SpaceX’s Falcon 1: a History of Rocket Technology and an Interview with

Guidance, Navigation, and Control Engineer Chris Wilkins

By Jake Lee

2/10/19 Lee 1

Table of Contents

Interviewer Release Form..…………………………………………………………2

Interviewee Release Form…………………………………………………………..3

Statement of Purpose………………………………………………………………..4

Biography…………………………………………………………………………...5

Historical Contextualization – Missiles, Duopoly, and the Falcon 1…………….…6

Interview Transcription……………………………………………………………22

Interview Analysis…………………………………………………………………32

Bibliography…...…………………………………………………………………..40

Appendix 1 – Additional Information…....………………………………………..43

Appendix 2 – Definitions……....…………………………………………………..44

Lee 2

Lee 3

Lee 4

Statement of Purpose

I drew interest in writing about space travel and rocket science because space, astrophysics, and astronomy are all interests and passions of mine. The Falcon 1 specifically interested me because SpaceX is a very innovative and interesting company today and learning about its past seemed enticing. SpaceX is trying to make humans a spacefaring species, and the

Falcon 1 was where this mission began. Lee 5

Biography

Chris Wilkins was born in 1982 outside of New York City. Since then he has moved to many places all over the United States, and he currently lives in the DC area. He grew up during the Gulf War and, in the 1990s, lived in Cincinnati and Morgantown, West Virginia. He went camping every year near a winery in upstate New York where he remembers liking the grape juice. In high school, he took many AP classes and decided that he wanted to study engineering in college. He applied to early admission at RPI Polytechnic/NYU Poly and was admitted. He studied there for undergrad and majored in Aerospace Engineering, as well studying abroad in

Germany where he met his current wife. He later found a professor in downtown Brooklyn who researched spacecraft at Polytechnic University and went to grad school there. He researched spacecraft dynamics under this professor for graduate research. As part of a fellowship, he taught high school physics and loved teaching. After earning his masters, his advisor wanted him to get a PhD, but his friend was an intern at SpaceX and told him to do an internship there.

He was interviewed by Elon Musk and accepted. Later on, he got a full-time job working as a guidance, navigation, and control engineer at SpaceX and has been working there for 13 years. Lee 6

Missiles, Duopoly, and the Falcon 1

Many of the most successful space launch vehicles, such as the Atlas and R-7, were initially designed as ballistic missiles.1 Through the development of ballistic missiles and other rocket-powered weapons during wartime, space travel technology significantly advanced. This paper broadly discusses rocket development during World War I, World War II, and the Cold

War. This paper focuses on the development of the Falcon 1 rocket by SpaceX and its related motors and parts. For the most part this takes place in the US but some early rocket development takes place in Germany. The Falcon 1 was developed in the late 2000s. To understand the

Falcon 1, one must examine World War I, World War II, and the Cold War, as well as gain a first-hand perspective from someone who was there

The rocket technologies in the Falcon 1 are based off of a long history of wars and weapons development that started in World War I. World War I began on July 28th, 1914, with the United Kingdom, France, and Russia siding against Germany and Austria-Hungary. Wanting to continue the American policy of isolationism, Woodrow Wilson, president of the United

States, declared neutrality in the war. Even though America was not part of the early stages of the war, American businesses experienced massive success because the European industry was in disarray. In early 1917, the United States intercepted the Zimmermann Note, which was sent from a desperate Germany to Mexico; because it asked Mexico to attack the United States if they joined the Allies in the war, it led America to view Germany as hostile and enter the war on

April 2, 1917.2

1 GILMAN, LARRY. "Ballistic Missiles." In Encyclopedia of Espionage, Intelligence and Security, edited by K. Lee Lerner and Brenda Wilmoth Lerner, 87-91. Vol. 1. Detroit, MI: Gale, 2004. Global Issues in Context (accessed October 30, 2018). http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/CX3403300068/GIC?u=standy&sid=GIC&xid=09a2d284. 2 "World War I and America." In Gale U.S. History in Context. Detroit, MI: Gale, 2018. U.S. History in Context (accessed February 5, 2019). Lee 7

Despite America not entering World War I until 1917, the entirety of the war from 1914 to 1918 kick-started American rocket research and shaped the beginning of Robert H. Goddard’s, commonly considered to be the father of American rocket science, career. Robert H. Goddard was born in 1882 and a professor of physics at Clark University in Massachusetts. Sponsored by the Smithsonian Institution and US Signal Corps to make rockets for use in warfare, Goddard began his research in 1914 at Clark

University; this initial step forward resulted in the basic inventions and proofs needed for space travel, as well as powerful weapons still in use today. Later in 1914, Goddard designed the first multistage rockets, and in 1915, he proved that rocket engines would work in a vacuum. By the end of his research in

1918, Goddard had invented both the bazooka and anti-aircraft rockets.3 During this early research and throughout most of his lifetime, Goddard used gasoline as his fuel of choice for his rockets because it was easy to obtain and its combustive properties were well known.4

Meanwhile, the United States was fully engaged in World War I. In May, 1917, the

Selective Service Act was passed; it dictated that males between the ages of 21 and 30 were required to serve in the military when drafted, increasing the size of the military from 400,000 to

4,000,000 men. In June, 1917, America began to send soldiers to France in order to fight at the front of the war. Although American soldiers did not fight in the war until the Spring of 1918, the Allies were able to declare victory on November 11, 1918. America’s involvement in the

3 Pendray, G. Edward. "Pioneer Rocket Development in the United States." Technology and Culture 4, no. 4 (1963): 384-92. doi:10.2307/3101375. 4 John D. Clark, Ignition! : an Informal History of Liquid Rocket Propellants (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1972), 5. Lee 8 war resulted in 116,000 casualties and 250,000 injured. America also emerged with a booming economy, a new sense of nationalism and patriotism from propaganda produced during the war, an increase in women’s rights, and newfound respect from allied nations. The war also led to a new American culture, causing the postwar period to be called the “Roaring Twenties” - a time of resurgence in all forms of art.5

After World War I and his contract with the military ended, Goddard decided to continue his research in private in order to make his lifelong dream of space travel a reality, and in 1919,

Goddard published his first paper on rockets, A Method of Reaching Extreme Altitudes, that included the first appearance of the rocket equations in the United States.6 In 1920, Goddard invented liquid propellant rockets, and up until 1925, he experimented profusely with them; by

March 16, 1926 in Auburn, Massachusetts, Goddard successfully launched a liquid propellant rocket, which traveled 184 ft in 2.5 seconds, and became the first in history to do so. On July 17,

1929, Goddard launched the first instruments to be transported on a rocket: a barometer and a thermometer. Although it did not travel higher that 90 ft, its crash gave him a great amount of publicity and caused the Massachusetts Fire Marshal to ban him from testing rockets in the state.

This attracted the attention of pilot Col. Charles Lindbergh who convinced the wealthy

Guggenheim family, already pioneers of aviation, to fund Goddard. With this money, Goddard purchased and moved to a facility in Roswell, New Mexico, where he would spend the rest of his life researching. Between 1930 and 1941, Goddard experimented intensely with rockets to satisfy his own interest in space travel, putting thousands of ideas to the test; during this period,

Goddard invented hundreds of rocket-flight related technologies, including gyro stabilizers and

5 "World War I and America." In Gale U.S. History in Context. 6 See Appendix 1 Lee 9 deflector veins.7 Although Goddard’s research was advancing quite smoothly, rocket propellant research in the United States made only one major advancement in this time; from 1932 to 1934 at the University of Syracuse, Harry W. Bull experimented with the first monopropellants8, the most successful being kerosine, ether, and hydrogen peroxide, all of which would become successful fuels in future rocket designs.9

While Goddard was researching rocket technology, America was struggling with the

Great Depression. On October 29, 1929, the stock market crashed, causing the banking system to collapse and companies to fire masses of workers in hopes to save money. In 1930, 750,000

Americans were not being paid and 2,400,000 did not have jobs. In order to revitalize the economy, President Franklin D. Roosevelt created New Deal programs to offer jobs and financial aid to needy Americans. Despite most Americans struggling with the Great

Depression, cinema and radio greatly advanced and surged in popularity.10

Meanwhile, European, and especially German, rocket technologies were advancing at a rapid rate and groundwork was being laid for World War II. In

1931, Friedrich Wilhelm Sander used Red Fuming Nitric Acid11

(RFNA) in some of his rocket propellant experiments, introducing the chemical to oxidizer research. In late 1931, a private German rocketry organization, Verein für Raumschiffahrt, developed a rocket motor that used 60% ethyl-alcohol as a fuel; this motor was later

7 Pendray, G. Edward. "Pioneer Rocket Development in the United States." 8 See Appendix 2 9 Clark, Ignition!, 7. 10 "1930s." In Bowling, Beatniks, and Bell-Bottoms: Pop Culture of 20th- and 21st-Century America, 2nd ed., edited by Cynthia Johnson and Lawrence W. Baker, 389-394. Vol. 2, 1920s-1930s. Detroit, MI: UXL, 2012. U.S. History in Context (accessed February 5, 2019). 11 See Appendix 2 Lee 10 used in the V-2 ballistic missile, which would later inspire the first space launch vehicles.12

During the mid to late 1930s, Adolf Hitler rose to power in Germany and began his conquest to take over Europe. The Nazis took over Rhineland in 1936, Austria and Czechoslovakia in 1938, and Poland in 1939.13 In 1935 at the Chemical State Institute in Berlin, Hellmuth Walter experimented with 80% hydrogen peroxide as a monopropellant and found it successful, and in

February 1937, Germany conducted a test flight of their first Jet-Assisted Take Off (JATO) that was powered by a hydrogen peroxide monopropellant rocket motor. In 1937 at Peenemunde, the

German rocket scientist Wernher von Braun began development of the A-4 ballistic missile, better known by its propaganda name as the V-2, that would eventually reign destruction on

London.14

Between 1939 and 1945, World War II broke out, inspiring a new surge in rocket and weaponry development. In 1939, the German vehicle manufacturer Bayerische Motoren Werke

(BMW) received a contract from the German government to manufacture JATOs for wartime use, and in 1940, the scientists in charge of the operation, Helmut Philip von Zborowski and

Heinz Mueller, discovered the first hypergol15 - a substance that combusts with no measurable delay upon contact with nitric acid. This began the race between America, Germany, Soviet

Russia, and many private rocketry organizations to discover the best hypergolic fuel and would have a large impact on rocket propellant development all over the world. Between 1939 and

1940 in the United States, Guggenheim Aeronautical Laboratories, California Institute of

Technology (GALCIT), which would soon be renamed to Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL),

12 Clark, Ignition!, 5-10. 13 Colby, Elbridge. "World War II." In Dictionary of American History, 3rd ed., edited by Stanley I. Kutler, 543-552. Vol. 8. New York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2003. 14 Clark, Ignition!, 5-10. 15 See Appendix 2 Lee 11 developed a mixture of RFNA with 6-7% of nitrogen tetroxide, which became the standard oxidizer within the US.16 In May, 1940, the Nazis invaded Britain and France, taking large swaths of territory, and on December 7, 1941, Japan attacked a US Navy fleet at Pearl Harbor,

Hawaii. These aggressions provoked the United States to support the Allies and enter the war on

December 8, 1941.17 At the end of his life between 1941 and 1942, Goddard developed gasoline-oxygen JATOs for the US Military. In total, Goddard owned a total of 214 patents on rocket technologies.18 In February 1942, JPL switched to using aniline from gasoline because gasoline did not start consistently with RFNA, and on April 15th 1942, a RFNA-Aniline JATO lifted an A20-A bomber into the air; the United States had achieved its first JATO. This JATO was used to allow overweight PBM and PBY bombers to take off from aircraft carriers.19 In

1942, Wernher von Braun finished V-2 development, making it the first ballistic missile; the V-2 was capable of carrying a 750kg payload 225 miles, but, because of a lack of guidance systems, only 50% of V-2s landed within 11 miles of their target.20

In April and May, 1942, Japan forced the United States out of the Philippines and took over as a military power there.21 Circa 1943, nitric acid became the standard oxidizer in

Germany because of its very successful performance in experiments, its tendency to act well with hypergols, and its availability at the time.22 In 1943, Hitler requested 12,000 V-2s from von

Braun; however, only 6000 were ever built, and they used a total of $18,000 and 20,000 slaves’

16 Clark, Ignition!, 10 & 15. 17 Colby, Elbridge. "World War II." In Dictionary of American History, 3rd ed., edited by Stanley I. Kutler, 543-552. 18 John D. Clark, Ignition!, 17; Pendray, G. Edward. "Pioneer Rocket Development in the United States." 19 John D. Clark, Ignition!, 16. 20 GILMAN, LARRY. "Ballistic Missiles." 21 Colby, Elbridge. "World War II." In Dictionary of American History, 3rd ed., edited by Stanley I. Kutler, 543-552. 22 John D. Clark, Ignition!, 13. Lee 12 lives; out of the 6000, only 500 hit their target, London, killing 2,700 civilians.23 On June 6,

1944, over 5,300 allied ships invaded German-occupied Normandy, Frace, and on August 15,

1944, a similar invasion took place in southern France. In September, 1944, German forces occupying France surrendered, and the Allies began invasion of Germany. Between 1944 and

1945, the US forced Japan out of the Philippines and launched a successful attack on Japan. On

August 6, 1945, an atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, and on August 9, Nagasaki was bombed, resulting in the death of over 114,000 Japanese civilians. On August 14, 1945,

Japan surrendered, and on May 7, 1945, Germany surrendered.24 At the end of World War II with the Germans defeated, German rocket scientists surrendered to the United States and fled to

Soviet Russia to fulfill their desire to continue their research, taking German research from

World War II along with them. The German scientist Wernher von Braun ended up in charge of the United States missile program, while his Russian equivalent, the Russian scientist Sergei

Korolev, headed the missile program in the USSR.25

Between 1947 and 1991, the Cold War occured between the United States and Soviet

Russia, causing an arms race that greatly improved rocket technology. The USSR and US developed rocket in order to “‘protect’ their countries from ‘external invasion’” and also protect their national pride.26 In 1957, the USSR finished construction of and tested the first

Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM), the R-7. ICBMs typically have a range of greater than

3416 miles and some can travel to the other side of the world in 30 minutes.27 Two months later,

23 Biddle, Wayne. "Science, Morality and the V-2." New York Times, October 2, 1992. 24 Colby, Elbridge. "World War II." In Dictionary of American History, 3rd ed., edited by Stanley I. Kutler, 543-552. 25 "Launch Vehicles, Expendable." Space Sciences, edited by John F. McCoy, 2nd ed., Macmillan Reference USA, 2012. 26 Chakrabarti, Bhupati. "One Hundred and Fifty Years of a Dreamer and Fifty Years of Realization of His Dream: Konstantin Eduardovitch Tsiolkovsky and the Sputnik 1." Current Science 93, no. 6 (2007): 862- 63. 27 See Appendix 1 Lee 13 the R-7 was, without need for modification, used to launch the first satellite, Sputnik, into orbit despite it being developed for warfare.28 Launched on October 4, 1957, Sputnik was the first artificial satellite to orbit the earth. It turned the space programs of the USA and USSR into political matters, and both programs were treated as top priority for the nations and received large funding.29 In 1959, the US developed their own ballistic missiles, the Titan and the Atlas.

The US Gemini and Mercury space programs ended up using boosters from ICBMs: the

Redstone, Atlas, and Titan II.30 At this point, the United States established a strong base in rocket science and space travel.

When Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) was first founded in 2002,

Lockheed Martin and Boeing had a lock on the spaceflight market; in order to prevent this duopoly from inhibiting science and space travel, Elon Musk layed down $100 million to make rockets affordable and humanity a space-faring civilization. Rocket parts were made primarily by Russia, Ukraine, and France, but Musk wanted to make a completely American rocket and to not depend on partnerships with old Cold War enemies and foreign countries in general. Musk planned to make three launch vehicles, each to compete in different parts of the space market: the Falcon 1, Falcon 5, and Falcon 9. The Falcon 1 was planned to be able to put a less-than

1,000 pound commercial or military payload into low-earth orbit for $6.9 million, astonishingly less than the $25 million the opposing Pegasus rocket charged. The Falcon 5 was planned to launch for $18 million instead of the $54 million market average for this type of rocket. The

28 GILMAN, LARRY. "Ballistic Missiles." 29 Chakrabarti, Bhupati. "One Hundred and Fifty Years of a Dreamer and Fifty Years of Realization of His Dream: Konstantin Eduardovitch Tsiolkovsky and the Sputnik 1.” 30 GILMAN, LARRY. "Ballistic Missiles." Lee 14

Falcon 9 was planned to directly compete with Lockheed’s Atlas V and Boeing’s Delta IV, charging $27 million instead of the $70 million for this type of launch.31

The Falcon 1 name, funding, and idea originated from a US government funding program. The DARPA Force Application and Launch from the Continental United States

(FALCON) program was initiated to spur the space industry, encouraging interested companies to design and produce a launch vehicle to lift small (1,000 pound) payloads to orbit. SpaceX participated in this, along with Airlaunch, Lockheed Martin, and Microcosm. Each company was given contracts/funding valued between $8 million and $11.7 million.32

The foreign policy of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was very open from the Cold War to the 2000s. Initially, NASA desired to foster space programs in allied nations, and in April, 1962, launched the Ariel I satellite in cooperation with Britain; in

September, 1962, the Alouette I satellite in cooperation with Canada; and in 1964, the Ariel II satellite also in cooperation with Britain. Because NASA was afraid a communist country would take over space, they cooperated with many other countries, and by 1965, NASA was in cooperation with 69 countries. By the end of the Cold War, many European space agencies originally fostered by NASA had developed enough to stand on their own. Because of advancements in the space launch vehicles in western Europe, many countries “expected to be treated as equals by their American partners.” As shown in 2004 and 2005 during the Cassini-

Huygens mission, cooperation between multiple agencies, in this case JPL, the Italian Space

31 Leslie, Wayne. "A Bold Plan to Go Where Men have Gone before." New York Times (1923-Current File), Feb 05, 2006. 32 Di Pasquale, Cynthia. "DARPA AWARDS FALCON SMALL LAUNCH VEHICLE PHASE IIA CONTRACTS." Inside the Air Force 15, no. 39 (2004): 12. Lee 15

Agency, and the European Space Agency, beared quite fruitful efforts.33 NASA describes its open foreign policy as “one of a repertoire of instruments the U.S. has at its disposal to legitimate its power in the eyes of others, to promote its culture and its democratic ideals, and to channel the scientific and technological efforts of other nations down paths that cohere with american interests.”34 The foreign policy can be used the show the immense scientific ability of the US and, just like in the space race, be used to compete with or promote other countries; it can be used to elevate American ideals and spur patriotism.

Through the war on terror, the presidency of George W. Bush had a large impact on the

United States during the 2000s. After the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001, Bush’s presidency transitioned into a wartime one. Bush initially campaigned on policies in tax cuts and education, but these subjects were pushed aside in order to focus on the war on terror. The attacks on September 11th caused Bush’s approval within congress to rise immensely, and he was able to win on nearly all matters of national security for the next 16 months. This allowed him to pass the USA PATRIOT Act and a bill that created a new Transport Security

Administration. Publicly, Bush announced that he would avoid an intrusive foreign policy and would work for peace, but his actions spoke differently; he signed major military commitments for the wars on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq, which caused the war to drag on longer.35

During the 2000s, rockets were largely used for warfare, a prime example being the conflict in Israel/Palestine. In 2008 in Gaza, Hamas fired multiple rocket barrages at Israel. In

33 John Krige, "Nasa as an Instrument of U.S. Foreign Policy," in Societal Impact of Spaceflight, by Steven J. Dick and Roger D. Launius (Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2007), 216, accessed November 29, 2018, https://history.nasa.gov/sp4801-chapter11.pdf. 34 John Krige, "Nasa as an Instrument of U.S. Foreign Policy," 218. 35 Domin, Gregory, George C. Edwards, and Gary L. Gregg. "The George W. Bush Presidency: Initial Assessments." Presidential Studies Quarterly 35, no. 1 (2005): 197-199. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27552667. Lee 16 response, Israel led airstrikes against Hamas, killing 225 people and injured 600 in one day - the highest amount of casualties in decades. In retaliation, Hamas fired dozens more rockets into southern Israel, though there were very few reported injuries and deaths. Reacting to the incident, Bush publicly announced that he blames Hamas for the violence. Israel believed that force was the only way to stop Hamas and viewed Hamas as a terrorist organization. Hamas believed it has a god-given right to the land Israel occupies and will fight to the last drop of blood. Surrounding governments were conflicted about the issue because they did not support

Hamas but were enraged by the large Palestinian death toll.36

The Falcon 1 was designed to lift a 1,000 pound payload into orbit for a relatively cheap price. The Falcon 1 used liquid oxygen/kerosine (LOX/RP-1) propellant rocket motors in both its first and second stages. These engines were designed with using either RP-137, methane, or propane in mind because they are much denser than the hydrogen used in previous engines and thus will reduce fuel tank size. LOX/Hydrocarbon engines were predicted to be cheaper to launch and more reusable than other engines of the time. Fuel pumps in the engine’s plumbing were powered by a gas generator power cycle that used hydrocarbons as fuel. RP-1 was predicted to perform well in a self-cooling design, although combustion chamber pressure would have to be kept low and RP-1 could build up residue on the sides of the coolant passages. RP-1 combusts unstably, so baffles or acoustic liners were needed to stabilize it. Oxygen can be used as a coolant, which would allow the combustion to occur at a higher pressure; however, oxygen is extremely reactive, especially while heated, and could cause an engine failure. If one is willing to negate the advantage of fuel density, hydrogen from a second stage can be used to cool

36 KHODARY, TAGHREED EL and Ethan Bronner. "MORE THAN 225 DIE IN GAZA AS ISRAEL STRIKES AT HAMAS." New York Times (1923-Current File), Dec 28, 2008. https://search.proquest.com/docview/897729092?accountid=5492. 37 See Appendix 2 Lee 17 the first stage, while having both the first and second stage fire during the first segment of the flight. The engines cross feed hydrogen to each other so one can cool itself and the other can burn it. Adding hydrogen to the main reaction would increase stability, but the plumbing is more complicated with this approach and it requires larger fuel tanks.38

The first stage of the Falcon 1 used the Merlin 1A engine, which is a gas generator cycle

LOX/RP-1 engine developed by SpaceX and modeled after the Apollo Moon program lunar module’s engine. The engine provides 125,000 pounds of thrust at sea level.39 The second stage used a pressure-fed Kestrel engine, which also used LOX/RP-1 as propellant. In total, the Falcon

1 was predicted to be “capable of placing a 700 kg satellite into a 200 km circular orbit, inclined

9.1 degrees.”40

In March, 2006, the first flight of the Falcon 1 ended in failure when an engine fire caused the first stage booster to shut down. At T+34 seconds, a fuel leak ignited causing the first stage to overheat and lose thrust. To remedy this problem and make sure it does not happen in the future, SpaceX added “additional autonomous sensor checks during the countdown and prior to vehicle release… [eliminated] all aluminum fittings in regions exposed to ambient environments… [added] fire protection blankets and nitrogen purges in the engine compartments… [and employed] additional quality control measures.”41

On March 21, 2007, the second flight of the Falcon 1 was launched from Reagan Test

Site on Omelek Island in the Marshall Islands, sponsored by the Defense Advanced Research

38 Visek, W. A. "Future LOX/Hydrocarbon Booster Engines." SAE Transactions 95 (1986): 1300-304. 39 "SpaceX 'Falcon 1' Marks New Era For Space Industry; Falcon 1 is carrying a simulated payload, a hexagonal aluminum alloy chamber that weighs 364 pounds and stands about 5 feet tall, designed specifically for the test mission." InformationWeek, September 29, 2008. 40 Brian Bjelde, Max Vozoff, and Gwynne Shotwell. 2007. “The Falcon 1 Launch Vehicle: Demonstration Flights, Status, Manifest, and Upgrade Path,” Proceedings of the AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites, Technical Session III: Launch & Propulsion Systems, SSC07-III-6. 41 Brian Bjelde, Max Vozoff, and Gwynne Shotwell. 2007. “The Falcon 1 Launch Vehicle: Demonstration Flights, Status, Manifest, and Upgrade Path.” Lee 18

Projects Agency and the United States Air Force. Although the 2nd stage engine shutdown unexpectedly at T+474 due to a growing oscillation caused by propellant slosh that first appeared at T+265 seconds, a majority of the test flight’s goals were met. Successful aspects of the demo

2 flight include the control and support systems, autonomous abort, 1st stage control and performance, vehicle structural performance, stage separation, 2nd stage control and performance, guidance and navigation performance, flight software, and aero-thermal and base- heating results. Overall, 86% of the test objectives were achieved.42

The demo 2 flight recorded 8 anomalies: “2nd stage LOX Quick Disconnect (QD) failed to disconnect during lift-off,” which was fixed by SpaceX talking to part vendors; “1st stage

LOX, fuel and electrical QD’s failed to disconnect per design at lift-off,” which was fixed by

SpaceX redesigning QD panels; “1st stage trajectory performance,” which was caused by an accidently uploaded outdated Propellant Utilization file which decreased engine power; “2nd stage Propellant Utilization (PU) did not control tank pressure to regulate engine mixture ratio,” which may have been caused by another anomaly; “re-contact during stage separation,” which was caused by rotations during unpowered flight and was a direct result of the outdated PU file;

“one of two Marmon clamp joints failed to separate at fairing jettison,” which was likely due to the pyro-bolts not detonating correctly; “loss of control of 2nd stage,” which was fixed by adding slosh baffles to the second stage tanks; and “1st stage location and recover,” which was fixed by adding a redundant GPS and more thermal protection. After its second flight, the Falcon 1 received a number of upgrades, such as using the Merlin 1C-F1 engine for the 1st stage (a more powerful Merlin engine with a ~7% increase in thrust and Specific Impulse, regenerative cooling, and a pyrophoric ignition system), using the Kestrel 2 for the second stage (a lighter

42 Brian Bjelde, Max Vozoff, and Gwynne Shotwell. 2007. “The Falcon 1 Launch Vehicle: Demonstration Flights, Status, Manifest, and Upgrade Path.” Lee 19

Kestrel with improved main fuel valves and burst disks), and exchanging the 2nd stage tanks for ones made out of a 2014 aluminum alloy.43

In August 2008, the third launch of the Falcon 1 failed when its stages did not separate halfway through the launch. This launch was expected to be successful and the final iteration of the Falcon 1, so it was carrying satellites from US Department of Defense and a Malaysian research organization, as well as “the cremated remains of some 200 people.”44

In September 2008, the Falcon 1 reached low earth orbit with a 364 pound simulated payload. The rocket was launched from Reagan Test Site in the pacific ocean. The launch was successful in every aspect, including booster recovery. The Falcon 1 “achieved a super precise orbit insertion,” proving its reliability to the customers and competitors of the space industry.45

This flight validated SpaceX as a proper competitor in the space industry and stepped towards shattering the duopoly that Boeing and Lockheed Martin held on the private space industry.

Historian perspectives on space flight have evolved dramatically as the industry advanced. During the Cold War around 1963, historians were fairly optimistic about spaceflight for mankind as a whole and did not focus much on the fact that the US and USSR were enemies, and although they viewed Sputnik as a somewhat jarring experience for Americans, they thought that overall Sputnik was an instrument for science and the advancement of all humanity. Due to the near endless possibilities and mysteries of space, historians referred to space launch vehicles as the beginning of “a new renaissance in the mind and spirit of mankind.”46 In the early 2000s,

43 Ibid. 44 "SpaceX Falcon Sputters On Third Launch Attempt; Saturday's launch failed when the two-stage Falcon 1 did not separate properly after taking off from an island in the central Pacific." InformationWeek, August 4, 2008. 45 "SpaceX 'Falcon 1' Marks New Era For Space Industry; Falcon 1 is carrying a simulated payload, a hexagonal aluminum alloy chamber that weighs 364 pounds and stands about 5 feet tall, designed specifically for the test mission." 46 Emme, Eugene M. "PERSPECTIVE ON SPACE EXPLORATION." The Air Power Historian 11, no. 1 (1964): 6-10. Lee 20 historians viewed space travel as an achievement contributed to from all sides of history. Soviet

Russia, America, and Germany - and respectively “Tsiolkovsky, Goddard, and Oberth” - are all equally credited with having contributed greatly to “the technological reality of roaring rockets reaching for the Moon, Mars, and beyond.”47 Oberth’s The Rocket into Planetary Space published in 1923, Goddard’s rigorous 1930s research, and Tsiolkovsky’s rocket equations are all examples of these contributions. When in the light of the subject of space travel, all contributors were viewed in a fairly neutral light despite being on different sides of history.

Space launch vehicles have a long and arduous history, all of which reflects the future of humankind; humans are not far off from becoming an interplanetary species, and understanding the history of spaceflight leads to understanding the future of humanity. However, after the Cold

War, the space launch vehicle market was dominated by a duopoly that removed all competition and hope for advancement from the market. The success of the Falcon 1 marked the beginning of the private space industry, revitalizing rocketry and space travel by reopening the space launch vehicle market.

47 Eisenman, H. J. "Rocketing into Space: The Beginnings of the Space Age." In Science and Its Times, edited by Neil Schlager and Josh Lauer, 541-544. Lee 21

Interview Transcription

This is Jake Lee and I am interviewing Chris Wilkins on the topic of the Falcon 1 as part of the American Century Oral History Project. The interview took place on 12/15/18 at 2:30pm located in Union Station. This interview was not recorded, but notes of what was said were taken during the interview.

I. Background/ Biography of Interviewee

What was it like growing up in the 1980s/90 during the cold war?

- Born in 1982 outside of New York City

- Used to be America vs Russia

- Spent 90s in Cincinnati and West Virginia in a college town (Morgantown)

How would you describe the United States at that time?

- More patriotic (the pledge of allegiance was always spoken then, but now he has kids now in elementary school who don’t say the pledge)

- Gulf war and the implications and what was going on were tough to understand as a high school kid.

- News showed that we were fully engaged as a country

- He didn’t feel like it mattered

What are some of your fondest childhood memories? Lee 22

- Hiked up Mt. Katahdin in Maine to see the sunrise

- Went camping every year in upstate New York and his parents did wine tasting. He liked the grape juice there

Please tell me a little about your schooling (your educational background)?

- Took a lot of AP in high school

- Wanted to do engineering, early admission RPI

- RPI polytechnic/NYU poly for undergrad, majored in Aerospace Engineering

- Studied abroad in Germany, met current wife there who is from France

- Found a professor who did spacecraft research in New York in down town Brooklyn at polytechnic university, so he went to grad school there

- Taught high school physics as part of a fellowship and loved teaching. The students at the school wouldn’t do homework! The experience was very rewarding and fun

- He did spacecraft dynamics graduate research

- Advisor wanted him to do PhD, but he had a friend who interned at SpaceX and told him he should do an internship there, so he went.

- Interviewed with Elon Musk Lee 23

II. Subject (Falcon 1) specific questions

What drew you into the field of rockets in general?

- Always loved rockets and space since childhood

What is the most rewarding part of working for SpaceX for you (from http://documentinghistory.org/items/show/27, but with ‘SpaceX’ instead of ‘NASA’)?

- When it works – when something you did flies and works – for example the Falcon 1 guidance and control that he worked on

How and why did you get involved with the development of the Falcon 1?

- After his internship at SpaceX ended, the responsible engineer moved to Washington DC, so someone needed to take over. Someone else took it over, but more operations. Chris had to go help with the GNC config for flight 3

- Had to take speed boat out to launch sight, big waves made it uncomfortable. The launch was from the Marshall Islands

- For flight 4 the RE was on vacation. Chris changed the timing between the separation of the first and second stage and reignition from 2 to 4 seconds

What are your feelings about having worked on the Falcon 1? Lee 24

- Very proud – it was revolutionary

- Falcon 1 was revolutionary, make or break for SpaceX

- After the Falcon 1 the company was successful. The only failed launch since was the

Falcon 9

What do you think is the significance of the Falcon 1 launch vehicle within history?

- In SpaceX history it was make or break. All the amazing things that SpaceX has done since were only possible because that launch was successful

- very, very significance

- if falcon 1 didn’t succeed space industry as a whole might have not come back

- changed the way people think about spaceflight

Were there any events going on at the time that changed or challenged the development of the

Falcon 1?

- Nasa opening doors to public-private partnerships, allowing for funding for work on dragon spacecraft; this sustained flight 3 failure. Lockheed or Boeing didn’t care about the partnerships.

Allowing companies to take over spaceflight, this created an environment for SpaceX to continue development and succeed

What was your favorite part of working on the Falcon 1? Lee 25

- Learning how rockets worked as a whole (guidance wasn’t just his task. Didn’t have systems engineer back then so he had to know propulsion, computers, electronics, valves. Had to know a lot because company was very small)

- Needed to be systems level as a guidance, navigation, and control engineer

- Had to know how all pieces work in order to properly control the rocket

- He is employee 150

What was your least favorite part of working on the Falcon 1?

- When it failed. Was rough (changed the engine to be regeneratively cooled before flight.

Extra fuel in nozzle cause recontact)

- There were long hours (could not go to the beach!)

- He took some fault in the flight 3 failure because he and his boss were the ones who entered the faulty reignition delay value

What was your most proud moment during the development of the Falcon 1?

- Flight 4 when it hit orbit! Was at mission control (at the time it was a trailer with a bunch of stations)

Although you weren’t part of development at the time, as a guidance, navigation, and control engineer, the 2nd flight of the Falcon 1 still holds significance to your job. The GNC systems operated as planned up to T+~300s when the 2nd stage lost control due to propellant slosh. The Lee 26 paper The Falcon 1 Launch Vehicle: Demonstration Flights, Status, Manifest, and Upgrade Path by Bjelde, Vozoff, and Shotwell states that “[the 2nd demonstration flight], although short of complete success, was nonetheless a large step forward for SpaceX and the Falcon 1.” Do you think the 2nd demonstration was a success or failure?

- Failing to account properly for propellant slosh is a failure even though the first stage was a success. Could have done more testing

- Regardless, the first stage was a success

When training for your role on the Falcon 1, what were some of the most memorable moments or challenges you faced?

- Challenges: IMU freak outs. He is not a big navigation person. Also, simulating rocket flight and testing hardware, had to get into computer science and things weren’t working.

- Memorable: physical testing (e.g. slosh testing)

Upon becoming part of the team that worked on the Falcon 1, how did you feel? What did it mean to you?

- Was working on everything from day one, no teams back then. Structure was very flat

Lee 27

What were some of the most significant moments when preparing for/configuring the 3rd flight of the Falcon 1?

- Working on slosh, very intense, had to learn about slosh (didn’t know about it), learned how to model it

How did you feel during the 3rd flight of the Falcon 1?

- Freaked out and nervous and stressed

- Was training, had to go through all the operations

- Nail biting while watching the data (did not see the video)

How did you feel after the failed stage separation?

- Still freaked out, immediately started problem solving to figure out what happened.

Because transmission was slow, he had to wait for data.

Does this launch hold any significance for you, SpaceX, or the rocket industry as a whole?

- Yes

- Did not look good for industry

- Spacex was desperate, did not have time; they had to get it right the next time

What work did you or your coworkers do in order to improve the GNC systems after this launch?

- Changed the stage separation engine reignite delay value from 2 seconds to 4 seconds.

- Looked at data and did testing

This was the next day after the launch at 10:00am Lee 28

What work do you most remember doing during the 4th flight of the Falcon 1?

- Just looking at data with fingers crossed and sweating. It’s hot down there

How did you feel during the assent of the 4th flight of the Falcon 1?

- Very nervous

This is a picture of the nozzle of the Kestrel engine taken from orbit during the 4th flight. How does this make you feel? Lee 29

- Didn’t actually look at the video, just the number (perigee). Perigee goes up very fast at end of flight

- Felt amazing

- Felt accomplished

- Acceleration burn was icing on the cake

How did you feel when the rocket returned?

- it just dropped into the ocean

- Didn’t pay much attention to it

What does the success of the Falcon 1 mean to you?

- Means that he helped create a part of history

- Very huge

- He was part of a world changing thing, not everyone can say that

III. Closing the interview

Is there anything you wanted to talk about that we didn't get to?

- They now know that parachutes don’t work because of failed recovery of 1st stage

Lee 30

Interview Analysis

History is historical facts, while interpretation is the use of history to carry a message rather than history itself. I agree with Tuchman when she says “facts are history whether interpreted or not.”48 Having an opinion on whether an event was positive or negative does not change that it actually happened. Carr believes that view and interpretation does affect history, and idca that I strongly disagree with. The fact that World War II started in 1939 is history, whereas the opinion that World War II was cruel and inhumane is not. I disagree with Tuchman when she states “history, one might say, is emotion plus action recollected.”49 The emotions of the historian are not part of history because they do not affect the past. The emotions of people in history are history because they affect the time period and courses of events, but the emotions of the historian are independent of past events and only affect the historian’s view. I agree with

Carr’s statement that “the most effective way to influence opinion is by the selection and arrangement of the appropriate facts.”50 Even if emotion is independent from history, the selection of historical facts can still be used to influence it. For example, not mentioning that

Nazis killed and imprisoned millions of Jews can cause readers to gain a more neutral opinion of them (barring prior knowledge of course). Lastly, I agree with Tuchman when she says “there is no such thing as a neutral or purely objective historian.”51 Even though emotion and interpretation are separate from history, the selection of facts can still influence the reader’s opinion. In order to be truly objective, all facts from all sides of the subject must be mentioned, but this cannot be achieved lest the historical work lose coherence or become unreasonably lengthy.

48 Tuchman, Barbara W. Practicing History. N.p.: Random House Trade Paperbacks, 1981, 28. 49 Ibid, 31. 50 Carr, Edward Hallett. What Is History? New York: Random House, 1961, 9. 51 Tuchman, Barbara W. Practicing History. N.p.: Random House Trade Paperbacks, 1981, 30. Lee 31

Oral history is interviewing someone in-person about events and recording and transcribing it; it is creating a primary source from the perspective of a witness or someone who was involved in an event. It is different from other historical sources because it allows the interviewer to ask the interviewee questions that may not be answered elsewhere. The interviewer can also ask questions that they think may have responses appreciated in the future.

Oral history can also focus on the everyday person who might not write a book on their experiences or keep a diary. It captures the feelings and emotions of the person better than any other source and preserves the feelings and history of a time period from that person’s perspective. Word choice, pauses, and stutters are all captured in oral history and convey slight emotional nuances that can lead to better understanding the event and the perspectives surrounding it. Oral history as well relies on memory more than other sources and can have inaccuracies if the interviewee misremembers an event; however, this can be counteracted by well-phrased questions and memory-refreshing questions.

The terms of the historian that most apply to my project are top-down history, selectivity, memory, bias, and unconscious preconceptions. Top-down history appears in my project because I interviewed an expert in the field of my topic, rather than the average person.

Selectivity affects my project because the Public Reputation department at SpaceX did not allow me to record my interview in order to keep information that might hurt the company’s reputation from getting out into the public. Memory is a part of my project because my interviewee answered all my prompts from memory, which affected how effectively he was able to answer my questions. Bias affects my project because my interviewee played a crucial role in the events Lee 32

I interviewed him on, view the events in an impartially positive light. Unconscious preconceptions is part of my project because I had to cope with them when writing my questions and receiving unexpected answers from my interviewee.

The strengths of oral history are that it is a primary source, it allows you to ask specific questions for specific responses, and replaying the recording can reveal new insights. The weaknesses of oral history are that the interviewee can select certain facts to mention, the interviewee can be very biased, and the interviewee could have forgotten or misremembered certain events.

I have selected five quotes from my interview that I feel are the most important to better understand my topic. Because SpaceX did not allow the interview to be recorded, the transcript is comprised of notes taken during the interview. There are a number of interesting moments in my interview; I have highlighted five below.

Q: What is the most rewarding part of working for SpaceX for you?

A: When it works – when something you did flies and works – for example the Falcon 1 guidance and control that he worked on

Wilkins was very proud about his work on the Falcon 1; he was very open and enthusiastic. He viewed the successful 4th flight as one of the highest moments of his career, but at the same time he was not all that pleased with the previous flight. He felt accomplished and Lee 33 happy that he had contributed to a historical event, with likely most others working on it feeling the same.

Q: What do you think is the significance of the Falcon 1 launch vehicle within history?

A: In SpaceX history it was make or break. All the amazing things that SpaceX has done since were only possible because that launch was successful

If the Falcon 1 had failed, SpaceX would not exist today, and space travel would likely not have advanced so far as it has in recent years. The Falcon 1 was a turning point for SpaceX and the space industry. Without it, the space industry would have remained a duopoly held by

Lockheed Martin and Boeing with little to no advancement in technologies.

Q: What was your favorite part of working on the Falcon 1?

A: Learning how rockets worked as a whole (guidance wasn’t just his task. Didn’t have systems engineer back then so he had to know propulsion, computers, electronics, valves. Had to know a lot because company was very small)

SpaceX was a small company and did not have enough employees to assign everyone a dedicated task. The Falcon 1 was a monumental task for such a small group to take on, and everyone had to work extra to get it done. This highlights that the Falcon 1 was a massive achievement for SpaceX and would not have been completed if the workers were any less dedicated or felt any less strongly.

Lee 34

Q: What work did you or your coworkers do in order to improve the GNC systems after this launch (flight 3)?

A: Changed the stage separation engine reignite delay value from 2 seconds to 4 seconds”

Such a small change on the rocket was a massive change in history. 2 extra seconds guaranteed the success of the 4th flight and rejuvenated the space industry by shattering the duopoly of Lockheed and Boeing. This was the most significant and critical change for the

Falcon 1 because it is what caused the rocket to be successful and allowed Spacex to continue as a company.

Q: What does the success of the Falcon 1 mean to you?

A: Means that he helped create a part of history. It was very huge for him. He was part of a world changing thing, not everyone can say that.

The Falcon 1 changed the world of space travel, and the people who worked on it knew that it would. Wilkins was very proud that he had worked on something so historical and important to the space industry. This shows how the people who worked on the Falcon 1 felt about their achievement.

I did not expect the interviewee to say that the only change between the 3rd and 4th flight of the Falcon 1 was the re-ignition delay during stage-separation being changed from 2 to 4 seconds. In my research I found that the 3rd flight of the Falcon 1 crashed because of a failed stage separation, but I did not expect the fix to be so simple. Lee 35

One aspect of my interview that corresponded to the research I conducted in my historical context paper was that the advancement of the space industry hinged on the success of the Falcon

1. Another aspect that connected my interview and my context paper was that the Falcon 1 was partially funded by the government, specifically DARPA and NASA. Lastly, my interview corresponded with my analysis paper because my interviewee was the one who fixed the flight 3 stage separation failure I learned about through research.

One of the reasons that my transcript is different from the transcript of The Pinnacle of

Science and Technology: A Reflection on NASA and its History Through the Lens of a Former

Employee and Distinguished Physicist is because mine is comprised of notes from the interview, whereas this one is a verbatim transcription of a recording of the interview. Another reason my transcript is different is because mine is less detailed since I was unable to scribe everything said while my interview was happening. In addition, my interview questions focused on the event itself, whereas this one asked more questions about the interviewee’s general past before the event. Lastly, my interview focused more on facts and events, whereas this one focused more on emotion.

The historical value of my interview is that it focuses on an individual who worked on the

Falcon 1 and their feelings surrounding it. My interview not only lined up with my previous research, but went above and beyond it. The sources I used in my context paper neglected emotion and did not focus on the workers, but rather the Falcon 1 itself; my interview contains facts remembered from a specific area in the Falcon 1, as well as the emotions that surround Lee 36 them. The dates, failures, and improvements all matched the ones in my paper, but much of it went beyond what I found out in my research. I learned that people at SpaceX worked a lot on the Falcon 1 and that the change between the 3rd and 4th flight was as minor as adding 2 seconds to the re-ignition delay value. On the other hand, my context paper teaches general facts about the Falcon 1 and the history of space travel that led to its development. From my interview, one can learn about the people behind the Falcon 1, whereas in my paper, one can learn the about events behind the Falcon 1.

From the oral history process, I have learned how to create a primary source, how selection of facts can bias statements, and perseverance. In previous history classes, I never gave a thought to how the sources I used were created, but now I understand the process, the work that goes into it, and how bias and gaps in information can potentially seep in. Knowing the steps it takes to create a primary source - finding an interviewee, arranging an interview, researching background on the topic, writing questions, recording an interview, and transcribing - has given me a more well-rounded understanding of the subject. As well, the interviewee can have a very biased perspective of the event because they experienced it firsthand; therefore, they can opt to tell only certain facts when prompted which can affect my view and opinion of the event. In order to counteract this, I have to be well-researched on the subject as well as able to ask questions that provoke a more complete response. In addition, I was unable to find a suitable interviewee until very late in the project, and I had to wait a while between updates from my

SpaceX contact. At times I was stressed and frustrated because I was worried that I would not finish the project on time, but I had to accept that this process could not be sped up or rushed; the oral history process takes time and does not always go how I want it to. Lee 37

Bibliography

Biddle, Wayne. "Science, Morality and the V-2." New York Times, October 2, 1992. Global Issues in Context (accessed October 9, 2018). http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A174959111/GIC?u=standy&sid=GIC&xid=f83a1cd 5.

Brian Bjelde, Max Vozoff, and Gwynne Shotwell. 2007. “The Falcon 1 Launch Vehicle: Demonstration Flights, Status, Manifest, and Upgrade Path,” Proceedings of the AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites, Technical Session III: Launch & Propulsion Systems, SSC07-III-6. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/smallsat/2007/all2007/23/.

Carr, Edward Hallett. What Is History? New York: Random House, 1961.

Chakrabarti, Bhupati. "One Hundred and Fifty Years of a Dreamer and Fifty Years of Realization of His Dream: Konstantin Eduardovitch Tsiolkovsky and the Sputnik 1." Current Science 93, no. 6 (2007): 862-63. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24099140.

Clark, John D. Ignition! : an Informal History of Liquid Rocket Propellants. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1972.

Colby, Elbridge. "World War II." In Dictionary of American History, 3rd ed., edited by Stanley I. Kutler, 543-552. Vol. 8. New York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2003. U.S. History in Context (accessed February 6, 2019). https://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/CX3401804607/UHIC?u=acd_histrc&sid=UHIC&xi d=bf9475e3.

Daniels, Nathan. Report. American Security Project, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep05984.

Di Pasquale, Cynthia. "DARPA AWARDS FALCON SMALL LAUNCH VEHICLE PHASE IIA CONTRACTS." Inside the Air Force 15, no. 39 (2004): 12. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24791401.

Domin, Gregory, George C. Edwards, and Gary L. Gregg. "The George W. Bush Presidency: Initial Assessments." Presidential Studies Quarterly 35, no. 1 (2005): 197- 99. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27552667.

Eisenman, H. J. "Rocketing into Space: The Beginnings of the Space Age." In Science and Its Times, edited by Neil Schlager and Josh Lauer, 541-544. Vol. 6, 1900 to 1949. Detroit: Gale, 2000. Global Issues in Context (accessed October 2, 2018). http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/CX3408503841/GIC?u=standy&sid=GIC&xid=4efef e5a.

Emme, Eugene M. "PERSPECTIVE ON SPACE EXPLORATION." The Air Power Historian 11, no. 1 (1964): 6-10. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44513884. Lee 38

Gabe Dewey , “The Pinnacle of Science and Technology: A Reflection on NASA and its History Through the Lens of a Former Employee and Distinguished Physicist,” Documenting History: Oral History Project, accessed November 7, 2018, http://documentinghistory.org/items/show/27.

GILMAN, LARRY. "Ballistic Missiles." In Encyclopedia of Espionage, Intelligence and Security, edited by K. Lee Lerner and Brenda Wilmoth Lerner, 87-91. Vol. 1. Detroit, MI: Gale, 2004. Global Issues in Context (accessed October 30, 2018). http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/CX3403300068/GIC?u=standy&sid=GIC&xid=09a2 d284.

GODDARD, ROBERT H. "Liquid-Propellant Rocket Development." Scientific American 155, no. 2 (1936): 78-79. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24997168.

Goddard, Robert H. Combustion Chamber for Rocket Apparatus. US Patent 2,217,649, filed June 5, 1939, and issued Oct. 8, 1940. Accessed October 5, 2018. https://patents.google.com/patent/US2217649A.

———. Rocket Apparatus. US Patent 1,102,653, filed Oct. 1, 1913, and issued July 7, 1914. Accessed October 5, 2018. https://patents.google.com/patent/US1102653A.

JOHN MEDEARIS TIMES, S. W. (1990, Mar 11). Rocket firm changes course after launch pad blast. Los Angeles Times (1923-1995) Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1459866317?accountid=5492

KHODARY, TAGHREED EL and Ethan Bronner. "MORE THAN 225 DIE IN GAZA AS ISRAEL STRIKES AT HAMAS." New York Times (1923-Current File), Dec 28, 2008. https://search.proquest.com/docview/897729092?accountid=5492.

Krige, John. "Nasa as an Instrument of U.S. Foreign Policy." In Societal Impact of Spaceflight, by Steven J. Dick and Roger D. Launius, 207-18. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2007. Accessed November 29, 2018. https://history.nasa.gov/sp4801-chapter11.pdf.

"Launch Vehicles, Expendable." Space Sciences, edited by John F. McCoy, 2nd ed., Macmillan Reference USA, 2012. Global Issues in Context, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/CV2643750035/GIC?u=standy&sid=GIC&xid=586b 5160. Accessed 30 Oct. 2018.

Leslie, Wayne. "A Bold Plan to Go Where Men have Gone before." New York Times (1923-Current File), Feb 05, 2006. https://search.proquest.com/docview/93253180?accountid=5492.

"1930s." In Bowling, Beatniks, and Bell-Bottoms: Pop Culture of 20th- and 21st-Century America, 2nd ed., edited by Cynthia Johnson and Lawrence W. Baker, 389-394. Vol. 2, Lee 39

1920s-1930s. Detroit, MI: UXL, 2012. U.S. History in Context (accessed February 5, 2019). https://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/CX1303400038/UHIC?u=acd_histrc&sid=UHIC&xi d=605cbe20.

Pendray, G. Edward. "Pioneer Rocket Development in the United States." Technology and Culture 4, no. 4 (1963): 384-92. doi:10.2307/3101375.

PIERCE, H. FRANKLIN. "Military Uses of Rockets." The Military Engineer 33, no. 193 (1941): 492-94. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44602848.

"SpaceX 'Falcon 1' Marks New Era For Space Industry; Falcon 1 is carrying a simulated payload, a hexagonal aluminum alloy chamber that weighs 364 pounds and stands about 5 feet tall, designed specifically for the test mission." InformationWeek, September 29, 2008. Global Issues in Context (accessed November 19, 2018). http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A185956954/GIC?u=standy&sid=GIC&xid=04b189b f.

"SpaceX Falcon Sputters On Third Launch Attempt; Saturday's launch failed when the two-stage Falcon 1 did not separate properly after taking off from an island in the central Pacific." InformationWeek, August 4, 2008. Global Issues in Context (accessed November 19, 2018). http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A182249598/GIC?u=standy&sid=GIC&xid=451925a e.

Tuchman, Barbara W. Practicing History. N.p.: Random House Trade Paperbacks, 1981.

Visek, W. A. "Future LOX/Hydrocarbon Booster Engines." SAE Transactions 95 (1986): 1300-304. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44470638.

"World War I and America." In Gale U.S. History in Context. Detroit, MI: Gale, 2018. U.S. History in Context (accessed February 5, 2019). https://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/XIKIHO798413851/UHIC?u=acd_histrc&sid=UHI C&xid=abf02aaa.

Lee 40

Appendix 1

The rocket equations first appeared in 1903 in Russia, contained in the article Exploration of the Universe with Reaction Machines by Konstantin Tsiolkovsky. Tsiolkovsky was decades ahead of his time, proposing the ideas of rocket-propelled spacecraft and hydrogen and oxygen propellant before the first airplane flew. Unfortunately, Tsiolkovsky’s papers never gained popularity and were never considered professionally.52

Ballistic missiles are split into different categories depending on their range. The United

States Department of Defense defines ballistic missiles with range under 683 miles as short range ballistic missiles (SRBM), ballistic missiles with range under 1708 miles, but above 683 miles, as medium range ballistic missiles (MRBM), ballistic missiles with range under 3416 miles, but above 1708 miles, as intermediate range ballistic missiles (IRBM), and ballistic missiles with range about 3416 miles as ICBMs.53

52 Clark, Ignition!, 1. 53 GILMAN, LARRY. "Ballistic Missiles." Lee 41

Appendix 2

Monopropellant A monopropellant is a liquid propellant that is both

the fuel and the oxidizer. It can be a mix of

multiple substances, such as benzene and nitrogen

tetroxide, or a single substance, such as hydrogen

peroxide.54

Red Fuming Nitric Acid Red Fuming Nitric Acid, abbreviated RFNA, is a

mixture comprised of 93-94% nitric acid and 6-7%

nitrogen tetroxide. It is identifiable from the red,

corrosive fumes it constantly emits. It is not to be

confused with White Fuming Nitric Acid (WFNA),

which is another variant of nitric acid used in rocket

propellants and is comprised of 98% pure nitric

acid.55

54 Clark, Ignition!, 7. 55 Clark, Ignition!, 15 & 18. Lee 42

Hypergol A hypergol is a substance that combusts with no

measurable delay upon contact with nitric acid. The

word hypergol comes from the Greek roots the

German scientists who discovered it, Heinz

Mueller, Helmut Philip von Zborowski and

Wolfgang Noeggerath, called their chemicals:

“ignol” for nitric acid, and “ergol” for fuels.56

RP-1 RP-1 is a high-grade kerosine that is made for

use as a rocket fuel.57

56 Clark, Ignition!, 11. 57 Brian Bjelde, Max Vozoff, and Gwynne Shotwell. 2007. “The Falcon 1 Launch Vehicle: Demonstration Flights, Status, Manifest, and Upgrade Path.”