Talk:Viking (rocket)

	Rocketry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RocketryWikipedia:WikiProject RocketryTemplate:WikiProject RocketryRocketry articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Spaceflight Low‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Technology / North America / United States / Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

Stuff moved from Talk:Viking 11 (rocket)

Should probably be merged with Viking rocket, if someone who knows more about it can verify that that article deals with same subject. Gene Nygaard 16:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Viking rocket article indicates its text was "adapted from" a source at NRL: Viking Program. A careful reading of that web page, and a comparison with the text of this "Viking II" article, leads me to suspect the original author mis-read the source. The flight of the eleventh Viking rocket, "Viking 11", nearly matches the description given here for a "Viking II". This is confirmed by, The highest altitude of any Viking was reached by #11 on 24 May 1954 with 254 km (158 miles).[1]. Given this, it appears the "Viking II" never existed! (Sdsds - Talk) 04:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfectly possible that it was Viking 11 (One One) as opposed to Viking II (i i). I will try and go back to the source material, but it is perfectly possible that the editor made a mistake. But... it certainly didn't come off a webpage. It came out of an old book! --MacRusgail 10:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the best reference for the Viking program is "The Viking Rocket Story", by Milton W. Rosen, who was the NRL project manager. I have a copy at home, and I first read it in about 1956, so the publication date must have been between the 1954 date of Viking 11 (definitely not Viking 2; the first eight [if I recall] were somewhat smaller diameter, lighter, with correspondingly lower performance) and 1956. One of Rosen's daughters married a college roommate of mine, so I have even talked to him about it, years later. I'll put a proper reference to the book in the article shortly. Rosen was also the project manager for Project Vanguard, which was based on Viking, a few years later. He told me that his experienced people were all absconded by the Titan ICBM program, and he had to do Vanguard with new, less experienced staff -- which was a grueling experience, given the media spotlight.Wwheaton (talk) 02:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additions and rearrangements

Based on material on Rosen's book, and Willy Ley's 1951 "Rockets, Missiles, and Space Travel", both now referenced, I have filled in some more details. Rosen gives detailed tables of the specifications and performance for each flight, 1 through 11 (Viking 12 was really part of Project Vanguard, being flown as a test article for that project, after the Rosen's book was completed). Because he gives complete information on every flight, I propose to incorporate them all into one section on flights, including Viking 11 and 12. This, when complete, will more or less completely absorb the old Viking 11 article into this one. I have also folded the previous "Improvements" section into one called "Design features", with some of Ley's and Rosen's material. Wwheaton (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have more or less finished my enlargements and corrections, mostly based on Rosen's book (which ends with Viking 11), and leaving the last two airframes (13 & 14) for the Project Vanguard article. The date given in the Achievements section, of Oct 5, 1954, is orphaned; I can't find any support for it in either Rosen or Encyclopedia Astronautica, and supposed it should be suppressed if no one knows better. The old "Viking II (rocket)" article is now gone, and redirects to here. (NB also the potential confusion with the JPL Mars landers, Viking 1 and Viking 2, ca 1976.)Wwheaton (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of hurricane - error contained in a usually reliable source

Based on this photo and its explanatory text (including the date) I think it is likely the NRL source is in error when it claims a Viking took a similar photo on that same date. I propose entirely removing this claim from the "achievements" section. (sdsds - talk) 05:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rosen's book, The Viking Rocket Story (1955) shows three plates between pages 178 & 179, all labeled "Official US Navy Photo". The date in the text however for the Viking 11 flight is given in the text as 24 May, 1954, and I believe the date given in ref 6 (as of this date) must be incorrect, as I stated in the last note (6). All three are rendered in black and white. The first is almost straight down, and is stated in the caption to be "the highest picture of the earth", at 158 mi. The second is described in the caption as a composite of two photographs, looking generally SE, taken at altitudes of 153 and 138 miles. It is accompanied by a full-page map showing the field of view, which covers most of central Mexico. The third plate, taken at 86 miles, is looking west; the detached nose cone can be seen floating at a distance of about 640 feet. No hurricane is in evidence in second picture, which is the only one shown in the book that shows the Gulf of Mexico. The May date would also be wrong for the hurricane season, but NOAA must know the date of the hurricane. My guess is the hurricane photo was taken, probably from an Aerobee in color, in October 1954, and has been mis-attributed to Viking 11's flight in May. A quick look at the text (Viking 11 is described only briefly in the last chapter, "Postlude", of the book) shows no mention of color photography, and the captions have none. So I think the achievement is real, but described incorrectly. Rosen's "Postlude" chapter tabulates the achievements of the program through Viking 11, that should probably go into our article. Wwheaton (talk) 06:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now revised the "Achievements" section, removing the erroneous material. Wwheaton (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wasserfall

It might be more accurate to describe the Viking as derived from the Wasserfall missile, rather than the V-2. It's engine, built by Reaction Motors, was pretty much identical to the Wasserfall engine. DonPMitchell (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was absolutely no connection between the Viking engine and the Wasserfall engine. There was not even any connection between the G.E. engine used in the Hermes A-1 which aerodynamically was a copy of the Wasserfall C-2 and the RMI XLR10-RM-2 of the Viking. The G.E. engine used LOX/Alcohol for propellants unlike the Wasserfall which used Visol (vinyl isobutyl ether) and SV-Stoff, or 'red fuming nitric acid' (RFNA). The main achievement of the engine design of the Hermes A-1 was it's innovative Injector Head which presaged the injector used in G.E.'s X-405 (Navy XLR50-GE-2) used in the Vanguard Satellite Launch Vehicle. The engine was quite different than the Wasserfall's. The Reaction Motors XLR10-RM-2 was the first gimbaled rocket engine whereas the Wassefall utilized an engine developed by Dr. Walter Thiel who also designed the engine of the A-4 (V-2). Both the A-4 and Wasserfall used vanes exrending into the rocket exhaust for directional control. The Wasserfall was a pressure fed engine using 250 atm N2 gabs to feed the propellants whilr both the G.E. engine for the Hermes A-1 and the RMI XLR10-RM-2 of the Viking were fed by turbo pumps. Mark Lincoln (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Viking (rocket). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151101003534/http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets/Diverse/U.S._Rocket_engines/engines.htm to http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets/Diverse/U.S._Rocket_engines/engines.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

I've pretty much rewritten the whole thing, largely based on Rosen's book. It's not perfect, but it's a lot more complete. --Neopeius (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]