Aerospaceplane (1958-1963)

Archibald

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
6 June 2006
Messages
11,689
Reaction score
13,269
Atempt to make a SSTO with a LACE system.
air coming from the intake was pumped in tanks, oxygen was separated from the rest of the air, then went to fuel the engine (burning with hydrogen).
First atempt at LACE / ACES long before HOTOL.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerospaceplane

I would really want to see some pics of the contenders (if any)
 
Image resolution intentionally set low because:
1) Jenkins is a good feller
2) The book is readily available for purchase
3) There's a lot more neat stuff in it
4) And it didn't sell near as well as it should have.
 
Ok, I understand! Once you mention the book, I knew htat there would be some "limits". That's perfect like that, just wanted to see the pics to have an idea of what the concepts look like :)
 
"And it didn't sell near as well as it should have."

maybe because it is an updated version of the previous book with no allowance made for the punkies like me who bought the first issue ?

In a similar vein I have the 3 different issues of "X-planes" . Not because I like it but because no one is interested in buying from me the two earlier editions which I bought as soon as they were released...

Updating a book could be a good or a bad idea ....depending on wether you have bought the first issue or not.

(obviously this is going completely outside the topic, I know !!!!)

JCC
 
One of Aerospaceplane concepts
 

Attachments

  • art-cncp.jpg
    art-cncp.jpg
    66.8 KB · Views: 276
JC Carbonel said:
maybe because it is an updated version of the previous book with no allowance made for the punkies like me who bought the first issue ?

Both X-planes and Space Shuttle books have significant add-ons (seems that first X-planes edition loses some very important info on X-45, yes? ))) and differencies, I must say as owner of three/two editions, respectively.
 
I heard that Marquardt went as far as testing an engine (or at least , a demonstrator).
what were the problems exactly with the system ?
 
Archibald said:
I heard that Marquardt went as far as testing an engine (or at least , a demonstrator).
what were the problems exactly with the system ?

In the end... physics and complexity. An SSTO airbreathing spaceplane is something at the bleeding edge of technology and materials science *today,* in 1963 the idea was virtually impossible.

Marquardt tested a large number of engines, from ramjets to ejector ramjets to supercharged turboejectorramscramjets. A lot of progress was made, but nothing flight-like and of the scale needed for ASP was made.
 
Justement... there was also the RJ-176 SERJ intented for the X-15 in 1969 (this link http://www.up-ship.com/apr/extras/serjx15.htm)
As you can see there's a pic of the engine. So, what is exactly in this photo ? a subscale demonstrator ? a truly fonctional engine ?

I'm very interested by this airbreathing engine X-15, so if there's more information available somewhere ... ::) ;D
 
Could someone please let have the exact title of Jenkin's Shuttle Book and perhaps the publisher?

I'd really like to get hold of a copy of this book, but I'm not sure which is the right title on Amazon - or if its currently in print.

Thanks!
 
http://www.amazon.com/Space-Shuttle-National-Transportation-Missions/dp/0963397451/sr=1-1/qid=1171574484/ref=sr_1_1/002-1653921-7802411?ie=UTF8&s=books

That's the book. It is a comprehensive masterpiece with tons of unbuilt designs. I have the first edition from 1992-93 which covers from the very beggining to STS-50.
 
Hi,

Can anyone give me a drawing to Boeing Model-979 spacecraft ?.
please.
 
hesham said:
Can anyone give me a drawing to Boeing Model-979 spacecraft ?

Yup. Got a whole bunch of 'em, in quite good detail. Had a whole APR article on the 979, in fact. Not an "aerospaceplane," though, or even a spacecraft. Winged Saturn V first stage.
 
Orionblamblam said:
hesham said:
Can anyone give me a drawing to Boeing Model-979 spacecraft ?

Yup. Got a whole bunch of 'em, in quite good detail. Had a whole APR article on the 979, in fact. Not an "aerospaceplane," though, or even a spacecraft. Winged Saturn V first stage.

Is it linked to early shuttle proposals (1969-1971) ? I've red (on M. Lindroos website) that Boeing proposed an ET Shuttle (ET= External tank ;)) Shuttle on top of a winged Saturn V rocket stage. There was also unwinged / parachute/ retrorockets variants to splashdown (crash down ? ;D) on the Atlantic...

Me want to know
 
Archibald said:
I've red (on M. Lindroos website) that Boeing proposed an ET Shuttle (ET= External tank ;)) Shuttle on top of a winged Saturn V rocket stage.

That's the one. To be slightly more precise, the 979 was *one* of those designs. Winged S-IC's were proposed by Boeing, Lockheed, NAR, McD, Grumman, Pan Am (yes, Pan Am) and NASA itself. Spent last night scanning in just such things.
 
Pan Am (yes, Pan Am)

So Clarke and Kubrick were right when imagining Pan Am spaceplanes ? ;D

I really have to buy this Orion kit at the shop one day ::)
 
Archibald said:
Orionblamblam said:
hesham said:
Can anyone give me a drawing to Boeing Model-979 spacecraft ?

Yup. Got a whole bunch of 'em, in quite good detail. Had a whole APR article on the 979, in fact. Not an "aerospaceplane," though, or even a spacecraft. Winged Saturn V first stage.

Is it linked to early shuttle proposals (1969-1971) ? I've red (on M. Lindroos website) that Boeing proposed an ET Shuttle (ET= External tank ;)) Shuttle on top of a winged Saturn V rocket stage. There was also unwinged / parachute/ retrorockets variants to splashdown (crash down ? ;D) on the Atlantic...

Me want to know



Three good sites

http://www.astronautix.com/

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/category-view.asp

http://uplink.space.com/ubbthreads.php
 
Bought the Jenkins book, based on the info provided in this forum. I can't wait for it to arrive. ;D
 
Hesham provided a hint for finding this:

http://www.americanantigravity.com/articles/589/1/Model-176-Hypersonic-Shuttle/Page1.html
http://www.americanantigravity.com/documents/Aerospace-Design-Notes.pdf
http://www.americanantigravity.com/documents/Hypersonic-SpacePlanes-History.pdf
http://www.americanantigravity.com/documents/Paul-Czysz-Hypersonic-Interview.pdf

Historical Notes & Technical Data

This document provides detailed notes outlining the McDonnell Aircraft Company's "Model 176" hypesonic glider, and describes how this technology could be used to produce a hypersonic glider for use in resupplying a Manned Orbiting Laboratory in the 1960's. It is a more rugged concept than the Space Shuttle, and could have begun flying over a decade earlier. Furthermore, and most importantly, this document describes heat-dissipation testing that would have completely eliminated the need for the ceramic tiles used on today's shuttle.

"The United States Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory fabricated a half-scale mock-up of the stage and one-half Model 176 configuration. Strap-on tanks provided propellants to about Mach 6 or 7 and then the mission continued on internal propellants. The intent was to provide the United States Air Force with an on-demand hypersonic aircraft that could reach any part of the earth in less than a half-hour and return to its launch base or any base within the Continental United States (CONUS).

In a 1964 brief, Rollie Quest of McDonnell Douglas Astronautics, St. Louis, presented a fully reusable hypersonic glider, the so-called model 176, intended to be the crew delivery, crew return, crew rescue, and re-supply vehicle for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) crew. One vehicle was to be docked with the MOL at all times as an escape and rescue vehicle. It could accommodate up to 13 persons, and like BURAN all components were recoverable.

Given the space infrastructure of the 21st Century, it is important to recall that rescue and supply of the manned space facilities requires the ability to land in a major ground based facility at any time from any orbit and orbital location. The cross and down range needed to return to a base of choice also requires high aerodynamic performance, mainly dependent on high lift over drag ratios." - Prof. Paul Czysz

Paul Czysz is the former Chief Scientist for the National Aerospace Place (NASP) project, and now the CEO of his hypersonic research company, Hypertech Concepts, LLC.

"In a 1964 brief, Roland Quest of McDonnell Douglas Astronautics, St. Louis, presented a fully reusable hypersonic glider, the so-called model 176, intended to be the crew delivery, crew return, crew rescue, and re-supply vehicle for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) crew (see discussion of its requirements in Chapter 1). One vehicle was to be docked with the MOL at all times as an escape and rescue vehicle. It could accommodate up to 13 persons, and like BURAN all components were recoverable. Given the space infrastructure of the 21st Century, it is important to recall that rescue and supply of the manned space facilities requires the ability to land in a major ground based facility at any time from any orbit and orbital location. The cross and down range needed to return to a base of choice also requires high aerodynamic performance, mainly dependent on high lift over drag ratios. Although the airbreathing propulsion concepts that are limited to Mach 6 or less, an excellent inward turning, retractable inlet [DuPont, 1999] can be integrated into the vehicle configuration derived from the FDL series of hypersonic gliders and developed by the Flight Dynamics Laboratory [Zima, 1985] and from the work of the McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company. Collaboration in hypersonic work between the McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company and the McDonnell Aircraft Company, McDonnell Douglas Corporation, and also between the USAF Flight Dynamic Laboratory and McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company provided the impetus and the hardware technology basis to make the space and atmospheric vehicle developments converge to a common set of characteristics.
The Model 176 began with the collaboration of Robert Masek of McDonnell Douglas and Alfred Draper of AFFDL in the late 1950’s on hypersonic control issues. After a series of experimental and flight tests with different configurations the “X” tail configuration and the FDL-7C/D glider configurations emerged as the configuration that was inherently stable over the Mach range and had earth circumferential glide range. The result was the FDL-7MC and then the McDonnell Douglas Model 176. Figure 3-14 compares the two configurations. In the early 1960’s both configurations had windshield for the pilots to see outside. However with today’s automatic flight capability visual requirements can be met with remote viewing systems. The modified FDL-7 C/D configuration was reshaped to have flat panel surfaces, and the windshield provisions were deleted, but it retains all of the essential FDL-7 characteristics. To assure the lift-to-drag ratio for the circumferential range glide, the Model 176 planform was reshaped for a parabolic nose to increase the lift and decrease the nose drag. A spatular nose would have also provided the necessary aerodynamic margin, but the original configuration was retained, with just the windshield provisions deleted. The Model 176 was proposed for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) described in Chapter 1. It was a thoroughly designed and tested configuration with a complete all metal thermal protection system that had the same weight of ceramic tile and carbon-carbon concepts used for the US Shuttle, but was sturdier."
 

Attachments

  • Model-176.JPG
    Model-176.JPG
    21.5 KB · Views: 237
  • 176mod.jpg
    176mod.jpg
    19 KB · Views: 304
  • 176b.jpg
    176b.jpg
    51.5 KB · Views: 314
  • 176.jpg
    176.jpg
    35 KB · Views: 547
Looks interesting, but a few inaccuracies lead me to wonder if things have been 'Jazzed Up'.

flateric said:
In a 1964 brief, Rollie Quest of McDonnell Douglas Astronautics, St. Louis, presented a fully reusable hypersonic glider, the so-called model 176, intended to be the crew delivery, crew return, crew rescue, and re-supply vehicle for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) crew. One vehicle was to be docked with the MOL at all times as an escape and rescue vehicle. It could accommodate up to 13 persons, and like BURAN all components were recoverable.

McDonnell Douglass was formed by a merger in 1967.

Buran was not fully recoverable. The main tank with the primary engines was emphatically not recoverable, the boosters might possibly been recoverable. I think they had parachute clusters attached for that purpose, but whether that capability was actually tested I don't know.

The Model 176 as shown is also not fully recoverable. The evolved version still has to drop its tanks.

The ship doesn't seem to be too far removed from the McDD ILRV designs, as posted on Marcus Lindroos' Hallowed Site http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceLVs/Slides/sld018.htm
See attached pic.
 

Attachments

  • ilrvmd68.jpg
    ilrvmd68.jpg
    47 KB · Views: 385
starviking said:
Looks interesting, but a few inaccuracies lead me to wonder if things have been 'Jazzed Up'.
McDonnell Douglass was formed by a merger in 1967.

Yes, looks strange for McDonnell veteran...may be breach in memories or typo...

starviking said:
Buran was not fully recoverable. The main tank with the primary engines was emphatically not recoverable, the boosters might possibly been recoverable. I think they had parachute clusters attached for that purpose, but whether that capability was actually tested I don't know.

Formally, Buran itself was recoverable, talking about Energia-Buran system, Block A (first stage) save was implemented from the beginning - note that huge bulbs on top and bottom of every block to hold landing gear. It was never tested operationally - Energia just didn't arrive to this step of flight tests. I have very interesting computer animation of how it would look like. Regarding Block C - it would become reusable in future development of Energia - GK-175 and Uragan, getting Buran wing. Parachute recovery of Block C as shown on Czysz's drawing, was considered at the early stages, but winged design was choosen. http://www.buran.ru/htm/41-3.htm
 

Attachments

  • snapshot20070808172117.jpg
    snapshot20070808172117.jpg
    36.1 KB · Views: 293
  • snapshot20070808172007.jpg
    snapshot20070808172007.jpg
    33.4 KB · Views: 269
  • snapshot20070808171838.jpg
    snapshot20070808171838.jpg
    35 KB · Views: 333
  • snapshot20070808172016.jpg
    snapshot20070808172016.jpg
    68.1 KB · Views: 244
  • snapshot20070808171916.jpg
    snapshot20070808171916.jpg
    33.8 KB · Views: 238
  • gk175-10.jpg
    gk175-10.jpg
    84.8 KB · Views: 347
  • gk175-2.gif
    gk175-2.gif
    32.2 KB · Views: 334
flateric said:
starviking said:
Looks interesting, but a few inaccuracies lead me to wonder if things have been 'Jazzed Up'.
McDonnell Douglass was formed by a merger in 1967.

Yes, looks strange for McDonnell veteran...may be breach in memories or typo...

starviking said:
Buran was not fully recoverable. The main tank with the primary engines was emphatically not recoverable, the boosters might possibly been recoverable. I think they had parachute clusters attached for that purpose, but whether that capability was actually tested I don't know.

Formally, Buran itself was recoverable, talking about Energia-Buran system, Block A (first stage) save was implemented from the beginning - note that huge bulbs on top and bottom of every block to hold landing gear. It was never tested operationally - Energia just didn't arrive to this step of flight tests. I have very interesting computer animation of how it would look like. Regarding Block C - it would become reusable in future development of Energia - GK-175 and Uragan, getting Buran wing. Parachute recovery of Block C as shown on Czysz's drawing, was considered at the early stages, but winged design was choosen. http://www.buran.ru/htm/41-3.htm

Ah, you're right. I guess the way he used English in his article, i.e. "Buran...fully recoverable" mislead me. After all, why shouldn't a winged orbiter be fully recoverable. Do we refer to 747's as fully rcoverable aeroplanes? ;)

Interesting winged concept for the Energia core there.

Starviking
 
In Wings And Space by John Chaplin SBN 7110 0150 2 Ian Allan Publishing is this picture...

it doesn't mention anything more than it being a design for a scramjet aerospaceplane. However I'm pretty sure it is a Republic design as I have found a patent relating to it.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=icNnAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA28&dq=scramjet#PPA28,M1

Never seen a disposable wing extension and engine pack like this before!

Regards,
Barry
 

Attachments

  • Republic1.jpg
    Republic1.jpg
    125.2 KB · Views: 733
this design could be a Republic proposal for TVA or space fighter to USAF ?

oh there are A lot of design and proposal
with disposable wing extension or Jetpacks

like German ISTAR project (1/2 STO with payload of 15,4 ton ( 155 ton GLOW))
ISTAR use Ramjet-ring (fuel LH2) after Launch op to 45 km altitude
then the Ramjet-ring separated from rocket core.

source:
Reusable Air breathing Ballistic Space Transport System
by Peter A. Kramer, Rolf D. Bühler
(Institut für Raumfahrtantriebe universität Stuttgart)
reprint in CNES "Future of Launchers in Europe" 19-21 january 1982

ISTAR also know as ITUSTRA in english publication.
 
Well it was published in 1970 so I don't think they will get any more sales from this particular book. Also in the acknowledgements at the back practically every aircraft manufacturer (even Walt Disney) is mentioned except for Republic/Fairchild.
 
Martin Astroplane nuclear - liquid nitrogen propelled. MHD powerplant- magnetohydrodynamic plasma accelerator.
From Missiles and Rockets 4 September 1961.
 

Attachments

  • scan0052 (2).jpg
    scan0052 (2).jpg
    29.6 KB · Views: 2,849
  • scan0052 (3).jpg
    scan0052 (3).jpg
    94 KB · Views: 2,815
  • scan0052 (4).jpg
    scan0052 (4).jpg
    44.5 KB · Views: 2,808

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom