as the Thor Able- were improving in reliability and the clustered spinning tub upper stages were considered highly outdated. NASA had burned through all of their inventory of Juno II boosters and thus no more Juno II flights were ever conducted. It’s important to keep in mind that the Juno II was never cancelled. Simply, all 10 of the modified Jupiter boosters that became the Juno II launch vehicles had been used and NASA had no active plan to further the project, so it ended. Oddly, by 1962 the Jupiter IRBM itself was actually outdated and the Air Force was left with a number of surplus missiles. Thus, some of those were dressed up to look like Juno IIs and set up as displays in rocket gardens around the planet. As of April 18, 2019 the Juno II display still stands and the Kennedy Space Center’s rocket garden. If you take a tape measure to it, however, you’ll find that it’s 36 inches too short, because it is actually a Jupiter dressed up like a Juno II… just like all the rest.

KSC Rocket Garden, April 18, 2019. Photo by Walt Evans

In the end the Juno II was simply a vehicle that was quickly passed by as spaceflight technology experienced a swift growth. Although it was NASA’s second least successful US launch vehicle, it was also only NASA’s second space booster, the first being the Thor Able, two of which had failed previous to the first Juno II launch. However, the scorched crown for the absolute leas successful booster goes to the Atlas Able. Five boosters were built, two failed on the ground and three failed in flight. Yet, Juno II was the very first to have the name “NASA” painted upon it.

Photo by Walt Evans, KSC 4/18/2019

Ref:

King of the Gods: the Jupiter Missile Story, Ed Kyle, 2011

Astronautix.com

NASAspaceflight.com, Public and L2 areas

Et.Al.