US Navy Space Cruiser & DARPA/USAF Spaceplane Technology and Research (STAR)

SOC

I look at pictures all day
Senior Member
Joined
24 January 2006
Messages
1,304
Reaction score
308
Found this one on the web, you all might find it to be some interesting reading:

http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/reading_room/883.pdf

Basically it's a 1983 report covering studies of a new manned spacecraft.
 
Page 50 mentions using a Peacekeeper ICBM as a space cruiser launch vehicle. IIRC decommissioned Peacekeepers are being converted into satellite launch vehicles.

Page 52 talks about using a 747-200F as an airborne launch vehicle. Reminds me of the proposal to use the XB-70 to launch the later unbuilt X-15 variants.
 

Attachments

  • space cruiser.jpg
    space cruiser.jpg
    274.4 KB · Views: 762
  • US Navy Space Cruiser 70.jpg
    US Navy Space Cruiser 70.jpg
    5.9 KB · Views: 645
The Space Cruiser dates back over 20 years. The authors first were aware of the concept when one of the authors was manager of the McDonnell Douglas Aerospace Vehicle Group in 1983. Mr. Redding visited the author and briefed him on the Space Cruiser concept. As originally conceived in 1980, the Space Cruiser was a low angle conical hypersonic glider similar to the McDonnell Douglas Model 122 (BGRV) experimental hypersonic vehicle that was flown in 1966.
As initially conceived, the Space Cruiser could be folded to a about one-half its length. Redding adapted the design to incorporate an aft plug nozzle cluster configuration and storable propellants. The Space Cruiser is capable of atmospheric entry and uses a small drogue parachute at Mach one followed by a multi-reefed parafoil to land safely on any flat surface. The Space Cruiser originally was intended to be operated by a pilot in a space suit. In 1983, Redding modified the configuration to an elliptical cross section thus expanding the propellant quantity, as shown in a 1983 McDonnell Douglas Corporation Trans-Atmospheric Vehicle (TAV) artist illustration.
Mr. Redding formed an organization shortly before his death to preserve the work on the Space Cruiser and seek future development, the In-Space Operations Corporation (IOC).

image: “Bud” Redding Space Cruiser Launched from a Trans-Atmospheric Vehicle to Accomplish a Satellite Repair. The Space Cruiser is Able Also Serve as a Three Person Rescue Vehicle

source
AIAA 2004-5858
A Space Infrastructure Requires a Substantial Investment in Resources
Paul A. Czysz, HyperTech Concepts LLC, St. Louis, Missouri 63141, U.S.A.
Claudio Bruno, University of Rome, Rome, Italy
Ying-Ming Lee, MSE Technology Application, Butte, Montana. U.S.A.
 

Attachments

  • MDC space cruiser 1983.jpg
    MDC space cruiser 1983.jpg
    198.5 KB · Views: 655
Hi, STAR: The USAF’s “Everything” Spacecraft here: https://falsesteps.wordpress.com/2012/10/31/star-the-usafs-everything-spacecraft/
 

Attachments

  • 0-IoGLhSmRVT_Mxx__.jpeg
    0-IoGLhSmRVT_Mxx__.jpeg
    102.7 KB · Views: 527
  • ????????????.jpg
    ????????????.jpg
    6.9 KB · Views: 513
Ah yes. The Space Cruiser! Plenty more here:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3189.0.html
 
AWST May 25, 1981
 

Attachments

  • Space Cruiser.jpg
    Space Cruiser.jpg
    295.3 KB · Views: 256
www.google.com/patents/US6257527
www.google.com/patents/US6530543
 
Grumman's Marshall J. Corbett, father of Nutcracker, had some (possibly related) patents from SDI era
 

Attachments

  • US4703694.pdf
    645.2 KB · Views: 32
  • US4703905.pdf
    428.4 KB · Views: 28
  • 1657135991860.png
    1657135991860.png
    55 KB · Views: 158
  • 1657136020595.png
    1657136020595.png
    41 KB · Views: 138
  • 1657136068001.png
    1657136068001.png
    67.4 KB · Views: 208
Thank you for sharing. Speaks volume about the US military requirements for a "spaceplane".
 
Thank you for sharing. Speaks volume about the US military requirements for a "spaceplane".

IIRC it was a lot more than just the military applications and utility as there was another supporting document which then listed questions and responses from a lot of research and development companies and people on what missions and research could be done with the "spaceplane" as designed. I'll have to look for it.
(I have a fear it's either on my work computer or my old hard drive which does not talk to my current computer...or anything else atm)

Randy
 
Hell yes, I want to see and read THAT. In passing, I lifted some stuff for my TL & suborbital refueling, STAR requirements evenly matched with it - kind of Godsend, really.
 
Hell yes, I want to see and read THAT. In passing, I lifted some stuff for my TL & suborbital refueling, STAR requirements evenly matched with it - kind of Godsend, really.

Actually I just noted it was the first cited post in the thread. (I can't get the link to work but here's another one: https://documents2.theblackvault.com/documents/dod/readingroom/883.pdf ) Section 4.0 lists the various research and scientific purposes that STAR could be used for. I'd swear there was a longer one but this is so far the only one I can find.

Randy
 
Thank you.
I'd swear there was a longer one but this is so far the only one I can find.
Happens to me all the times, particularly with the NTRS pdfs, for example a 5 volumes story.
 
Obligatory self promotion:
US Spacecraft Projects #02: Spaceplanes
https://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/blog/?p=2048

Five pages of Space Cruiser diagrams, showing different configurations including finned and elliptical cross-section.

ussp02ad.jpg
 
Cool animation, but I can't see that working from a submerged launch. The space cruiser itself would take too much pressure on what is supposed to be a light thing.

Not to mention all the noise caused by driving around with a hatch flopped open.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cool animation, but I can't see that working from a submerged launch. The space cruiser itself would take too much pressure on what is supposed to be a light thing.

Not to mention all the noise caused by driving around with a hatch flopped open.

The actual concept had them having the Space Cruiser in one tube, the modified Trident LV in another and a crane in two others. (Plus some support equipment in yet more tubes)

Randy
 
The actual concept had them having the Space Cruiser in one tube, the modified Trident LV in another and a crane in two others. (Plus some support equipment in yet more tubes)

Randy
Video still showed an uncovered Space Cruiser underwater for a launch. And neither the Trident nor the Space Cruiser could take that.

Also, you can't launch a Trident from the surface!
 
Video still showed an uncovered Space Cruiser underwater for a launch. And neither the Trident nor the Space Cruiser could take that.

Also, you can't launch a Trident from the surface!

I brought that up on the video but it's a good video none the less :)

And hence why I noted it was a modified Trident :)

Randy
 
Dude, I served on Tridents.

Cannot launch from the surface.

Can cast off from the pier, submerge on the spot, and still cover most target packages due to range of missiles
Ah, wrong

a. Most SSBN ports are too shallow for the sub to submerge.

B.
"Mike Waters, Former 23 Year SubmarIne CDR nuke weps. Ship CO.
Yes, an SSBN can launch surfaced or submerged (and can also jettison on surface if ship is listed to prevent fallback). There may be some difficulty submerging again until tubes can re-fill with water which normally would have flooded through muzzle hatches (that are now above surface). The large BackFloodValves in the bottom of the tube need to be opened, and open hatches to allow air to escape, pretty much like the Main Ballast Tanks."
 
Ah, wrong

a. Most SSBN ports are too shallow for the sub to submerge.

B.
"Mike Waters, Former 23 Year SubmarIne CDR nuke weps. Ship CO.
Yes, an SSBN can launch surfaced or submerged (and can also jettison on surface if ship is listed to prevent fallback). There may be some difficulty submerging again until tubes can re-fill with water which normally would have flooded through muzzle hatches (that are now above surface). The large BackFloodValves in the bottom of the tube need to be opened, and open hatches to allow air to escape, pretty much like the Main Ballast Tanks."
King's Bay, Georgia, is not "most SSBN ports."

The water depth AT THE PIER at Bangor, WA is over 300ft. Dabob Bay across the Hood Canal from the piers has places over 1000ft deep. Gotta love fjords.

There is a very large difference between "safely jettison" and "safely fire". A D5 first stage puts out on the order of 420,000lbs thrust (130klb missile times 3.5gees acceleration), which is enough to cause significant damage to the sub.
 
The way I see it, if you have to launch SLBMs from port, any damage to the sub that doesn't immediately sink it is acceptable. It's not like your odds of long-term survival at that point are good anyway.
 
Port Canaveral is 44 feet. 2 out of 3 makes it the "most".
No subs are based there, that's a place for subs to come to do a test launch. And which does have a lagoon deep enough to submerge in, for what it's worth.
 
When Trident D5 was first announced. There were comments about it being able to hit it's targets from pierside. But that was less about launching while surfaced than about the fact that Trident in general (and D5 especially) did not have to launch from patrol areas near the Soviet homeland like earlier generations of SLBMs and could effectively threaten the Soviet Union as soon as they left port. That vastly complicated the Soviet counter-SSBN mission since deterrent patrol areas could be nearly anywhere in the Northern hemisphere. The Soviets would have to try to develop tracking on the Ohios as they left port or try to find them in mid-ocean, which was much harder than chasing Polaris boats around the Med.
 
Last edited:
There is a very large difference between "safely jettison" and "safely fire". A D5 first stage puts out on the order of 420,000lbs thrust (130klb missile times 3.5gees acceleration), which is enough to cause significant damage to the sub.
He said launch. Jettison only if the sub was listed
No subs are based there, that's a place for subs to come to do a test launch. And which does have a lagoon deep enough to submerge in, for what it's worth.
Nope it doesn't such a lagoon. The Trident basin is only dredged to 44 feet.
 
Back
Top Bottom