British High Down Rocket Test Site Query

This is somewhat related to unbuilt space projects so hopefully this is the best forum for the thread. Reading up on the early British rocketry programme I can remember reading on a number of occasions proposed expansions of then existing systems or mooted new ones being considered unfeasible due to the diameters size limit that were being imposed, this being caused thanks to the static test beds at the High Down site which could only accommodate stages that were 4 feet 6 inches/54 inches or less in diameter. Does anyone happen to know why this size was chosen when the facilities at High Down were being planned and constructed? I was mainly wondering if it was a conscious decision that they obviously wouldn't be needing anything larger than that, whether it was cost related, just a figure they decided on without specific reasoning which came back to bite them on the arse or something else entirely. Thanks for any help.

The only reason why High Down was constructed was to static test Black Knight, which at that time was a 36" diameter vehicle. To 'future proof' it, so to speak, would have been an expensive business at a time when money was short. No one at the time saw the need for anything bigger.

I know this doesn't answer your question about the size restriction at Highdown, but it does give quite a good insight into the site.


http://services.english-heritage.org.uk/ResearchReportsPdfs/090_2007WEB.pdf

why were the captive stands at Spadeadam built with a Million pound thrust capacity and the same at Woomera 6a and 6b.????
There was open argument after the LRBM cancellation as to what size could be fitted.
there 1958/59are models of a circa eight foot diameter 2nd stage for the light weight BS I assume must be those needed for the TSR2 com.net
Charles Martin refer to the upper stage vehicles to be fitted to BSSLV starting at number ELEVEN off the established production line,

CNH said:

The only reason why High Down was constructed was to static test Black Knight, which at that time was a 36" diameter vehicle. To 'future proof' it, so to speak, would have been an expensive business at a time when money was short. No one at the time saw the need for anything bigger.

Click to expand...

That's fascinating. El Reg does some wonderful articles.

However, as everyone here surely knows, one of the best choices of fuels and oxidants for rockets is hydrogen/oxygen. There was a considerable amount of research carried out on such motors, in particular led by a man called Barry Ricketson. I'm not sure if he is still with us, but he was also very much involved in the work on the model silo which is illustrated in the article.

Anyway: hydrogen motor and model silo -