HD197072RD

Outline 1970-1972 Events

PBPS Collapse and Look Ahead

Contract Reversal Proposal, Assemble PBPS at Autonetics.

Lockheed Gimbaled Nozzle Design

Submarine Tube Launch vs Land Silo Launch

Small Rocket Engines for Roll Control

Advanced Studies at Norton AB

First concepts for an MX missile

G&C inside the PBPS

Roll Control Requirements

Control Cable Signal Bus for Flat Raceway

Presentation of Serial Bus and Flat Cable concept to TRW

Why do we do things the hard way

AF Funds TRW Data Bus Study

Unique Funding to Autonetics

AF Funds Motor Contractors for Servo Actuator Studies

Capable People let go

Shuler’s List

Nuclear Hardness Criteria – Digital is Better

The Challenge, “since when did that stop you”

PBPS Collapse and Looking Ahead: During the PBPS attrition process I was constantly searching for new business applications. I kept in contact with Lou Purpura, then on staff to Program Manager Bob Kaesby, with an office along “mahogany row. Lou was part of noon time bridge bunch that included Tom Schuler, Bob Neise & Ray Curci. Lou and I had kept in close contact since working at adjacent desks in 1955 – it was now about 1970. During the Minuteman program Lou and Ray had arranged periodic meetings with Lockheed to exchange ideas on their Polaris & Trident Missile systems launched from submarines and our Minuteman launched from a silo. In conversations, Lou and I called a follow on to the MM III an MX – soon others within Autonetics and TRW were also using the term MX. Thus it seemed only natural when the AF referred to an MX missile in news releases associated with congressional funding actions. Lou gave me a call and said he’d set up a meeting with Lockheed and had invited TRW along for a discussion of future missile developments.

MM I had four hinged tilting nozzles one at the end of four stub pipes. Two were + – pitch, two were + – yaw and roll was achieved with + yaw & – yaw. This method consumed considerable envelope reducing the amount of propellant that could be carried.

MM II stage II used secondary injection into a single fixed nozzle partially buried up in the case. This packaged more propellant but required a heavy control system.

MM III stage II and III used secondary injection, stage I was still the original tilting nozzle system.

MX could use the new gimbaled nozzles for all three stages, an almost idealistic design. Once a gimbaled nozzle is aligned with the missile CG it required very little control power to stay aligned.

The problems with a single gimbaled nozzle is that you need a separate roll control mechanism.

Lockheed Gimbaled Nozzle Design: During such and exchange Lockheed gave us a tour and presentation of a Lockheed Gimbaled Nozzle design concept for large solid propellant boosters. Their engineer, I don’t recall his name, used laminating layers of metal, rubber, metal rubber, to make a ring which attached to the case and to the nozzle forward of the nozzle throat. When propellant was ignited case pressure was applied to the laminated rubber rings, causing these laminated rings to behave as if a fluid joint – permitting the nozzle to be gimbaled. I was immediately reminded of the use of a Hydropress to flow rubber about form blocks to bend parts to shape. This was a significant improvement over secondary injection control, and was soon adapted by all motor contractors for their new designs. I took special note of the fact that it was Lockheed, not motor contractors, who came up with this design. Lockheed and Autonetics, control system integrators, were aware of such an advantage. Motor contractors had no incentive to evolve such a device unless requested by a customer – feasibility studies were needed and Lockheed took the initiative.

During our MM I Lockheed had shown us their first Polaris system, which even they admitted was a kluge, which they improved to be more like our MM I systems. Lockheed was the first to use a secondary injection for later systems, as we did on MM II & MM III -- we benefited from their experience.

Tube vs Silo Launch: During our Lockheed visit we talked about their launch problems from a tube in their submarine vs our “flying” missiles out of a silo. They push their missiles out of the tubes using pressure, missiles are lowered into a Styrofoam lined tube, the Styrofoam served as the pressure seal as well as shock attenuator. To make this work they had used a “flat raceway” for their stage connecting cables. I took special notice of the fact they were forced to make a flat raceway where our method posed no such design constraint.

Small Rocket Engines for Roll Control: They also showed us the small rocket engines used for roll control. These were provided by Lockheed, not the motor contractors. For Minuteman, TRW Propulsion placed these under their control by directing contracts to the Motor contractors – who bought such from others.

Advanced Studies at Norton AB: TRW at Norton AB and Aerospace near by were making studies and presenting proposals to the AF for follow on missiles. I was among those who attended a early meeting with TRW Propulsion and TRW G&C at Norton on what they had in mind. They perceived a much larger missile with more warheads.

First concepts for an MX missile: We arranged for the loan of Ray Ajamien, an excellent design engineer, who put together the concept of a future post boost control section for what I was calling MX. We had moved from quarters in building 232 to lesser accommodations in bldg 73. Knowing a future missile would have a much larger PBPS and it seem appropriate to create a concepts of what that might be.

G&C inside the PBPS: I knew we would not have the luxury of a full section of the missile devoted to the Guidance system only, so I had Ray place a drawer in the side so the Guidance & Control system could be placed inside the Propulsion System cavity, as there would be plenty of room. At the time what was left of Bellamy’s organization had been placed under Dale McLoud of Inertial Navigation. Dales first reaction was No Way was their Guidance and Control system going to be inside the Propulsion System! However in the end that’s exactly how it was done. It was the only sensible option. A short time later Ray went to work for Space Division on the Space Shuttle.

Roll Control Requirements: Terry Miwa a long time friend from TRW, now in charge of their requirements analysis unit, came up with MX stage I roll requirements. Lou called me when he received the information -- we agreed the requirement was excessive. Terry had simply extrapolated from MM I tilting nozzle roll capability to define an MX need. Lou said that’s way in excess of what Lockeed uses. I said yeah but remember they have that flat raceway – we need to find a way of converting our 6” hump raceway to a flat one. I’ll try to do some realistic calculations on the present raceway roll disturbance and what we can do to make a flat raceway. Lou said great and when you do make contact with Art Zimmerman TRW Norton AB, a mutual friend of ours on what you come up with. I made a layout plus calculations on maximum roll torque caused by a 6” hump, missile length when exposed to 450 mile extreme wind at launch, a value I recalled that Dave Byles had used. I plotted this up, called Art who picked it up on his way to see Terry at TRW Redondo CA. I had also looked up what Lockheed told us they used for their Trident missile for roll and included it with the information given to Art. Terry completely reevaluated his roll requirement number to a more reasonable value. Zimmerman moved to Redondo not long after that and I lost track of another good friend. We needed to achieve a consensus of opinion that an MX should have a flat raceway.

Shuler’s List: A the time they had gathered an unusual collection of people in bldg 73 – most of the ex supervisors now out of jobs due to the upheaval of MM III winding down – I was one of them. It was some two years later, in a conversation with Lou, that I learned how that came about. Cutbacks had become chaos, like with 90 secretaries laid off in one day as the entire Minuteman program was effected. Someone discovered that Malcomb Johnson was on “open transfer” meaning he didn’t have a job and had about two weeks in which to find one or else out the door. When Shuler learned of this he said hold up, we cant lay off the very people we need for future business. Tom proceeded to personally make a list which he sent to personnel with the message that he was to be personally notified before any one of those people was laid off. With out knowing it, a few of us became the “untouchables”. Tom made good choices, they were all quality people who soon again proved their value on new assignments as we began to recover.

Control Cable Signal Bus for Flat Raceway: I began pouring my energy into the idea of not only making a flat raceway but also using a signal data buss in lieu of dedicated wires. I recalled how the rural telephone lines where I grew up. They were called “part lines” where each farmer on the line had “their” ring, to which they would answer. They also had an emergency ring where everyone answered, such as giving warning of a wheat fire – a HELP call to all. I decided it would be a neat thing to use a few small signal wires to replace the many. I designed a protocol for a missile “Party Line”. Some didn’t understand the meaning I intended, thinking it was a political party, so I dropped the term. I work out a concept for shifting a set of serial bits from up stage to all the down stages, to unload a “command” cargo of bits, then load and ship back a return cargo of “feedback” bits. The very recent TTL dual inline chip literature showed shift registers and latch registers I could use to do that. I knew it was a good concept.

This was many years before the RS-232 Serial protocol using UART (Universal Asynchronous Receiver Transmitter) chips. It was also before the creation of the Mil-Std-1553 for bursts of data packets – which became a standard for the Aircraft Industry.

Presentation of Serial Bus and Flat Cable concept to TRW: I refined my ideas into a presentation to G&C and Propulsion TRW people I knew. They were advisors to and our communications window to the AF. I could tell they were very impress. Don Kennedy of TRW Propulsion, one of their good guy out of Redondo office, turned to Bellamy and said, I believe you’ve just lost a good propulsion man to electronics.

Why do we do things the hard way?: Later at Norton AB for a meeting we were held up until an AF officer could arrive, he had been miss directed to Redondo on the coast and now on his way to Norton East of San Bernadino. During this time I got to visiting with an AF officer I’d never met before. He seemed bright and interested so I made the comment, “sometimes we do things the hard way.” He asked what do you mean. So I went to a near by black board and drew a picture, showing our raceway and side wind – saying we build airfoils on our AF missiles while the Navy is not – we have a large roll disturbance and need large roll control authority – the Navy does not. We should flatten our cable. Right away his eyes lit up, this was his language and this was an opportunity for him, he now had a clear and valuable cause. This was the reaction I was hoping for – to receive directions that the MX shall have a low profile cable.

AF Funds TRW Data Bus Study: My sales pitch to TRW/AF on the use of a data bus turned out to be very successful, TRW proposed and were funded by the AF, to study the application of a data bus for an MX. I found out about it quite by accident when I went with Carl Body to Norton on another subject and sat in on his meeting. TRW was giving a briefing on their study – when someone asked what they were using as “requirements” for such a system, TRW presented the document they were using. I was startled to find it was one of three a reports I’d written and given to Dr Ken O’Kief of TRW Redondo. This is why Carl Body, then in charge of our cable systems, wanted me to sit in on the meeting – he knew they were using my report for requirements.

Unique Funding to Autonetics: Lou Purpura once said to me, we are very lucky, we have AF funding for studies, TRW and Motor Contractors have to make special proposals – that’s why TRW was funded to do the data bus study and why motor contractors were funded to do new servo actuator studies.

Later working with Don O’Niel on the B-1B program, I found it was Don, while G&C Project Engineer, who had set up this unusual funding arrangement as part of sustaining engineering during negotiations with the AF. From the AF and taxpayers stand point it was money very well spent. It is an enormous loss to wither away a capable organization during program transitions.

AF Funds Motor Contractors for Servo Actuator Studies: It was obvious from the start that TRW Propulsion wanted the motor contractors to provide the nozzle control actuators for the motors. Companies like Moog jumped at the chance to sell full servo actuators and not just servo valves – however they were cut off at the pass when Propulsion TRW issued, via AF, a study contract to the motor contractors with the stipulation that it be for methods other than hydraulic because it was already known how to build those. Thus began the design of solid propellant powered servo actuators. The Vickers solid propellant driven hydraulic pump was not given a chance. We lost our charter for MX servo actuator studies – the kind of work I’d done before the PBPS was no longer being done at Autonetics.

Capable People let go: Vern Vorwick, who had been a supervisor for Rocketdyne drove each day across the LA basin from his home in Canoga Park. We often discussed what the next move should be – of what we could do to prepare for getting a new contract. Not too long after that Vern was let go, he was a very capable fellow and I did my best to keep him on – but realized I’d be doing well to find a niche for myself. We were still in bldg 232, not yet consolidated in bldg 73.

Nuclear Hardness Criteria – Digital is Better: I had come to the conclusion that with the increased hardness requirements it would be necessary to convert our analog servo control electronics in each downstage Nozzle Control Unit, to digital. During a visit with Lou Purpura I said you know Lou, one of the biggest limiting factors a new missile design faces is the ever increasing nuclear hardness requirements the feel are necessary. Lou agreed.

The “since when did that stop you” Challenge: I had said to Lou, in addition to making a flat raceway and a serial data cable, we should convert present analog downstage electronics to digital – the upstage electronics is already digital. Lou agreed. I started to walk out of his office when Lou said, “why don’t you do that?” I turned back and said, “Lou you know I’m a mechanical, I don’t know anything about electronics!” Lou smiled and said, “yeah but since when did that ever stop you?” It was as if to say what better do you have to do? It was a challenge. Lou knew, and I didn’t, of Shulers list and the AF funding worked out by O’Niel.

At the time I didn’t know that the Inertial Platform electronics was analog. – In fact many years later I was asked by Jim Mesera of inertial Nav. to take on the job of digitalizing the inertial platform electronics. By then I had sense enough to decline.