AEROSPACE ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE STUDY OF MISSILE CRASH SITES: AN EXAMPLE

FROM THE JUPITER MISSILE CRASH SITE (8BR2087), CAPE CANAVERAL AIR FORCE
STATION, BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
THOMAS E. PENDERS

E45TH SPACE WING, USAF, 1224 JUPITER STREET, MS-9125, PATRICK AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA 32925
E-MAIL: thomas.penders@us.af.mil

Missile crash sites offer a tangible reminGer of the ColG ColG War anG a race with the former Soviet Union to Gevelop
War anG the UniteG States of America¶s competition with the Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs anG IntermeGiate
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR or Soviet Union Range Ballistic Missiles (IRBM, with the ultimate goal
in the race into space anG the Tuest for military superiority. of launching anG Gelivering both conventional anG nuclear
Missile crash sites belong to the recent past anG can proviGe warheaGs. From 1949 to 194, a large variety of missiles anG
valuable Gata on the Gevelopment of missile anG rocNet rocNets were launcheG from CCAFS, incluGing converteG Nazi
programs topics incluGeG within the rapiGly Geveloping V-2 missiles renameG Bumpers, the granGparents of toGay¶s
Giscipline of moGern conÀict archaeology. The early UniteG Tomahawk Cruise Missile (Matadors, Navahos, Snarks, anG
States (US missile program at Cape Canaveral Air Force Bomarcs submarine-baseG missiles such as the Navy¶s
Station (CCAFS was most noteG for the high number of
mission failures. The Atlantic waters are Nnown to contain
the Gebris anG wrecNage of many of these faileG missions.
Others are Nnown to have crasheG on lanG, but for many years
no terrestrial crash sites at CCAFS haG been subMecteG to a
formal cultural resources assessment. This changeG with the
Polaris missile Explorer 1, the ¿rst UniteG States satellite
anG Project Mercury, which tooN the ¿rst US astronaut into
space. Missile anG rocNet components were testeG in facilities
across the UniteG States.
While manneG space Àight was being conGucteG at
CCAFS with the Gemini anG early Apollo moon missions,
investigation of the Jupiter Missile Crash Site (BR207 in ICBM anG IRBM Gevelopment continueG to be the focus from
2007 anG again in 2012. 194 to 1979, with the testing of the Atlas, Delta, Minuteman,
This article proviGes a brief bacNgrounG Giscussion on anG Titan programs. The National Aeronautic anG Space
the ColG War anG the Jupiter missile program, introGuces the
reaGer to the emerging ¿elG of aerospace archaeology, anG
then Giscusses the Jupiter Missile Crash site. As part of this
analysis, I evaluate a series of missile crash canGiGates using
archaeological anG Gocumentary eviGence to Getermine the
probable iGentity of the missile launch anG crash responsible
for BR207.
AGministration (NASA, which shareG CCAFS with the
UniteG States Air Force, haG moveG their operations to the
KenneGy Space Center by 1970, leaving CCAFS as a missile
testing anG launch facility solely for unmanneG missions.
Since 1979, the 45th Space Wing of the UniteG States Air
Force has launcheG a variety of payloaGs into space aboarG
Atlas, Atlas Centaur, Delta, anG Titan rocNets. This incluGes
supporting NASA exploratory missions to Mars, Saturn, anG
Background
Cape Canaveral Air Force Station is locateG along the
Atlantic Coast of BrevarG County, FloriGa. CCAFS is situateG
on the Canaveral Peninsula, a barrier islanG approximately
249 Nm south of JacNsonville, 33 Nm north of Miami, anG
9 Nm east of OrlanGo. The northern bounGary of CCAFS
abuts KenneGy Space Center anG the southern bounGary
borGers Port Canaveral. CCAFS is bounGeG to the east by the
Atlantic Ocean anG to the west by the Banana River Lagoon
various points throughout the solar system (PenGers 2011.
The Cold War and the Rise of the US Missile Programs
The start anG enG Gates of the ColG War have been
GebateG by historians. Some suggest it began in the 1945-
194 timeframe anG enGeG in 199, having begun as a Gispute
over the Givision of Europe. For others, the ColG War began
in 1917 with the BolsheviN Revolution in Russia anG enGeG
in 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union, having been a
(Figure 1. CCAFS occupies approximately 15,00 acres of conÀict between Bolshevism anG Gemocracy. For this paper, I
lanG anG proviGes space launch capability for governmental, use 1945 anG the enG of WorlG War II as the start of the ColG
civil, anG commercial satellites. The Jupiter Missile Crash Site War, because it is the most wiGely accepteG Gate. I enG it with
(BR207 is locateG on CCAFS east of Pier RoaG anG Fuel the fall of the USSR in 1991. The term “ColG War´ was ¿rst
Storage Area 3 anG west of the beach Gune line (Figure 2. useG in 1947 by BernarG Baruch, senior aGvisor to PresiGent
When most people thinN of Cape Canaveral, they Harry Truman, in reference to the freTuently occurring crises
automatically associate it with senGing humans into space. between the US anG USSR (Bair 2003 Mannino 1999
However, that was not the original purpose for establishing SturGevant anG OrnGorff 2009.
CCAFS. After WorlG War II, the UniteG States entereG into the The beginning of the ColG War was marNeG by the

VOL. 65 (4) ) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST DECEMBER 2012

228 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

Figure 1. Location of Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Brevard County, Florida.

Gevastating years of warfare in Europe Guring WorlG War II.
By the war¶s enG, approximately 3.5 million Europeans haG
GieG in the conÀict anG millions more were homeless. Refugee
camps anG rationing GominateG much of Europe. The US,
wanting to realize free elections anG free traGe, was committeG
to helping Europe recover from the war. Communists, aiGeG
the Goctrine of Mutual AssureG Destruction (MAD, which
assumeG that each siGe haG enough nuclear weaponry to
Gestroy the other siGe anG that either siGe, if attacNeG for any
reason by the other, woulG retaliate without fail with eTual or
greater force resulting in mutual, total, anG assureG Gestruction.
The payoff of the MAD Goctrine was expecteG to be a tense,
by the USSR, were threatening electeG governments across yet stable, global peace (Bair 2003 Mannino 1999.
Europe. The ¿rst few years of the early ColG War (1945- It was within the escalating tension between the US anG
194 were more political than military. This changeG in
February 194 when the Communist Party of CzechoslovaNia,
with covert bacNing from the USSR, overthrew the electeG
government in that country. Then, in reaction to the Gemocratic
consoliGation of West Germany, the USSR blocNaGeG AllieG-
controlleG West Berlin in a biG to consoliGate their holG on the
USSR that the Soviet Union GemonstrateG its military anG
space technological aGvantage. In 1957, they launcheG the
¿rst ICBM anG their satellites Sputnik 1 anG 2. The Sputnik
launches greatly increaseG the attention of the US government
anG the general public to the issues of technology anG space
capabilities anG leG to a generalizeG fear that the US was
German capital (Bair 2003 Mannino 1999.
During the ColG War, Soviet policy was GesigneG to
assure the military security of the USSR by Neeping Gown the
GefeateG Germany anG by creating ally governments in Eastern
Europe in orGer to facilitate the rise anG ultimate success of
Communism. In the event of a war, these allieG countries
also woulG form a buffer between USSR anG the West. The
“Iron Curtain,´ a phrase coineG in 194 by Winston Churchill
lagging behinG the Soviets. As a result, funGing to military anG
space programs was increaseG in orGer for the US to catch
up. This gap, Nnown as the “missile gap,´ was the perception
that the number of GeployeG Soviet missiles was signi¿cantly
greater than that GeployeG by the US. Throughout the late
1950s anG 190s, the missile gap became a US presiGential
campaign platform anG was useG to pump funGing into US
military anG space programs (Bair 2003 Mannino 1999
in Giscussing Soviet Gomination in Eastern Europe, became SturGevant anG OrnGorff 2009.
a physical reality in the form of borGer Gefenses between
the countries of Western anG Eastern Europe. The wall that Jupiter Missile Program
GiviGeG East anG West Berlin became the most well-Nnown
section of this GiviGing line. By 1952, the ColG War map of the Set in this political anG socio-iGeological climate was
East versus the West in Europe haG been Grawn (Bair 2003 the Gevelopment of the Jupiter IRBM. In the fall of 1954,
Mannino 1999. PresiGent Dwight D. Eisenhower establisheG the Technological
The US Goctrine Guring the early years of the ColG War was Capabilities Panel of the Science AGvisory Committee, Of¿ce
to use missile anG air warfare systems to attacN both frontline of Defense Management to conGuct an in-Gepth stuGy of the
anG rear troops anG to Gestroy rear area (USSR logistical nation¶s Gefenses. The committee forwarGeG their report,
assets. The of¿cial nuclear policy of the US GevelopeG into along with a separate National Security Council paper, to the
Penders MISSILE CRASH SITES 229

President on February 14, 1955. They urged the President

and the National Security Council to assign Project Atlas,
an ICBM program, the highest national priority. At the same
time, the panel recommended development of land- and sea-
based variants of a 2,414-Nm-range IRBM concurrent with
that of the Atlas ICBM. By mid-1955, four missile programs
existed: the Air Force Atlas and Titan (ICBMs, the Air Force
Thor (IRBM, and the Army Jupiter IRBM all of which were
tested at CCAFS. The Navy eventually became a partner in the
Army¶s missile development program (Grimwood and Strowd
192 Kyle 2011 LonnTuest and WinNler 199 Sturdevant
and Orndorff 2009.
In November 195, Secretary of Defense Charles
Wilson gave the Air Force sole responsibility for building
and operating all surface-launched missiles with a range in
excess of 322 Nm. After pleas by the Army, the Department
of Defense allowed them to continue developing Jupiter as an
alternative to the Air Force¶s Thor IRBM program, which was
having a host of technical problems. Although it eventually
became the ¿rst operational IRBM employed by the United
States, the Jupiter was never given tremendous attention by
the Air Force. In 195, following the Soviet Union¶s success
with Sputnik I, a new IRBM plan was approved by President
Eisenhower. This plan placed a renewed emphasis on the
Jupiter missile program as a means to TuicNly catch up to the
USSR (Grimwood and Strowd 192 Kyle 2011 LonnTuest
and WinNler 199 Sturdevant and Orndorff 2009.
Project Jupiter was a family of missiles that represented a
follow-up to the Redstone IRBM by using the proven Redstone
missile as a test platform (Figure 3. Beginning in September
1955, the Army launched 2 Jupiter A and C missiles from
CCAFS. Jupiter A testing focused on general design criteria,
the guidance system, and propulsion thrust control. It also
served as a test of the Redstone missile performance at a time
when that system was still under development. The Jupiter
C was really a modi¿ed Redstone. The Jupiter IRBM was Figure 2. Location of the Jupiter Missile Crash Site
¿nless and stubby-looNing, a result of the original air-mobility (8BR2087) on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station.
reTuirement, as well as a design to ¿t in submarine launch-
tubes. It used a gimbaled rocNet engine for stability and version of the Apollo-Saturn I, Nnown as the Saturn I Block I
control. The Jupiter ¿rst stage was powered by an engine that (Grimwood and Strowd 192 LonnTuest and WinNler 199
burned liTuid oxygen (LO; and a Nerosene mixture liTuid Wade 2007.
fuel, Nnown as RP-1. An ablative (melting or vaporizing
technology reentry vehicle shrouded a one-megaton warhead Jupiter Missile System Operations at CCAFS
that separated from the Jupiter following detonation of
explosive bolts. A solid-fueled motor supplied ¿nal velocity In 1955, Launch Complexes 5 and  (LC-5 were the
trimming (Figure 4 (Grimwood and Strowd 192 Kyle 2011 ¿rst ballistic missile launch complexes built at CCAFS. This
LonnTuest and WinNler 199 Wade 2007. launch facility consisted of a blocNhouse and twin Àat concrete
Although short-lived, the Jupiter program played a vital pads. Most of the early Jupiters would Ày from this launch
role in the history of the US space program. The Jupiter was complex. Built speci¿cally for the Jupiter program in 195,
the ¿rst mobile strategic IRBM to use the ablative heat shield LC-2 was constructed Must north of LC-5. The setup there
on the nosecone section. Development of the Jupiter missile mirrored LC-5 with dual launch pads (LC-2A and B and
led directly to the launch of America¶s ¿rst satellite aboard a a blocNhouse. Once completed LC-2 and LC-5 formed a
Juno I rocNet and played a role in the NASA program to send contiguous 244-x-54-m complex with a single set of railroad
humans to the moon. The Jupiter missile acted as the ¿rst stage tracNs that allowed two A-frame mobile service towers (launch
for the Juno II rocNets, which carried a number of scienti¿c gantries to move along the pad centerline. By mid-195, an
payloads into space. Inert Jupiter missile shells ballasted with additional set of railroad tracNs was installed that permitted the
water were used as “dummy´ upper stages for the earliest towers to shufÀe between all pads (Turner et al. 1994.
230 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2012 VOL. 65 (4)

Figure 3. Jupiter missile family.

Once launched, the Jupiter’s engine would burn for 157 the Àight, the missile, at an altitude of 1 Nm, reached the
seconds, boosting the missile to a speed of Mach 15.4 and an point farthest from the Earth along its elliptical Àight path.
altitude of 117 Nm. Two seconds after the main engine burned From there, it began its gradual descent toward the target
out and fell away, the solid-fuel vernier motor ¿red. The (Figure 5. The May 1957 of a Jupiter prototype from CCAFS
vernier burned for approximately 12 seconds until the missile was the US¶s ¿rst successful IRBM launch (Grimwood and
reached the desired velocity, whereupon the engine shut down Strowd 192 LonnTuest and WinNler 199 Wade 2007.
and detached from the reentry vehicle. Almost 10 minutes into

Figure 4. Anatomy of a Jupiter missile.

Penders MISSILE CRASH SITES 231

Aerospace Archaeology and the Value of Investigating War-era issues one must not forget the paranoia of the time
Missile Crash Sites and the potential for being unable to ¿nd documentation as
a result of the classi¿ed nature of records associated with
The Cold War falls within the recent past, or as Gonzilez- places and events of the period. In Uncovering the Arsenals of
Ruibal (200 describes the period after World War I, Armageddon: The Historical Archaeology of North American
supermodernality. Many today can remember incidents Cold War Ballistic Missile Launch Sites, Hanson (2010:15
within this period, such as the Vietnam War, manned-space reminds us that:
program, and Cuban Missile Crisis. Until recently, however,
the archaeology of the recent past (and the Cold War has been
essentially ignored. One reason is liNely due to the fact that an
artifact or site must be more than 50 years old to be eligible
for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or at
least 100 years old in the case of the Archaeological Resource
Protection Act exceptions do exist, however. The period of
the past 50 years has been described as a “blurred region´
or “blacN hole´ (Gonzilez-Ruibal 200 RathMe and Murphy
Certainly our interpretations of Cold War sites are
complicated ¿rst and foremost by the central role
that national security and governmental secrecy
played in their design, development, planning and
construction, but there is more to the story than that.
Any interpretations of Cold War sites are liNewise
decidedly incomplete without a broad appreciation
2001 RathMe et al. 2002. Many Cold War sites are reaching
the 50-year old marN and thus are beginning to receive some
attention.
The archaeology of the recent past is becoming an
important sub-discipline within anthropology not only are
anthropologists and archaeologists becoming involved but so
are historians. Written accounts of the recent past should not
be taNen as the sole source of our understanding of this period.
of the various cultural, technical, political and
psychological forces that helped shape them. During
the Cold War era, one of the most powerful social
forces at worN was that of paranoia.
While many archaeologists have worNed on a variety
of modern conÀict sites (predominantly World War I and
We have to be willing to challenge the accuracy of text-based World War II sites, another burgeoning ¿eld is aerospace
histories. Archaeology and material cultural studies are a much archaeology. Aerospace archaeology is a new and TuicNly
needed voice in the study of supermodernality, particularly in growing sub-discipline of archaeology. The ¿rst two
the case of Cold War-era research. When dealing with Cold conference symposiums associated with this ¿eld were held

Figure 5. Stages of the Àight of a Jupiter IRBM.

232 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2012 VOL. 65 (4)

at the 200 and 2010 annual meetings of the Society for society: “«rocNetry has inÀuenced the entire structure and
Historical Archaeology, and the ¿rst comprehensive booN conduct of national and international politics and economics´
to address aerospace archaeology² Handbook of Space (Emme in SiddiTi 200:452. Indeed, the ICBMs and IRBMs
Engineering, Archaeology and Heritage (Darrin and O¶Leary stand as icons of the Cold War. They conveyed an important
2009² was published in 2009. This volume covers a variety message: that the end of world could happen with one launch
of topics including the archaeological investigations of space- of a ballistic missile.
related sites on Earth, preservation of space vehicles, as well This reinforces how important missiles and rocNets (and
as the investigation and preservation of Apollo landing sites on
the moon.
Aerospace archaeology, as I de¿ned it, is the identi¿cation,
documentation, recovery, and preservation of sites important in
aerospace history, development of Cold War missiles, rocNets
and aircraft, and the space program. This includes crash sites,
launch sites, silos, facilities, tracNing stations, etc. It should
further incorporate a ¿eld of study loosely Nnown as aviation
archaeology, which focuses on military (mostly World War I
their crash sites are to our understanding of the Cold War,
modern conÀict archaeology, the recent past and our nation¶s
vision of the arms and space races. While numerous general
histories and documents about the various missile programs
exist, studying and preserving the actual obMects are Must as
important. The physical remains at crash sites can offer
information on manufacturing processes, materials, internal
¿ttings, modi¿cations, and even paint ¿nishes, information not
available from other sources. Although missiles at most crash
and II aircraft crash sites.
To date most Cold War and aerospace archaeology
investigations have been limited to missile defense systems
such as radar stations, NiNe missile batteries, and missile
silos. With a few exceptions, the actual missiles themselves
have been largely ignored as have missile crash sites. The
physical remains found at crash sites, combined with historic
documents and eyewitness accounts, provide an invaluable
means for reconstructing, and, in some cases, reassessing our
understanding of Cold War missiles and rocNets.
In the early years of the US missile and rocNet program,
mishaps occurred with a high freTuency. In our race to beat
the USSR in missile development and into space, accidents
were TuicNly reviewed and forgotten. In many cases no reports
on the failures exist. Investigating and preserving these sites
affords the opportunity to revisit and document these moments
in recent world history. In The History of Rocket Technology:
Essays on Research, Development and Utility, published
sites are fragmentary, signi¿cant ancillary items such as engine
parts and electrical and navigational eTuipment may survive.
In some cases, these may have a research value independent of
the missile or rocNet in which they were installed.
Archaeological Investigations at the Jupiter Missile Crash
site (8BR2087)
Site Description
The Jupiter Missile Crash site is located within the
over wash plain adMacent to the Atlantic Ocean. The eastern
portion of the site is broad, Àat land sparsely covered with sea
grapes, pricNly pear cactus, sea oats, and a variety of grasses
and vines. To the west, this ecosystem transitions into gently
undulating dunes and swales covered with sparse to thicN
stands of cabbage palm, sea grape, pricNly pear cactus, live
oaN, wiregrass, sea oats, and a variety of vines and grasses.
during the height of the Cold War, Emme (194 succinctly While the soil in this area TuicNly drains water, the swales
sums up the impact of rocNets and its related technology on accumulate rainwater and over wash from the ocean and tend
Penders MISSILE CRASH SITES 233

to drain more slowly. During times of heavy rain standing

water can be present for months.
An impact crater is located between the open Àat plain and
dune and swale areas. It is Tuite distinctive with a 50-cm to 1m
high sand rim delineating its edges. The crater measures 15.2
m in diameter and approximately 3 m deep. It is now thicNly
overgrown with native vegetation and water of unNnown depth
is present in the base of the crater.

Initial Discovery

The 45th Space Wing Installation Restoration Program

(IRP was created in 194 to investigate and remediate
contamination to the environment from a variety of sources.
From 1993 to 1995, IRP contracted Parsons Engineering
Science, Inc. to conduct preliminary site assessments of 29
locations on CCAFS thought to have possible environmental
contamination. Among these loci was the Jupiter Missile
Crash site, which they identi¿ed as a crater based on a 190
aerial photograph and its spatial relationship with Pier Road
and Fuel Storage Area 3. Parsons Engineering Science, Inc
used a GPS unit and compared the coordinates with those in
the CCAFS Basic Information Guides, which contain maps of
all the facilities on CCAFS along with xy coordinates in State
Plane NAD 27. In the ¿eld, they noted several other smaller
depressions, and debris was found “scattered throughout the
area.´ In addition, they noted a roped-off area close to the
crater with an old sign that read “Explosives Demolition Area-
Keep Out.´ As part of their investigation, Parsons Engineering
Science, Inc. (1995: 3.1.1-2 interviewed a member of the
CCAFS Safety Of¿ce who stated:
In 1959 or 190, a Jupiter missile was launched
from Launch Complex 5. The missile lost control
soon after launch and crashed into the beach, leaving
behind the crater visible shown in the 190 photo.
On impact the rocNet exploded, with an eTuivalent
Figure 6. Aerial photograph from 1960 showing missile
impact crater (USAF 1960)
In 1997, BEM Systems, Inc. performed con¿rmatory
sampling at the 29 possible contamination sites, including
the Jupiter Missile Crash site. They restated most of the
information in the 1995 report, and it appears the crater
remained unchanged, as they described it as “a depression
located 500 ft east of Fuel Storage Area 3 and«50 ft in
yield of 20,000 lbs. of explosives. The Jupiter missile diameter and 10 ft deep´ (BEM 199:2.1-2.2. Surprisingly,
was fueled with RocNet Propellant 1 (RP-1 blocNs, no mention is made of the associated debris ¿eld in the BEM
which is a type of Nerosene, with liTuid oxygen report. At the Jupiter Missile Crash site surface water and
(LO; as the oxidizer. Most of the Nerosene was
believed to have been consumed in the explosion.
The JMCS1 was not used as a disposal area or for any
other purpose.
Because the site is located 00 m south of the Explosive
sediment samples were taNen from within the crater, as well as
from groundwater adMacent to the crater. Interestingly, no soil
samples were taNen from within the debris ¿eld. Laboratory
testing found elevated metals in the samples, but since they did
not exceed screening criteria, no further action was deemed
necessary. As a result the site was forgotten until 2007, when
it was investigated by the 45th Space Wing Cultural Resources
Disposal Facility, it was assumed the crater was created by Manager (Penders 2012.
the detonation of explosive materials. Parsons Engineering
Science, Inc. (1995 interviewed a person who worNed in
Ordnance Services and con¿rmed that the Jupiter Missile
Crash Site could not have been an operational disposal range
due to its proximity to Fuel Storage Area 3. According to their
report, the interviewee stated that “it is common practice to
sight a disposal area a minimum distance of 3,000 ft from a
fuel storage area.´
Preliminary Field and Document Investigations
The archaeological investigation of the Jupiter Missile
Crash site began in February 2007 when I found information
concerning the crash during document research on previously
unrecorded historic structures associated with nearby
Launch Complex 5. At the time, it was thought that given
234 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2012 VOL. 65 (4)

software. This dataset allows the user to navigate across

the historic landscape by seeing the user moving across the
historic aerial photograph (Baxter and Britt 200.
In the ¿eld, the HAMMERŒ enabled us to locate the
crater without conducting a grid-based surface survey, saving
a signi¿cant amount of time. While searching for the crater,
missile parts were observed on the ground surface from the
crater extending to the south and southwest. The presence of
so many missile fragments on the surface was thought to be
unusual. One would expect that after a crash the debris would
have been removed. It was thought that the site could provide
additional information, so a formal archaeological survey was
Figure 7. Proposed crash direction and debris ¿eld
warranted (Penders 2012.
Although BEM Systems, Inc. identi¿ed the site as a ca.
1959-190 Jupiter missile crash that launched from LC-5,
their identi¿cation was based a single informant¶s interview.
Because of the number of launch mishaps over the years
coupled with the number of launch complexes ( complexes
distribution.
the crater¶s close proximity to the beach combined with the
number of tropical storms and hurricanes in the 10 years
since the site¶s discovery, no physical evidence, including
the crater itself, would be found. Before committing to a
full-scale archaeological investigation, a preliminary search
with 2 pads each within a 1. Nm radius of the site, it was
Tuite possible that the crater and debris ¿eld were created by
any number of launches. In order to verify that the site was
created by a Jupiter missile launch mishap, I conducted a data
search, cross-referencing all launch accidents with associated
launch complexes. A thorough review of the descriptions of
individual mishaps from each launch complex narrowed the
was conducted of historical aerial photographs on ¿le at the origin of the crater to ¿ve possible candidates (Table 1: two
45th Space Wing. The 190 aerial photograph used in the launches from LC-5 in 195, two launches from LC-2
environmental assessment of the site was found (Figure . This (one in 195 and one in 1959, and one from LC-17 in 1997
photograph, which showed the crater, was digitized and then (Penders 2012.
loaded into a Hand-held Apparatus for Mobile Mapping and The 1997 Delta II launch from LC-17 was immediately
Expedited Reporting (HAMMERŒ unit, which integrates a removed from consideration due to the author¶s involvement
small hand-held computer running Windows CE with a global in the launch. From 1994 to 2001, I was employed as an
positioning system, laser distance meter, camera, compass, Environmental Health Specialist and was involved with launch
and inclinometer so that data can be collected digitally and support operations at Kennedy Space Center and CCAFS. I
stored as a single geographical information system (GIS ¿le. was not only a witness to the incident but also involved with
The data are displayed in GIS on the device utilizing ArcPad the post-launch recovery. The launch vehicle exploded above

Figure 8. Missile components identi¿ed from the site.

Penders MISSILE CRASH SITES 235

the pad, spreading debris over a large area. It would not have
left an impact crater at the Jupiter site. Any debris found on
the site from that launch incident would be readily identi¿able
and the potential was low for such material being present,
since almost all the fragments were identi¿ed and recovered
from the investigation area in 1997.
The two launches from LC-5 were considered, but
reconnaissance documented ¿eld conditions and assessed the
amount of worN reTuired to survey the site. The investigation
was initially hampered by extremely heavy rains that left
approximately 40 percent of the site under standing water. In
fact, a formal survey of the entire site had to be delayed for
seven months to allow the portions of the site time to dry out.
In February 200, an archaeological reconnaissance
one (Juno II was immediately eliminated based on launch
information and vehicle type. The other candidate, the October
31, 195 launch of Jupiter A, RS-25 from LC- does ¿t with
the informant¶s description in the 1995 Parsons Engineering
Science report. While initially considered because of the
launch pad¶s closeness to the site, it was later removed from
survey was conducted of the site. A pedestrian survey was
performed with the assistance of the staff of the 45th Space
Wing Natural Assets Flight. Because crew members possessed
varying levels of ¿eld experience, they were instructed to marN
every human-made obMect observed on the ground surface with
pin Àags and Àagging tape. After establishing the missile¶s
consideration after the ¿eld investigation identi¿ed the initial point of contact with the ground (i.e. the crater, survey
presence of speci¿c components found only on later models. lines were walNed from east to west and north to south at 10-m
The July 1, 1959 launch of the Juno II AM-9 vehicle from intervals across a 500-x-500-m area (Penders 2012.
LC-5 also was eliminated, because the missile Àipped over The surface survey resulted in the demarcation of a debris
during launch and was destroyed ¿ve seconds into Àight by ¿eld substantially larger than expected the horizontal extent
range safety (Cleary 1995 Wade 2007. of the scattered debris was not described in any detail in the
Based on bacNground research, the two Jupiter launches 1997 BEM report. The survey also observed modern trash on
from LC-2B were considered the site that resulted from ocean over wash during storms and
the most liNely candidates. According to John Hilliard other past human activities. In the northwestern part of the
(personal communication, 2009, a former engineer on the
Jupiter missile program at CCAFS, the AM-9 launch is the
most probable candidate of the two suspected missiles because
it “would have performed the pitch in-Àight maneuver and
would be moving downrange at 49 seconds into launch.´
Hilliard further stated “Jupiter AM-23 is unliNely because the
missile would still be over the pad and the pitch of the missile
to go downrange had not started.´ It was Hillard¶s opinion
site the crew also recovered debris missed during the 1997
Delta II accident investigation. While all these materials
were documented, they were excluded from data analysis
to concentrate on the Jupiter-associated materials. While
the crater and site were located with the HAMMERTM unit,
technical issues arose that prevented its use during the actual
¿eld survey. This was dealt with by using a Trimble GPS unit
and digital camera to record all specimens in the ¿eld (Penders
that AM-9 would have been farther away from the pad and 2012.
more liNely at the crater location than AM-23. A photograph at Spennemann (2009:791 claims that spacecraft sites have
the Air Force Space and Missile and Space Museum shows a “immediately after impact, total integrity,´ unliNe the obMect
Jupiter mishap above LC-2B and is labeled as being AM-23 that crashed, which loses its integrity from the mishap (e.g.,
(John Hilliard, personal communication, 2009 Emily Perry, crash, explosion, etc.. In other words, once a crash has occurs,
personal communication, 2012.
In May 2012, I was contacted by the US Army Redstone
Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama in response to my reTuest
for information on the AM-9 mishap. Their records indicated
that AM-9 exploded above the pad, and a video ¿lm of AM-9
the crash site instantly has integrity. But liNe any other site
it has the potential to loose integrity over time. Employing
the methods used to investigate aircraft accidents reTuires
total removal of all obMects from the site to a laboratory.
While serving to document the site, this approach destroys
exploding above LC-2B was located at the National Archives its archaeological integrity (Spennemann 2009. Due to the
and Records Administration (US Army 1959. This contradicts
the information provided by Hilliard. Based on the interview
of the safety of¿cer conducted in 1995, description of the
accident, data from the Redstone Arsenal, and supporting
¿lm evidence showing the missile exploding above the pad,
lacN of documentation, both from the operational standpoint
of the launch and subseTuent crash and archaeological data, a
decision was made in 200 to remove identi¿able artifacts for
analysis in order to have physical evidence should the site be
destroyed by a storm event (it is approximately 300 m from the
I have to eliminate Jupiter AM-9. This leaves Jupiter AM-23, ocean. It is important to note that each artifact on the ground
launched on September 15, 1959, as the most liNely candidate. was georeferenced, photographed, and marNed with a survey
Jupiter AM-23 was erratic at lift-off and the missile destroyed Àag. Because they were readily identi¿able, the fuel line
itself after 13 seconds, Must before command destruct2 (Cleary section, bafÀes, and exhaust port were removed for curation
1995 Wade 2007. Given the number of launches from LC-2
and the fact it was more than 50 years ago, it is understandable
how Hilliard may have confused the two mishaps.
Reconnaissance Surveys
and the Àags left in place.
By training I am a prehistoric archaeologist with no
bacNground in aerospace archaeology or formal training in
vehicle accident investigations. Following the 200 survey, I
reviewed several publications on aircraftspacecraft accident
investigations (e.g., ICAO 2003 NASA 194 NTSB 2002,
After the crater was located in the ¿eld, a cursory surface which eventually triggered a new investigation in May 2012.
236 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST
This survey focused on identifying the locations of speci¿c
missile parts in relationship to the proximity of the crater and to
each other. The 200 survey had concentrated on documenting
the placement of artifacts across the site not their relationship
to each other and structural location within the missile itself.
Furthermore, the 2012 study examined the crater itself to
looN at its morphology, which could potentially identify the
traMectory of the missile when it crashed (see Coleman and
Bussey 2005 Kurov and DolzhansNiy 193 US Army 1992,
2012 VOL. 65 (4)
before 1957, including Jupiter A, RS-25 launched from LC-5
in 195. The recovery of these bafÀes point to a 1957 or later
Jupiter missile crash site.
With missile explosion at any depth upon impact, direct
destruction of the missile due to explosion results in the
dispersal of debris over a spatially restricted area. This area
is referred to as the region of destruction or the sphere of
destruction. The number of fragments formed by an explosion
is dependent on missile weight, weight and characteristics of
199 for discussions on crater formation. the fuel (liTuid vs. solid propellant, mechanical characteristics
Before returning to the ¿eld, a research design was of the metal, and angle of missile impact against the obstacle.
created that incorporated archaeological methods as well as Upon the explosion of the missile, the fragments are scattered
those established by NASA (193, National Transportation in space in a non-uniform manner. Approximately 20 percent
Safety Board (NSTB 2002, and International Civil Aviation of the energy and fragments is directly involved in the impact,
Organization (ICAO 2003 for use in aircraft and spacecraft while 70 percent of the fragmentation occurs on the main body.
mishap investigations. It is interesting to note how similar the The remaining 10 percent is to the rear of the missile (Cooper
latter methodologies are to those of a standard archaeological
reconnaissance survey for example, establishing a grid,
mapping, and documenting the distribution of fragments. All
guidelines for spacecraftaircraft mishap investigations include
a checN for the presence of all maMor components at the accident
site, which should provide a good indication of whether or not
structural failure contributed to the incident. Furthermore,
the guidelines tasN the investigator to identify initial impact
marNs and maMor ground scars locate and number signi¿cant
pieces of debris, document evidence of ¿re, and photograph
all pertinent items. In addition, the investigator is charged with
documenting the orientation of craters, scars, impact angles,
and debris.
Reconnaissance Survey Results
The 2008 Survey
199 Kurov and DolzhansNiy 193. With most of the fuel
in the midsection of the missile, this would explain why over
90 percent of the identi¿able Jupiter missile debris at the site
was mid-body sNin fragments and accordion tanN bafÀes. Very
few pieces of the nose cone were found at the site, and it is
assumed that it was totally destroyed during the impact and
subseTuent explosion. As stated, most of the fragments were
from the main body. However, tanN parts and accordion bafÀes
were found close to where the mid-body was located on the
missile and most were to the west of the centerline through the
debris ¿eld.
One Tuestion I had during the investigation was why
were the missile fragments discovered in situ? If the crash had
been investigated shortly after impact, we would expect the
fragments to have been mapped and collected from the site.
This leads to two Tuestions: was there a formal investigation
immediately after the crash and were only selected sections
of the missile removed? According to Hilliard (personal
A total of 412 specimens was found scattered across a 20 communication, 2009 an investigation to determine the cause
x 150 m area during the 200 surface survey of the site (Figure of the crash was liNely undertaNen. However, he did indicate
7. Of these, 44 were pieces of modern debris (e.g., plastic and whether crash information was determined in the ¿eld or from
glass bottles, aluminum cans, wood, 10 were associated with telemetry data without seeing the crash site if the latter was
the 1997 Delta II explosion, and 35 were directly associated the case, the crash site was liNely ignored. This is supported
with the Jupiter missile. Of the 35 Jupiter specimens, 325 by Cleary (1991, who noted that speci¿c obMectives were
were unidenti¿ed fragments thought to be exterior sNin or tanN established for each missile Àight test and the degree of
parts, 2 were bafÀes from inside the liTuid oxygen and fuel success (or failure was Mudged by the extent to which data
tanNs, one fuel line section, and one was an exhaust port from relative to those obMectives were obtained. A failure might
the base of the missile (Figure .
It should be noted that Delta and Jupiter missile parts are
distinguishable from one another by material of manufacture.
Delta II parts identi¿ed at the site tended to be carbon-¿ber
sheets or insulation foam. These were either missed during
the 1997 Delta II investigation or were deposited at the site
through wave action. Jupiter missile fragments were aluminum
or steel alloy. The accordion tanN bafÀes were installed on
Jupiter missiles in 1957, after it was discovered that fuel
sloshing caused the missile to tilt during Àight and become
unstable leading to launch mishaps (Grimwood and Strowd
actually constitute a successful test, depending on how well
the test Àight met the pre-launch obMectives. Moreover, it was
usually possible to establish the exact cause of a Àight failure
by analyzing the data collected by range instrumentation rather
than examining the vehicle remains.
In the 1950s there was a greater than 0-percent failure
rate for missile and rocNet launches at CCAFS. The time and
expense reTuired to remove every fragment from every failure
would have been prohibitive from a manpower standpoint.
Therefore, only critical fragments possibly related to the failure
would have been recovered. Some other fragments might have
192. The presence of accordion bafÀe fragments at the site been recovered for safety reasons, or if they were the cause
eliminates any Jupiter or Redstone missile variants launched of operational problems (Cleary 1991 John Hilliard, personal
Penders MISSILE CRASH SITES 237

communication, 2009. The demarcation of the site with sign

and rope, as described during the 1993-1995 environmental
investigation, suggests that some components were liNely
removed from the site sometime after the crash. Today,
accident investigations reTuire an attempt at 100-percent
recovery and removal of vehicle debris (which is considered
evidence.

The 2012 Survey: Locating the Missile’s Point of Origin

Using the methods for mishap investigations, an attempt

was made in 2012 to con¿rm the point of origin of the missile
that crashed at the site by studying the crater and associated
debris ¿eld artifact distribution. Within 1. Nm of the site
are LCs 5, 17, 1, 2529, 2, 30, and 3132. To determine
the point of origin of the missile that caused the crater and
debris ¿eld and to identify the possible missile type among
those Nnown to have been launched from the launch sites, I
employed the location methods used by the US military to
ascertain the origins of artillery, mortar, and rocNet ¿re based
on the analyses of impact craters. By accurately locating the
crater and determining the direction of Àight, the azimuth will
pass through or near the point of origin (Coleman and Bussey
2005 US Army 1992, 199.
The ¿rst step was to assess the morphology of the crater.
A low-angle impact would result in the missile bouncing or
ricocheting along the surface of the ground (Figure 9. After
impact, it follows its traMectory in a straight line creating a
grooved furrow or series of furrows from ricocheting. The
missile normally deÀects upward and, at the same time,
changes direction, usually to the right as the result of its spin
Figure 9. Types of impact craters.
near the surface was at a high-angle, creating a circular crater.
To trace the origin of the missile from the crater and debris
¿eld, main-axis crater analysis was used. First, two staNes and
(rotation. This creates a furrow or series of furrows and a rope were installed along the main axis of the crater in order
sometimes does not detonate. If it does explode, the burst and to divide it into symmetrical halves. Based on this axis, the
momentum of the shell carry the effects forward and to the orientation of the debris ¿eld should point in the direction of
sides (side sprays to the point of origin (Coleman and Bussey the origin of the launch. A Brunton compass reading was then
2005 Cooper 199 Kurov and DolzhansNiy 193 US Army taNen along the line dividing the crater and along the orientation
1992, 199. of the debris ¿eld. The resultant measurement represents the
Both vertical and high- to medium-angle impact craters direction to the launch point (Coleman and Bussey 2005 US
are formed by impact and explosion at or near the ground Army 1992, 199. Figure 10 illustrates this methodology.
surface (see Figure 9. When a missile or rocNet hits the
ground surface it accelerates the surface material downward
while the ground¶s resistance slows it. The shocN wave moves
forward, and at the same time, bacN through the missile. The
initial compression of the surface pushes material around the
sides of the crater, causing it to sTuirt out at the same time
If the missile crashed immediately upon liftoff the debris
¿eld would have been limited to an area around the launch
complex. If the missile had crashed into the site after leaving
the launch pad we would expect the debris ¿eld to be oriented
west-northwest toward LC-2. However, the methodology
employed in the ¿eld (Coleman and Bussey 2005 US Army
that the missile is being fragmented and traveling outward 1992, 199 suggests a south-southwest orientation toward
from the point of impact. While both create a circular-shaped LC-5 (see Figure 7. The location of the mid-body tanN
crater, high- to medium-angle impacts have debris exploding bafÀes and fuel components corroborate a south-southwest to
outward in a fan shape toward the point of origin (Coleman northeast orientation to the site. Since we Nnow that AM-23
and Bussey 2005 Cooper 199 US Army 1992, 199. A became erratic after liftoff, I propose the missile became out-
vertical impact (straight down crater would have a debris ¿eld of-control and curved around from LC-2B to the southwest
radiating outward (see Figure 9. The explosion that creates a and then turned northeast, where it crashed nose-¿rst, creating
crater taNes place directly or Must above the surface and will be
smaller than the missile that embeds itself in the ground surface
and then exploded. The morphology of the Jupiter Crash site
crater, based on the 2012 survey as well as an examination of
the 190 aerial photograph, indicates that missile impact at or
the crater at the site (Figure 11.
Conclusions
Based on this study, I propose that the Jupiter Missile
238 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST
Figure 10. Stake and line method for identifying missile
point of origin (adapted from Coleman and Bussey 2005).
Crash site is the result of a Jupiter AM-23 launched from
LC2-B on September 15, 1959. The Àight was erratic at lift-
off and veered off its easterly Àight path turning southwest
Figure 11. Proposed trajectory of Jupiter AM-23.
2012 VOL. 65 (4)
and then curving to the northeast and crashing nose-¿rst
destroying itself after only 13 seconds of Àight. This crash
created an impact crater and forced debris into a southwestern
direction. Missile pieces from the Jupiter Crash site not
collected in 200 are still located at the site today. It is unclear
if a crash investigation was conducted, but it appears liNely
that larger fragments were removed from the site sometime
soon after the incident and before the next launch.
The Jupiter Missile Crash site has brought to the forefront
the need to document and protect missile crash sites. During
the course of the investigation, little written information was
found regarding the details of the crash that created the site
as is the case with most of the early missile mishaps. They
appear to have been nothing more than a footnote in history or
a stepping stone to advance the technology. Once the vehicle
crashed it was TuicNly forgotten. Preserving these sites and
artifacts provides physical evidence that can be a stimulus to
future research on missile and rocNet systems, and not Must the
missile and rocNet program as a whole. What do the missiles
and rocNets tell us about the period from which they came?
When investigating missilerocNet crash sites one should
consider several research points. The ¿rst is whether or not the
site includes components of a missile or rocNet of which very
few or no Nnown complete examples survive. If they are well
preserved, do they include Ney components such as engines,
avionics etc. Second, is the missile or rocNet associated with
a signi¿cant US defense or space programs andor persons of
importance. Third, is there potential for additional information
to be gathered warranting the crash site be left in situ.
Penders MISSILE CRASH SITES 239

Notes Cleary, M. C.
1991 The 6555th, Missile and Space Launches Through
1. The abbreviation JMCS was used by Parsons and the 1970. 45th Space Wing History Of¿ce, PatricN Air
IRP of¿ce as a convenient way to identify the site. It is Force Base, FL.
common on DoD and NASA installations to use acronyms 1995 Eastern Range Launch Site Summary, Facilities
to identify sites and facilities and can be Tuite confusing and Launches 1950 through 1994. 45th Space Wing
to the uninitiated. History Of¿ce, PatricN Air Force Base, Fl.
2. All rocNets and missiles contain explosive charges so they
can be destroyed in the event that they go out of control Coleman, Edward J., and Ricco R. Bussey
on launch and endanger a populated area or to prevent 2005 A Primer on Indirect Fire Crater Analysis in IraT and
an information from being used by unauthorized persons Afghanistan. Field Artillery July-August 2005:3-
in the event that it is lost or stolen. The self-destruct 45.
mechanism is activated by launch personnel on the ground
and is Nnown as Command Destruct. Cooper, Paul W.
199 Explosives Engineering. Wiley-VCH, Inc., New
Acknowledgements YorN.

I would liNe to thanN to following people who made Darrin, Ann Garrison and Beth Laura O¶Leary
this proMect possible. MarN Cleary, former 45th Space Wing 2009 Handbook of Space Engineering, Archaeology, and
historian Nicholas J. Saunders, Department of Archaeology Heritage. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fl.
and Anthropology at the University of Bristol for his
suggestions and comments regarding this paper and the study Emme, Eugene M. (editor
of modern conÀict archaeology the staff of CERL for the loan 194 History of Rocket Technology. Wayne University
of the HAMMERΠunit John Hilliard, former employee at Press, Detroit.
CCAFS and currently a volunteer at the Air Force Space and
Missile Museum the staff of US Army Redstone Arsenal Gonzilez-Ruibal, Alfredo
Elaine Williams of the Indian River Anthropological Society 200 Time to destroy: An Archaeology of
Deb =iel who created all the ¿gures in this paper, and for the Supermodernity. Current Anthropology 49: 247-279.
comments and suggestions by the anonymous reviewers and
editors of The Florida Anthropologist. Grimwood, James M., and Frances Strowd
192 History of the Jupiter Missile System. Document
References Cited on ¿le, United States Army Ordinance Missile
Command, Huntsville, Al.
Bair, Jeffrey A.
2003 An Examination of Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Hanson, Todd
Development within the United States from 1952 2010 Uncovering the Arsenals of Armageddon: The
to 1965. Unpublished Master¶s thesis, on ¿le at the Historical Archaeology of North American Cold
U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Ft. War Ballistic Missile Launch Sites. Archaeological
Leavenworth, Kansas. Review from Cambridge 25:157-172.

Baxter, Carey L., and Tad Britt
200 Cultural Resources Evaluations of the Original
Lighthouse Site (89BR234), the Cape Canaveral
Lighthouse Site (8BR212), and the New Lighthouse
Site (8BR1660), Cape Canaveral Air Force Station,
Brevard County, Florida. Report on ¿le, Florida
Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.
BEM Systems, Inc.
199 Jupiter Missile Crash Site, Solid Waste Management
Unit 105, Cape Canaveral Air Station, Florida.
Con¿rmation Sampling Report and No Further
Response Action Planned Decision Document.
Report on ¿le, 45th Space Wing Installation
Restoration Program, PatricN Air Force Base, Fl.
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO
2003 Manual of Aircraft Accident Investigation: Part III
Investigation. Montrpal, 4uebec, Canada. Electronic
document, http:www.icao.intPagesdefault.aspx,
accessed May 3, 2012.
Kurov, V.D., and Yu. M. DolzhansNiy
193 Fundamentals of Design for Solid-Propellant
Rocket Missiles. Translated by the Armed Services
Technical Information Agency, Arlington. Electronic
document, http:www.stormingmedia.us, accessed
May 19, 2012.
Kyle, Ed
2011 King of Gods: The Jupiter Missile Story. Electronic
document, http:www.spacelauncheport.com
240 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST
Mupiter4. html, accessed April 27, 2012.
LonnTuest, John C., and David F. WinNler
199 To Defend and Deter: The Legacy of the United
States Cold War Missile Program. U.S. Army
Construction Engineering Research Laboratories,
Champaign, Il.
Mannino, Vito V.
1999 Cold War. When Did it Start? Why Did it Start?
Research report on ¿le, Air Command and Staff
College, Maxwell Air Force Base, Al.
McDougall, Walter A.
199 The Heavens and the Earth: A Political History of
the Space Age. Basic BooNs, New YorN.
National Aeronautic and Space Administration
194 NASA Safety Manual Volume 2. Guidelines for
2012 VOL. 65 (4)
RathMe, William. L., Vincent LaMotta and William A.
Longacre
2002 Into the BlacN Hole: Archaeology 2001 and Beyond.
In Archaeology: The Widening Debate, edited by
Barry Cunliffe, Wendy Davies and Colin Renfrew,
pp 497-540. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
SiddiTi, Asif A.
200 American Space History: Legacies, 4uestions, and
Opportunities for Future Research. In Critical Issues
in the History of Space Flight, edited by Steven J.
DicN and Roger D. Launius, pp. 433-40, NASA,
Washington, D.C.
Spenneman, DirN H.R.
2009 On the Nature of the Cultural Heritage Values of
Spacecraft Crash Sites. In Handbook of Space
Engineering, Archaeology, and Heritage, edited by
Mishap Investigation. NHB 1700.1 (V2. NASA,
Washington, D.C. Electronic document, http:
ntrs.nasa.govarchivenasacasi.ntrs.nasa.gov
199001110B19911110.pdf, accessed May ,
2012.
National Transportation Safety Board
2002 Aviation Investigation Manual. National
Transportation Safety Board, Washington, D.C.
Electronic document, http:www.ntsb.gov
investigationsprocess.html, accessed May 4, 2012.
Parsons Engineering Sciences, Inc.
1995 Preliminary Assessment #3, Preliminary Assessment
and Con¿rmation Sampling Workplan. Report
on ¿le, 45th Space Wing Installation Restoration
Program, PatricN Air Force Base, Fl.
Penders, Thomas E.
2011 45th Space Wing Integrated Cultural Resource
Management Plan: Cape Canaveral Air Force
Station, Patrick Air Force Base, Malabar
Transmitter Annex, and Jonathan Dickinson Missile
Tracking Annex, Florida. Document on ¿le, 45th
Space Wing Civil Engineering Of¿ce, PatricN Air
Force Base, Fl.
2012 A Reassessment of the Jupiter Missile Crash Site
(8BR2087), Cape Canaveral Air Force
Station, Florida. Report on ¿le, 45th Space Wing
Civil Engineering Of¿ce, PatricN Air Force Base, Fl.
RathMe, William and Cullen Murphy
2001 Rubbish! The Archaeology of Garbage. University
of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Ann Garrison Darrin and Beth Laura O¶Leary, pp.
71-00. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fl.
Sturdevant, Richard and Greg Orndorff
2009 Space Race and the Cold War. In Handbook of
Space Engineering, Archaeology, and Heritage,
edited by Ann Garrison Darrin and Beth Laura
O¶Leary, pp. 229-250. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fl.
Turner, S., PatricN Nowlan, J. Malloy, S. McCarthy, V.
Temme, and D. Lapp
1994 Historic American Engineering Record of Complex
13, 26, 36, Cape Canaveral Air Station, Cape
Canaveral, Florida. Report on ¿le, Florida Division
of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.
United States Air Force
190 Aerial photograph 190-CCAFS-Area 5-1.
Photograph on ¿le, 45th Space Wing, USAF,
CCAFS, Fl.
United States Army
1959 Jupiter (A-M-9) Missile, Cape Canaveral, Florida,
1007195. ABMA Roll 453-454: LS. Film on
¿le, Motion Picture, Sound, and Video Records
Section, Special Media Archives Services Division,
National Archives and Records Administration,
College ParN, Md.
1992 Appendix D-Crater Analysis. In Tactical
Employment of Mortars. Field Manual No. 7-90.
Electronic document, Electronic document, http:
www.globalsecurity.orgmilitarylibrarypolicy
armyfm7-90 index.html, accessed May , 2012.
199 Appendix J- Crater Analysis and Reporting. In
Penders MISSILE CRASH SITES 241

Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures for the Field

Artillery Cannon Battery. Field Manual -50.
Electronic document, http:www.globalsecurity.
orgmilitarylibrary
policyarmyfm-50index.html, accessed May ,
2012.

Wade, MarN
2007 Jupiter Missile. Encyclopedia Astronautica.
Electronic document, http:www.astronautix.com
index.html, accessed July 12, 200.