Register here

Author Topic: US Space Shuttle Projects  (Read 126462 times)

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1591
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #30 on: November 21, 2008, 09:22:46 pm »
Wat i wonder is, had Martin never proposed Transtage for Shuttle upperstage ?
(they had proposed Transtage as ad-on booster under the ET in 1982)

I think they did.  There's a congressional hearing report from around 1972 or so that includes presentations from about four different companies proposing "space tugs" for the shuttle.  There were several Agena proposals, a Grumman proposal, and I think a Martin proposal using the Transtage.  I'll look around for it in my files.  From vague memory, I think that the Transtage had some early performance problems, but these were later solved.  However, I believe I also heard from some people familiar with it that it was not very popular.  The Air Force people who had to work with it did not like it.

I remember that there were at least three Agena proposals--a "large tank" Agena (their preferred design), an Agena with drop tanks, and three separate Agenas with separate payloads.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2008, 07:11:48 am by blackstar »

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7816
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #31 on: December 10, 2008, 04:56:57 am »
1990s Rockwell thoughts of Space Shuttle evolution
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 19049
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #32 on: December 13, 2008, 08:47:06 am »

Offline starviking

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 809
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #33 on: December 14, 2008, 02:40:34 am »
1990s Rockwell thoughts of Space Shuttle evolution

That first picture with a reference length of 1486 inches - so were they thinking of adding 20 inches to the orbiter? I've a reference to Endeavor being 1466 inches long - but perhaps the measurements aren't directly comparable...   

Offline CFE

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 258
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #34 on: December 16, 2008, 06:39:40 pm »
1466 inches is the length of a standard orbiter, but it's probably measured from nose to tail along the longitudinal axis.  The 1486 inch figure likely references a measurement from the nose to end of the fuselage boat-tail area.  It looks like they're adding an extra segment to the payload bay, and that should be much longer than 20 inches.

I really question if the "advanced orbiter" proposal was serious.  Seeing as how the shuttle was designed to carry payloads bigger than the "national assets" on the drawing boards during the early 70's, it would seem to have sufficient payload volume.

At the same time, I recall reading John Young's ideas for an "advanced orbiter."  He wanted features like thrust termination on the SRB's and canards on the orbiter for better control on approach & landing.  The former idea is idiotic, as thrust termination (blowing the nose caps) would likely rupture the ET and kill the crew.  Canards aren't such a bad idea, but it's not easy to see how you could stow them for re-entry without adding a lot of mass.

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3497
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #35 on: December 17, 2008, 12:35:42 am »
At the same time, I recall reading John Young's ideas for an "advanced orbiter."  He wanted features like thrust termination on the SRB's and canards on the orbiter for better control on approach & landing.  The former idea is idiotic, as thrust termination (blowing the nose caps) would likely rupture the ET and kill the crew.  Canards aren't such a bad idea, but it's not easy to see how you could stow them for re-entry without adding a lot of mass.

there were other crazy "Ideas" would likely rupture the ET:

like put SRB segments or a Titan-II stage under the ET as "add-on Booster"
LBM 4 Titan-II tanks with total 159t fuel and 2xAerojet LR87-AJ-11 engine with total 200 ton trust
total weight 180t LBM ignition 5 sec after Shuttle liftoff
+5 tons payload for USAF mission (from Vandenberg AFB?)

another was to build Additional fueltanks inside payloadbay for the Orbital Maneuvering System

source: German space book
"Die Grenzenlose Dimension der Raumfahrt: Band 1"
by Harry o. Ruppe, publish 1980 ISBN 3430178847

page 647 - 640
I love Strange Technology

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3497
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #36 on: December 17, 2008, 12:54:41 am »
What kind of engines are specified for the liquid-fueled boosters on the shuttle-derived vehicle? 

Mark Wade's site has a drawing of the shuttle with similar LRB's (four engines per booster and shutters to protect the engines during splashdown.)  But his drawing is from a later study that utilizes STME's.


in most LRB study have 4xSSME for 2 reasion
1- the SSME was the only High trust engine NASA hab in Time
2- the Shuttle launch profil need Variable Thrust, otherwise it will ripp the wings off
    Again the SSME was only engine that can do this.

I love Strange Technology

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1547
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #37 on: December 17, 2008, 02:53:18 am »
Flight global also has something (around 1980 or so) about adding small strapons to the usual SRBs.

This was intented to achieve USAF requirement to Polar orbit (shuttle payload was aparently too weak for them)

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1978/1978%20-%202302.html?search=SRBs


Conservatoire de l'Air et de l'Espace d'Aquitaine - Bordeaux - Mérignac / Dassault aviation museum
http://www.caea.info/en/plan.php

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2039
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #38 on: January 11, 2009, 03:27:07 pm »
OK,

Ares I & V are in the public eye a lot lately. And now we have the DIRECT guys making their pitch to Obama. Here's the PM article and a link to their homepage:

http://www.origin.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4298615.html

http://www.directlauncher.com/

I do get a kick on how the media seems to impart concepts like Ares and DIRECT the feel of being new or somehow groundbreaking. But the concept of Shuttle-derived boosters are actually old hat. I have hazy, old memories from the very back of my mind about this. These memories come from around the time right after Challenger. I was about 9 or 10 at the time.

I vaguely recall reading something when I was a kid about a booster derived from a single SRB. I also hazily recall a picture of two SRB's stacked on the pad without an ET or Orbiter. I don't recall how that was related to the SRB concept, if it was. And I don't remember what magazine or book this was in.

So I did a Google search and I found references to a concept called SRB-X. From Global Security-  http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/srb-x.htm

Then there's this. If you scroll down to the bottom of page 3, you'll see it:
https://mira.hq.nasa.gov/history/ws/hdmshrc/all/main/Blob/41010.pdf;jsessionid=2832AA0615A0BDF37CDE11DA5BAE543C?m=12&order=SERIES

Also found this: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/07/06/215384/spaceflight-picture-of-the-week-6-july-2007.html

But none of the images I've found match what I recall. I'm sure what I saw was a single booster.

So if anybody else remembers something about this, I'd love to hear about it.

Moonbat

PS- I'm still not sure what the stacked pair of SRB's has to with all this. Maybe that was some kind of fit-test. But the memory of that, along with SRB-X, come from around the same time.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2009, 04:22:09 pm by XP67_Moonbat »
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2039
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #39 on: January 11, 2009, 03:33:54 pm »
Here's a little something on Shuttle-derived concepts I found on my quest for SRB-X.

http://chapters.nss.org/ny/nyc/Shuttle-Derived%20Vehicles%20Modified.pdf

Nice read.

Moonbat
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2039
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #40 on: January 11, 2009, 03:41:28 pm »
More searching and look what I found! Still not sure what the reason behind it is. But that's one little mystery solved for me and one more to go.



« Last Edit: January 11, 2009, 03:45:05 pm by XP67_Moonbat »
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3497
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #41 on: January 12, 2009, 01:08:44 am »
But that's one little mystery solved for me and one more to go.

can this be a Dynamic Test of SSRB ?
roll them from VAB to Launch pad 39 and there test fire them ? ? ?


I love Strange Technology

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6687
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #42 on: January 12, 2009, 01:18:38 am »
But that's one little mystery solved for me and one more to go.

can this be a Dynamic Test of SSRB ?
roll them from VAB to Launch pad 39 and there test fire them ? ? ?




Nothing so pointlessly insane:

http://www.space.com/imageoftheday/image_of_day_031118.html

November 18, 2003

Quote
Even though the next shuttle launch remains months away, hardware continues to be moved around at the Kennedy Space Center as workers take time to perform tests on the equipment they use, even as they maintain their proficiency.

With that in mind, on Monday workers drove a crawler transporter under a Mobile Launch Platform (MLP) and carried it out a short ways towards the launch pads and then returned back to the Vehicle Assembly Building. Atop the MLP: a pair of 149-foot-tall solid rocket boosters, sans external tank and orbiter.

With the boosters braced at the top to minimize their swaying as the crawler transporter hit a blazing top speed of 1 mph, sensors strung throughout the MLP were taking vibration measurements. Analysis of the results should help with future maintenance plans and a better understanding of the loads placed on the shuttle while it is being moved.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Matej

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2604
  • Multiuniversal creator
    • Hitechweb - bizare aviation
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #43 on: January 12, 2009, 01:22:39 am »
I've got an idea. We have stealth bombers, fighters, even the transport planes are planning, so now...  we finally have the stealthy shuttle! :D

Okay, now on the serious note - testing can be a good explanation. It is not necessary to fire it. Some static and/or vibration (?) tests can be the reason.


Edit: While I was writing my post, Scott posted the answer.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2009, 01:26:15 am by Matej »

Bizarre aviation expert.

Offline starviking

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 809
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #44 on: January 12, 2009, 01:33:45 am »
Thanks for the SRB-X stuff Moonbat - I've been trying to find stuff on that to confirm that my memory's not shot to hell.

I don't personally recall seeing anything on a single SRB launcher myself - but back in the day my info was limited to Flight International and Spaceflight, so that doesn't mean much.