Talk:WAC Corporal

Rocketry Bottom‑importance

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

Spaceflight Mid‑importance

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on WAC Corporal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Silly Explanation of Name

This article has a silly explanation for the name of the WAC Corporal, the RTV-G-1 and later RV-A-1 which should be corrected. The sounding rocket's name had nothing to do with the Women's Army Corps. The WAC in the name stood for Without Attitude Control. This was the second ORDCIT sounding rocket following the solid fueled "Private." As there was a "Corporal" guided missile under design and development (SSM-G-17; aka SSM-A-17; XM2; M2; MGM-5; MGM-5A/B) the unguided .4 scale sounding rocket utilizing the same liquid propellants as intended for the (SSM-G-17) was designated the Without Attitude Control Corporal. There was also the Corporal E (for Experimental), aka RTV-G-2, aka RV-A-2, which was liquid fueled, guided (with attitude control), and which flew in 1947 to 1952. The frequent designation changes coupled with the secrecy of the programs make the WAC in the designation perhaps obscure. That is no reason for wild assumptions such as linking the designation to the Women's Army Corps. Mark Lincoln — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:360:6670:D10D:BE3C:5035:9A6A (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Research resources on the WAC Corporal

"The Guggenheim Aeronautics Laboratory at Caltech and the Creation of the Modern Rocket Motor: How the Dynamics of Rocket Theory Became Reality" by Benjamin S. Zibit (ProQuest Dissertations And Theses; Thesis (Ph.D.)--City University of New York, 1999.; Publication Number: AAI9917721; ISBN: 9780599166189; Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 60-01, Section: A, page: 0230.; 543 p.) contains a coverage of the WAC Corporal in Chapter 13. Chapter 13 is available at www.olats.org/pionniers/malina/aeronautique/aerojet.php Dr. Zibit says "Although most knew the WAC as an acronym for the " Women's Army Corps ", an auxiliary of the army, to those in-the-know at JPL/GALCIT, WAC also stood for " Without Attitude Control ", since the rocket had no internal guidance system" See: www.olats.org/pionniers/malina/aeronautique/aerojet.php Chapter 13 of Dr. Zibit's thesis is the most exhaustive research on WAC Corporal I have read and it appears to be as definitive a work as we shall ever see. Dr.Frank Malina, the "father" of the WAC Corporal does not venture upon the name in his "America's first long-range-missile and space exploration program: The ORDCIT project of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 1943 - 1946: A memoir" ia801205.us.archive.org/30/items/NASA_NTRS_Archive_19770026122/NASA_NTRS_Archive_19770026122.pdf The work constitutes a fine first hand source of information on the WAC Corporal program as well as other developments. As always in historical research efforts must be made to go to source material (which is hard on a subject so obscure). Always avoiding third and fourth hand data whenever possible is a good idea. Speculative opinions may often be detected by their time of introduction or their substance. Having researched the subject of the origins of the name WAC Corporal and having found no mention of the theory that the name WAC Corporal was derived from the Women's Army Corps; and having read several sources suggesting it means Without Attitude Control which more than adequately explains the title in terms referring to it's nature; I am inclined to favor the technically related explanation. If, however others disagree and can prove it with source material I will concede. If others feel that the Without Attitude Control explanation is absurd then I will suggest that most prudently neither be included in this article. As as was once observed by Calvin Coolidge "they can't ask you to repeat what you didn't say." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:360:6670:4C5D:CF1B:2AA5:880D (talk) 21:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC) Mark Lincoln[reply]

Examination of the evidence.

The author or editor responsible for the research on the origins of the name WAC Corporal cites Dr. Pickering in an Canaveral Group Oral History on July 24, 2000. The Oral History was on the last two Bumper shots which were made at the cape. It is not clear how certain this is as a source for the nomenclature of the WAC Corporal. Dr.Pickering was particularly involved in the Corporal E program. How involved he was in the WAC Corporal I have not been able to ascertain. It is also a bit difficult to ascertain whether Dr. Pickering's memory was exactly correct because he was contradicted by a younger member of the panel who was a participant in the WAC Corporal, V-2, and Bumper programs. The transcript cited reads: Launius: I was just handed a tape that was pulled off with a question on it. What does Luac stand for?

Stan Star: No, WAC, WAC.

Launius: WAC. Oh, WAC. Ok, I was going to say, I didn't know what Luac was.

Pickering: What does "WAC" stand for?

Jones: Without Attitude Control?

Pickering: We started naming our research projects after the Army ranks. First one, obviously, is the private, the next one was the corporal, the one after that was the sergeant. And then we came along with this sounding rocket which didn't really fit in the pattern. The others were getting bigger as you went along. So that was named after the Women's Army Corps (WAC).

As Dick Jones was involved with operations at White Sands from the war on through the V-2 program he is in many ways as credible as Dr. Pickering. Jones was as quick to advance that WAC as Without Attitude Control as Dr. Pickering was to explain Women's Army Corps as the explanation. I have provided this information so as to make it certain that I have researched this as best I can over the internet. The document is available on the wayback machine at www.ksc.nasa.gov/kscoralhistory/documents/bumpergroup.pdf I reassert my conclusion that the Without Attitude Control is the correct explanation but wish to be clear as to my research.

Mark Lincoln

Beating the subject to death? Or researching as best we may?

The oldest mention of the WAC Corporal is in Frank Malina January 1945 work "Considerations of the Feasibility of Developing a 100,000 ft. Altitude Rocket (the WAC Corporal). In his memoir "America's First Long-Range-Missile and Space Exploration Program: The ORDCIT Project of the jet Propulsion Laboratory, 1943-1946: A Memoir” Malina discusses the decision to eliminate any guidance system on what became the WAC Corporal on page 360. He concluded the solution was a booster to accelerate the rocket in a 60 for tower. I possess a library which includes significant works on the space age and it includes a section on White Sands and early rockets and missiles. I decided to consult those assets to the question of the nomenclature of the WAC Corporal having previously restricted discussion to online sources. Being trained in a pre-world wide web era I am inclined to printed sources. The older books are all casual in mentioning the WAC Corporal. Apparently because it was by the late 1950s an old and then relatively unimportant rocket. More recent works do have opinions on this matter. David DeVorkin addresses the subject of WAC Corporal nomenclature in his history of the V-2 research program "Science With A Vengeance." On page 169 in the section "The Corporal, its WAC, and JPL's Direction" he writes "its originators later claimed that the name WAC derived from "without attitude control," although the more popular sexist interpretation stood for Corporal's little sister, the "Women's Auxiliary Corps." I must observe DeVorkin's wording smacks of it's 1992 origin rather than the mid-20th. Gregory Kennedy in "The Rockets and Missiles of White Sands Proving Ground 1945-1958" on 15 page writes "Because of its ties to the large missile it was named the WAC Corporal. Many people assume the name of the rocket (WAC) was a tribute to the Women's Army Corps, as stated by Frank Malina in a memoir paper he prepared in 1964. However, the more generally accepted source of the name is that was an acronym for the manner in which the rocket flew -- Without Attitude Control." I have not been able to locate any memoire prepared by Frank Malina in 1964. In his "America's First Long-Range-Missile and Space Exploration Program: The ORDCIT Project of the jet Propulsion Laboratory, 1943-1946: A Memoir" I have found no such reference to the Women's Army Corps. My final reference shall be to Jim Eckles "Pocket Full Of Rockets History And Stories Behind White Sands Missile Range." On page 165 he says "Some assume the "WAC" stands for Women's Army Corps, but most White Sands old-timers support the story that WAC stands for "without attitude control." So what is the "truth"? I would love to say beyond a doubt what the "truth" of the name WAC Corporal is. NASA "SP-4401 - NASA SOUNDING ROCKETS, 1958-1968: A Historical Summary" says "It was a scaled-down version of the Corporal missile, called the Wac Corporal, that became this country's first rocket designed specifically for sounding the upper atmosphere. The Wac Corporal work commenced in December 1944, when the Army Signal Corps notified Army Ordnance that it needed a high-altitude sounding rocket "to carry 25 pounds [11.3 kg] of meteorological instruments to 100000 ft [30 480 m] or more." The Wac Corporal (named that because it was a "small" Corporal) led directly to the famous Aerobee sounding rocket." Which gives a fine example of just how confused and error wrought histories of the early days at White Sands and the missiles may be. NASA did not even get the name WAC Corporal right. So when it is all considered what was the meaning of the WAC in the WAC Corporals name? I suspect that it meant Without Attitude Control as so many other historians seem to believe. It is impossible to say for certain as there appears to be no existent definitive evidence. Frank Malina concluded "America's First Long-Range-Missile and Space Exploration Program: The ORDCIT Project of the jet Propulsion Laboratory, 1943-1946: A Memoir” with the words “The preparation of my three memoirs on the origins and work the JPL between 1936-46 has heightened my appreciation of the difficulties confronting historians of science and technology. Not only must historians understand the technical matters of a development, but they must make interpretations requiring wide historical perspective. If, in addition, these historians wish to portray the events accurately for the lay public as well as technical scholars, then their task is a most difficult one indeed — and if great care is not exercised, then the truth will be replaced by myth.” Which returns us to the question at hand which is the true origins of the WAC Corporal designation. It is, given the “evidence” or lack thereof, debatable.

Mark Lincoln

Greetings, the oldest source material for the name of the term WAC Corporal is still ambiguous

I am still researching the WAC Corporal. The oldest "source" material speculating on the origins of the name "WAC" Corporal I have found is in Aviation Week, June 1, 1946 which suggests that "It is launched from a triangular 100 ft. launching tower, and thereafter goes its own merry way" and that "These characteristics suggest some of the reasons for the female appellation of the "WAC," the "Corporal" coming from the fact that some Army rockets are designated by familiar ranks." I have an older reference to the rocket on March 18, 1946 Aviation Leak noted "Under the amusing security code designation of "WAC Corporal" the project was initiated in 1944 . . ." The July 8, 1946 issue of Av Leak has mention of the "WAC Private" and "WAC Corporal" being the only publicized models to date. The "WAC Sergeant," now under development, is expected to reach an altitude of 100 miles." That the WAC appellation was never applied to the Private rockets indicates poor information. While the WAC Sergeant name while considered for the improved WAC Corporal, never was ultimately applied to it. The second version becoming the WAC Corporal B. The name Sergeant was eventually born by a Jet Propulsion missile, MGM-29 developed in the late 1950s and in service during the 1960s. Lest anyone think too poorly of Av Leak's coverage consider it was done while the White Sands Proving Ground was under extreme security measures which were not relaxed until 1948. See "Army Ends Secret of Missile Base" NY Times January 4, 1948. Should I proceed if it means a massive rewrite of the article? If there is objections lets have them now please. p.s. Aviation Leak as it was then known later became known as Aviation Leak and Space Mythology after it merged with Space Technology. I have read it since the late 1950s. Mark Lincoln (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have submitted the revised article for consideration

I have submitted a much improved WAC Corporal article for review. I have depended largely upon printed sources as they do not go dead and are subjected to editorial standards before going to print. Choosing well researched sources based upon primary sources is important. Reading the foot notes and bibliography of your sources is excellent practice. I have retained the online resources though some are of very questionable worth. A successor companies brief attention to a long vanished project by a long vanished company is always suspect as quite bluntly they do not care whether they get it right or just post something. There are some blatant errors in the current article such as listing the much later Thiokol XM-19 "Recruit" as being related in any way with the JPL line of rockets named for enlisted ranks. That is what comes from assuming things based upon poor research. I am not trying to be nasty. I am just suggesting that researching an obscure and long vanished subject requires work if you are to get it anything like right. Astronautix.com is a useful place to begin, not end an inquiry. So is The Directory of U.S. Rockets and Missiles. The fact that I have been interested in rocketry since the mid-1950s and have a considerable library on the subject is my good fortune. It made researching the article much easier. Mark Lincoln (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for improvement

Much of what's in the lead would be better served in a Background/History section.

The lists of flights would be more attractively arrayed in table format.

--Neopeius (talk) 05:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]