What if.....Congreve rockets had been better developed

[ohar...@mindspring.com]

Congreve rockets never seem to have been used with any efficacy although their predecessors were used very effectively against the Brits in India. Congreves do not seem to have been fired numerous at a time as they were used against the Brits like a primitive "Stalin Organ". Such a rocket battery might be effective in breaking up a massed charge.
So, what if the Brits had done more work with rockets? Making them fly the intended trajectory would have been very helpful so perhaps the use of spin stabilization? Maybe fins?
As the propellant is not intended to be explosive, were there any candidate propellants that might work better? Simple Saltpeter and sugar might have been better. How far could the technology have been pushed without making too many assumptions about technical developments?

[Dean Markley]

This is more a topic for a what-if group. If they could have been better, they would have but the technology wasn't advanced enough yet.

Saltpeter and sugar would not be a better propellant than black powder. It's not as energetic and it generates far more solids which are not useful for pushing a rocket.

[ohar...@mindspring.com]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 1:49:58 PM UTC-4, ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:

I read that Potassium/Sugar propellants have an ISP of 130 vs 80 for black powder, a huge increase in performance. Further, the potassium/sugar can be melted and poured to produce various types of burns and is less sensitive to fracture than black powder. Often when pressed black powder "cracked" the cracks would initiate too fast burning causing the rocket to either explode or have an unstable trajectory.

Although I did not find any primitive types of nitrocellulose rocket propellants, it might have been possible as guncotton was known in the early 1800's

[Dean Markley]

Even current model rockets use black powder because its inexpensive and efficient. I don't think you can say that for saltpeter and sugar. Nitrocellulose itself is not dense enough nor stable enough. Start combining it with nitroglycerine and vaseline and you have the makings of cordite which is an excellent propellant for guns but not so much for rockets. In a rocket, it's all about controlling the burn. Nitrocellulose and propellants such as cordite tend to deflagrate, they go all at once. That's a good thing in a gun, not so good in a rocket. Compare the wall thickness of a rocket versus a gun and you'll understand the issue.

[Malcom "Mal" Reynolds]

In article <e4d46ade-69b7-4b32...@googlegroups.com>,

Mythbusters made one using salami as the propellant

[Keith W]

ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:
> Congreve rockets never seem to have been used with any efficacy
> although their predecessors were used very effectively against the
> Brits in India.

Not that effectively. The Marathas outnumbered the
British forces by a least two to one and Wellington
who had seen them in India was not a great fan

> Congreves do not seem to have been fired numerous at
> a time as they were used against the Brits like a primitive "Stalin
> Organ". Such a rocket battery might be effective in breaking up a
> massed charge.
> So, what if the Brits had done more work with rockets? Making them
> fly the intended trajectory would have been very helpful so perhaps
> the use of spin stabilization? Maybe fins?

The Hale rocket that replaced the Congreve in 1850 was spin
stabilized. They were used by the US Army in the mexican war
as well as by the British Army.

Thing was once smokeless propellants and breach loading
cannon appeared they were hopelessly outclassed.

> As the propellant is not intended to be explosive, were there any
> candidate propellants that might work better? Simple Saltpeter and
> sugar might have been better.

Hardly, replacing the carbon fuel in gunpowder with sugar
was not only rather marginal it was MUCH more expensive.
Sugar at the time was a rather expensive luxury product while
charcoal ws readily available.

Keith

[Keith W]

It was also known to be VERY unstable which is why its use was
discontinued very quickly after its discovery until methods of stabilizing
it evolved in the 1880's

Keith

[ohar...@mindspring.com]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 1:49:58 PM UTC-4, ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:

Considering the enormous ISP advantage of sugar saltpeter propellant and the availability of sugar from sugar cane in the Indies combine this with spin stabilization and you'd have a much more reliable more accurate rocket compared to using blackpowder.

[dott.Piergiorgio]

well, moving on actual Naval WI, the main issue in congreve rockets is
that the rocket flame is a sure-fire (spontaneous pun) way of having
major troubles on the sails and rigging... but assuming that someone
manages to put together an aft-brig (lacking better term for a two
masted ship with the main and mizzen mast, the foremast replaced by the
congreve battery) the best usage possible is dealing with coast
breastworks; in this case, With good pilots and maps, the range can be
solved, and the backblast issue is confined to the deck, easily solved,
I think, with a layer of tin over the deck around the rocket battery.

looks like was actually feasible a "rocket vessel", but I think that
sailors of yore will balk at the idea of a ship armed of rockets,
because of the exposed battery with a tendency to leave a fiery flame
trail....

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.

[Bill]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 23:13:20 +0200, "dott.Piergiorgio"
<chied...@ask.me> wrote:


>looks like was actually feasible a "rocket vessel", but I think that
>sailors of yore will balk at the idea of a ship armed of rockets,
>because of the exposed battery with a tendency to leave a fiery flame
>trail....

I seem to remember that Congreve died trying to make rockets work on a
ship.

They fired them 'broadside' from within the ship.

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Dear Italian Old Fool (tm),

I can't decide which is the better couple...you/ohara or you/fwed.
;-)

[Keith W]

Rocket vessels were in fact used in the Napoleonic wars
in the attack on Boulogne-sur-Mer in 1806 ,at the Battle of Copenhagen
in 1807. At the Battle of the Basque Roads in 1809.

More famously the rocket ship HMS Erebus fired on Fort McHenry
during the war of 1812 hence the line in the US National Anthem

O say, can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hail'd at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, thro' the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watch'd, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof thro' the night that our flag was still there.
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?



HMS Erebus was a 20 gun sloop converted to fire 32 lb rockets
through portholes cut in the ships side.

Keith

[Keith W]

Congreve died of natural causes at the age of 56 in Toulouse
in 1828.

Keith

[Bill]

Then who was it that famously stuck his head into a rocket exhaust to
see why it hadn't gone off and got killed?

[ohar...@mindspring.com]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 1:49:58 PM UTC-4, ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:

A saltpeter/sugar rocket made with a thinner sheet of steel wrapped with wire overcoated with glue would make for a lighter stronger body enabling much greater range or payload. Rockets in India were made to explode above ground showering the ground with several exploding submunitions. They were also made to be unstable on hitting the ground flying all over snakelike killing many people. A look at Google images of Congreve rockets show many being launched from vessels but all are being launched from open rails. Launch from thin steel tubes not only provides initial guidance but helps contain the exhaust (didn't any of you play with bottle rockets). Put "rifling" in the tubes to engage studs on the rocket casing and you get spin stabilization. Launched from a ship toward another they would be a deadly threat to the wood ships with very flammable sails and tarred rigging.

[ohar...@mindspring.com]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 1:49:58 PM UTC-4, ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:

Let's go waaaay out on a limb and propose they could have made nitrous oxide/wax hybrid rockets. Nitrous was well known even in 1800 and a few years later Humphry Davies was giving parties featuring its use. They might have been limited to using it as a compressed gas as it liquifies at -88C and I dont know if those temps were available then.
Nitrous can also be combined with a liquid fuel in the same tank resulting in a spray of both fuel and oxidizer. Most of these hybrids have ISP well over 190 compared to that of sugar/saltpeter being 130 and blackpowder being 80 (ISP is the thrust/pound of fuel/sec used and is a figure of merit for efficiency of rocket fuels. For comparison, Liquid Hydrogen/Liquid oxygen has an ISP of roughly 430, one of the highest)

[thezeppeli...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 2:13:20 PM UTC-7, dott.Piergiorgio wrote:

> looks like was actually feasible a "rocket vessel", but I think that
>
> sailors of yore will balk at the idea of a ship armed of rockets,
>
> because of the exposed battery with a tendency to leave a fiery flame
>
> trail.

There were Ancient Greeks employing Greek Fire aboard warships, so I suppose crews would be found. Heck, look at the CSS Hundley - they had people volunteering for that duty; no worse, men volunteered for VT aircrew duty after the massacre of TBDs at Midway made the deathtraps obvious. If they had decent rockets, they would have been used aboard ship, in my opinion. Every conceivable weapon has been tossed into the fray. As an aside, I use a full size Chinese War Rocket replica in my HS history class on the Cold War. The kids love it - other than Wally Schirra's Gemini helmet, everything else is small scale, so they get a kick out of being able to see what they actually looked like. Anyone know where I can get a used Congreve rocket..?

[Malcom "Mal" Reynolds]

In article <KcCdndRm85KMKA_M...@supernews.com>,

"Dr. Vincent Quin, PhrauD."

[Keith W]

ohar...@mindspring.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 1:49:58 PM UTC-4, ohar...@mindspring.com
> wrote:
>> Congreve rockets never seem to have been used with any efficacy
>> although their predecessors were used very effectively against the
>> Brits in India. Congreves do not seem to have been fired numerous
>> at a time as they were used against the Brits like a primitive
>> "Stalin Organ". Such a rocket battery might be effective in
>> breaking up a massed charge.
>>
>> So, what if the Brits had done more work with rockets? Making them
>> fly the intended trajectory would have been very helpful so perhaps
>> the use of spin stabilization? Maybe fins?
>>
>> As the propellant is not intended to be explosive, were there any
>> candidate propellants that might work better? Simple Saltpeter and
>> sugar might have been better. How far could the technology have
>> been pushed without making too many assumptions about technical
>> developments?
>
> Let's go waaaay out on a limb and propose they could have made
> nitrous oxide/wax hybrid rockets. Nitrous was well known even in
> 1800 and a few years later Humphry Davies was giving parties
> featuring its use. They might have been limited to using it as a
> compressed gas as it liquifies at -88C and I dont know if those temps
> were available then.

They weren't nor were compressed gas cylinders. Priestley
and Davy had to make their nitrous oxide as needed.
Mechanical refrigeration only became available in the 1850's
and was hardly practical on a sailing ship !

> Nitrous can also be combined with a liquid fuel in the same tank
> resulting in a spray of both fuel and oxidizer. Most of these
> hybrids have ISP well over 190 compared to that of sugar/saltpeter
> being 130 and blackpowder being 80 (ISP is the thrust/pound of
> fuel/sec used and is a figure of merit for efficiency of rocket
> fuels. For comparison, Liquid Hydrogen/Liquid oxygen has an ISP of
> roughly 430, one of the highest)

All of which is irrelevant given the technology of the early 19th
century where pressure vessels were made of riveted iron
and steel was produced on a small scale using the crucible method.

The RN was expert at mass producing weapons with the available
technology and put in place systems that were practical and affordable
to wage war on a global scale. They were using mass production
techniques 100 years before Henry Ford.

Keith

[Bill]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 20:41:26 -0700 (PDT),
thezeppeli...@gmail.com wrote:
>Anyone know where I can get a used Congreve rocket..?

Try doing some form of archeological dig at a place called Fort
McHenry in Baltimore.

I understand they were used there, and they're still singing about
it...

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 15/05/2013 09:49, Keith W ha scritto:

> The RN was expert at mass producing weapons with the available
> technology and put in place systems that were practical and affordable
> to wage war on a global scale. They were using mass production
> techniques 100 years before Henry Ford.

well, aside that the first ships whose can be termed "class" was from HM
yards, until Eli Whitney (and many others) during the XIXth century the
mass-production was basically giving samples to many weaponsmiths and
enforcing that the production conforms to the sample (Withney's
interchangeable parts was rather costly, because every single piece has
a sample, and the prod was still manual, but the logistical advantage
for the small peacetime US Army (think all those frontier outpost...)
was well worth the price (when angry first people are at the door, and
the telegraph line cut down, getting working rifles from broken ones IS
a matter of survival...)

[Mark Borgerson]

In article <6862291c-cf3c-4b70...@googlegroups.com>,
ohar...@mindspring.com says...

I built a number of model rockets in my youth which used potassium
nitrate and sugar as propellant. Melting even a 4-ounce batch
in the oven made my mother very nervous! The major problem with
that propellant is that it absorbs moisture from the air and soon
becomes a sticky mess that is useless as a propellant. You would
have to develop an effective moisture seal to have the rockets
be useful for more than a few days after forming the motor.


Mark Borgerson

[Keith W]

The RN Block works at Portsmouth was genuinely one of the the first example
of mass production using machine tools.

There were lines for production of each size of block.
consisting of 45 specialized machines of 22 types driven by steam
engines. They included circular saws, pin turning machines and morticing
machines.
and this allowed 10 unskilled men to produce as many blocks as 110 skilled
craftsmen.

So good was the basic design that the lines installed in 1805 were
still in limited use in 1960. At their peak they produced 130,000
blocks per year.

http://calculating.wordpress.com/2012/07/02/forgotten-history-mass-production-and-the-portsmouth-block-mills/
http://calculating.wordpress.com/2012/07/17/portsmouth-block-mills-the-machines/

Keith

[dott.Piergiorgio]

actually WP .en attributes the first mass-production to the Venice
Arsenal in 1600s asserting that they actually have the output of a
galley (ship type) a day, but even *myself* don't find serious
references on this; and I find incredible the alleged workforce of
16,000 labourers (because the general aerea is still intact, with nearby
the same layout, and is impossible to cram all those people, even
assuming four shifts, considering the obvious need of space for actually
working, aside that, trust me, Italians and large factories are
definitively incompatible...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_production#Before_the_Machine_Age

of course, I have raised the historiographical issue in the proper places.