Register here

Author Topic: US Space Shuttle Projects  (Read 142150 times)

Offline PMN1

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 653
US Space Shuttle Projects
« on: May 31, 2007, 07:29:23 am »
A very interesting site concerning the decisons that led to the STS being the way it is.

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/contents.htm

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1589
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #1 on: May 31, 2007, 09:02:00 am »
To complete this website, here's another which narrate full story of early shuttle years (1969-1973). http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceLVs/Slides/index.htm

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

Offline PMN1

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 653
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #2 on: May 31, 2007, 02:01:17 pm »
To complete this website, here's another which narrate full story of early shuttle years (1969-1973). http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceLVs/Slides/index.htm

 ;)

Interesting, I hadn't realised there was a NASA equivalent of Truax's Sea Dragon (even though i've seen that site a few times) admitedley with multiple engines as opposed to the single big engine of Sea Dragon.

NASA

http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceLVs/Slides/sld042.htm

Truax

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/searagon.htm
« Last Edit: May 31, 2007, 02:03:35 pm by PMN1 »

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8186
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #3 on: June 04, 2007, 10:14:44 am »
From AIAA paper 78-1469
Space Shuttle Orbiter Configuration Case History
H. A. Scott (one of Shuttle Orbiter backbone men)
Rockwell International
Los Angeles, California

AlAA AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE
Los Angeles, Calif./August 21-23,1978

Favourite Orionblamblam's C-0157 shuttle also presents)))
« Last Edit: June 04, 2007, 10:18:12 am by flateric »
"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: 20586
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #4 on: March 06, 2008, 10:26:28 am »
Hi,

here is the early methods to launch the NASA Orbiter shuttle at the first
page and a drawing to it with two site jet engines.

http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1972/1972%20-%201458.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1972/1972%20-%201460.html
« Last Edit: March 16, 2011, 06:33:08 am by hesham »

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6802
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #5 on: March 06, 2008, 10:55:13 am »
That's not "early," that's "late." Very near the end of the studies on just how to put the Shuttle into orbit.
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 Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3708
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #6 on: March 06, 2008, 12:20:11 pm »
very late, beyond Phase B study

the Shuttle had planned 2 jet engines for landing (and Shuttle transport)
and a crew escape system (cockpit separates by pirotech, solid rocket, Parasute)

but money cuts and weight problem
went Jet engine first out and crew escape system as last...
« Last Edit: June 02, 2010, 02:54:49 pm by Michel Van »
I love Strange Technology

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #7 on: March 14, 2008, 11:29:57 am »
« Last Edit: March 16, 2011, 06:34:00 am by hesham »

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #8 on: March 16, 2008, 11:42:57 am »
Hi,

the Space Shuttle with new liquid fly-back boosters.

http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1999/1999%20-%202135.html
« Last Edit: March 16, 2011, 06:34:15 am by hesham »

Offline Just call me Ray

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 680
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #9 on: March 16, 2008, 05:28:29 pm »
It's a crappy self-made pic of a Lockheed Unmanned Combat Armed Rotorcraft (UCAR), BTW
Even Saddam realized the hazard of airplanes, and was discovered hiding in a bunker.
- Skydrol from Airliners.net

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2273
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #10 on: March 17, 2008, 03:35:41 am »
Granted, it's Scott who does the masters...  ;)

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #11 on: March 22, 2008, 10:20:17 am »
Hi,

the Boeing and Lockheed shuttle concepts from many designs
to those companies.

http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1970/1970%20-%200285.html
« Last Edit: March 16, 2011, 06:33:23 am by hesham »

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #12 on: April 08, 2008, 05:08:38 am »
« Last Edit: March 16, 2011, 06:32:53 am by hesham »

Offline CFE

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 258
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #13 on: April 08, 2008, 07:29:04 pm »
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.

Also looks like the SSME's are in a recoverable pod, brought back to earth with a pair of retro rockets (presumably solid rockets, but Shuttle OMS engines aren't out of the question.)

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #14 on: April 11, 2008, 04:13:34 am »
Hi,

the shuttle contenders from McDonnell Douglas/Martin Marietta,North American
Rockwell/General Dynamics and Grumman/Boeing.
Also the Convair shuttle of early 1960s.

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1972/1972%20-%200229.html?search=spacecraft%201972
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/concraft.htm
« Last Edit: March 16, 2011, 06:33:39 am by hesham »

Offline starviking

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 850
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #15 on: April 11, 2008, 09:03:46 pm »
I remember reading in an Old AWST (1970?) about a Rockwell proposal for the Phase B (TSTO) Shuttle which involved BAC work on the booster stage.

Does anyone have more info on this, or was it one of those 'briefly floated' ideas that sink beneath history's waves - never to be seen again?

Starviking

Offline starviking

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 850
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #16 on: April 22, 2008, 02:38:27 am »
The Final McDD and NAR Shuttle Proposals from

http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1972/1972%20-%201737.html

Note, that according to the link the NAR Shuttle has abort boosters attached to the shuttle wings - and a thrust termination device at the nose of each SRB.  :'(

Starviking

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #17 on: May 08, 2008, 04:04:04 am »
Hi,

North American/Rocklwell space shuttle of 1972.
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1972/1972%20-%200167.html

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #18 on: May 09, 2008, 01:54:59 pm »

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #19 on: May 19, 2008, 04:20:42 am »
Hi,

the Grumman two-vehicles (booster and orbiter) concept,I think it
is a big surprise to me and you.
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1970/1970%20-%200454.html
« Last Edit: May 19, 2008, 09:44:10 am by hesham »

Offline archipeppe

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1462
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #20 on: May 19, 2008, 05:33:06 am »
Hi,

a flight impression of NASA space shuttle.
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1968/1968%20-%201653.htm

This image depict, obviously, some FDL concept (as a sort of "deformed FDL-5") clearly recognizable are the vertical launch assembly, the two jettisonable tanks (as X 15ish style) and the folded wings extracted just prior landing.

Anyway this is the first image, I've ever seen, that is depicting an FDL mission.
Many thanks Hesham for this interesting contribution about the matter... :D

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #21 on: August 23, 2008, 04:22:11 am »
Hi,

I think anther drawing to Grumman two-vehicles (booster and orbiter) concept.
http://anon.nasa-global.speedera.net/anon.nasa-global/CAIB/CAIB_lowres_chapter1.pdf

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6802
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #22 on: August 23, 2008, 05:50:20 am »
Hi,

I think anther drawing to Grumman two-vehicles (booster and orbiter) concept.

Not Grumman. Maxime Faget's "DC-3" concept.
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 flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8186
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #23 on: August 23, 2008, 06:07:50 am »
This one is *slightly* better
"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: 20586
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #24 on: November 19, 2008, 10:08:18 am »

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2100
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #25 on: November 19, 2008, 02:25:50 pm »
Hesh,

Good guess, buddy. But it's already been covered in over Postwar. Check it out:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5446.0/highlight,hsra.html
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 492
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #26 on: November 19, 2008, 04:16:15 pm »
An to all those interested to heard from the very people that designed,build and operated the Space Shuttle, here is the link to the complete lectures as part of the MIT OpencourseWare.

Quote
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Aeronautics-and-Astronautics/16-885JFall-2005/CourseHome/index.htm?r=iTunes

These are 20+ lectures, each 1:30+ long. It was quite remarkable to hear them.
We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #27 on: November 20, 2008, 10:07:15 am »

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1589
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #28 on: November 21, 2008, 03:10:35 am »
Hello!

I knew that Shuttle used a solid-fuel upper stage, the IUS. At the other end of the performance spectrum, used of the Centaur was stopped only by the Challenger disaster
(frightening story here http://space.co.uk/Features/Newsletters/200811November/FlightsoftheDeathStarPage1/tabid/628/Default.aspx)

But the Agena is new to me
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?N=0&Ntk=all&Ntx=mode%20matchall&Ntt=shuttle%2Fagena

After storable propellants would nicely fit the performance gap between solid and cryogenic fuel...

Agena in a shuttle bay = as dangerous as a Centaur ?
(non cryogenic, but highly toxic corrosive... on the other hand Shuttle OMS use storable propellants)


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

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3708
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #29 on: November 21, 2008, 03:47:47 am »
Quote
Agena in a shuttle bay = as dangerous as a Centaur ?
(non cryogenic, but highly toxic corrosive... on the other hand Shuttle OMS use storable propellants)

the OMS used fuel  is monomethylhydrazine (MMH), which is oxidized with nitrogen tetroxide (N2O4).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomethylhydrazine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinitrogen_tetroxide
safe storable propellants

the Agena used fuel is UDMH , which is oxidized with Inhibited white fuming nitric acid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UDMH
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_fuming_nitric_acid
the oxidizer tank need protective metallic fluoride coating !
Quote
Being a powerful oxidizing agent, nitric acid reacts violently with many organic materials and the reactions may be explosive
something you don't want in a Shuttle cargobay in case the oxidizer tank, feedline or valve leaks

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 love Strange Technology

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1629
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: 8186
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: 20586
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #32 on: December 13, 2008, 08:47:06 am »

Offline starviking

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 850
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: 3708
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: 3708
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: 1589
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: 2100
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: 2100
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: 2100
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: 3708
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: 6802
    • 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: 2617
  • 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: 850
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.

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #45 on: January 12, 2009, 04:12:27 am »

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2100
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #46 on: January 13, 2009, 01:11:28 pm »
Thank you, Scott! Where would we be without you!  ;)
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6802
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #47 on: January 13, 2009, 04:57:15 pm »
Thank you, Scott! Where would we be without you!  ;)

Doomed. DOOOOOOMED!!!!!

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 hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #48 on: January 23, 2009, 09:29:39 am »

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6802
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #49 on: January 23, 2009, 11:15:46 am »
Sigh. That's not a Shuttle project, but a hypersonic research plane.
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 XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2100
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #50 on: January 29, 2009, 10:38:38 am »
The project shown above is covered here  ;):
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5445.0/highlight,hypersonic.html

Now what I have to show you guys is more or less "Shuttle-derived". Not in the sense of NASA's Ares boosters or DIRECT's Jupiter concepts. But since it uses a 2.5 SRB segment as it's first stage, I'd say this falls under the "Shuttle-derived" banner.

Here's the link:
http://www.planetspace.org/lo/osf.htm
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline starviking

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 850
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #51 on: January 29, 2009, 02:31:30 pm »

Now what I have to show you guys is more or less "Shuttle-derived". Not in the sense of NASA's Ares boosters or DIRECT's Jupiter concepts. But since it uses a 2.5 SRB segment as it's first stage, I'd say this falls under the "Shuttle-derived" banner.

Here's the link:
http://www.planetspace.org/lo/osf.htm

Ah, that's the team that lost the COTS ISS resupply contract, isn't it?

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2100
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #52 on: January 29, 2009, 04:10:09 pm »
Yeah. IIRC, It was SpaceX and Rocketplane Kistler who took home the contract.

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

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586

Offline Just call me Ray

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 680
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #54 on: March 15, 2009, 01:51:05 pm »
Cool, it looks like NASA had the idea of using a 747 carrier aircraft since the beginning, and it even looks as if they toyed with the idea of modifying a 707 for suborbital launch! :D
It's a crappy self-made pic of a Lockheed Unmanned Combat Armed Rotorcraft (UCAR), BTW
Even Saddam realized the hazard of airplanes, and was discovered hiding in a bunker.
- Skydrol from Airliners.net

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #55 on: March 16, 2009, 11:00:55 am »

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #56 on: March 17, 2009, 11:52:43 am »
Execuse me;

did we speak about the lockheed LS-200-5 before ?;
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710022630_1971022630.pdf

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #57 on: March 30, 2009, 10:19:49 am »

Offline Brickmuppet

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 138
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #58 on: March 30, 2009, 11:51:49 am »
Hesham,
  I'm pretty sure those engines were a detachable "kit" intended to fly the orbiter between  landing, launching and servicing locations (as opposed to the 747 they actually used). If so, they would not have been used on an orbital flight and landing from orbit would still have been dead stick.

Thanks for the picture! I'd wondered how they were going to attach those things.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6802
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #59 on: March 30, 2009, 11:54:36 am »
Hesham,
  I'm pretty sure those engines were a detachable "kit" intended to fly the orbiter between  landing, launching and servicing locations (as opposed to the 747 they actually used). If so, they would not have been used on an orbital flight and landing from orbit would still have been dead stick.


Correct. It would arguably have been a superior way to ferry the Shuttle back and forth... all you'd need to get the Shuttle back from, say, the Easter Island landing facility would be a cargo aircraft that could deliver the jet pods and fuel. But if the Shuttle did have to put down somewhere unusual, NASA would have a hell of a time picking it up and putting it on the 747.
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 agricola64

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 86
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #60 on: March 30, 2009, 01:02:09 pm »
Correct. It would arguably have been a superior way to ferry the Shuttle back and forth... all you'd need to get the Shuttle back from, say, the Easter Island landing facility would be a cargo aircraft that could deliver the jet pods and fuel. But if the Shuttle did have to put down somewhere unusual, NASA would have a hell of a time picking it up and putting it on the 747.

easter island ... ? "shuttle down" by lee correy?


Offline gtg947h

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 70
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #61 on: March 31, 2009, 03:25:56 pm »

 But if the Shuttle did have to put down somewhere unusual, NASA would have a hell of a time picking it up and putting it on the 747.

Actually, the Jenkins book has a picture of a system for use where the fixed mate/demate facilities aren't available.  Looks like it uses regular cranes.

Offline GTX

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2383
  • All hail the God of Frustration!!!
    • Beyond The Sprues
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #62 on: April 04, 2009, 12:56:07 pm »
A good book on the Space Shuttle, especially the early development and alternative designs is "Space Shuttle: The History of Developing the National Space Transportation System" by Dennis R. Jenkins. Highly recommended.

Regards,

Greg

Offline archipeppe

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1462
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #63 on: April 04, 2009, 02:08:54 pm »
A good book on the Space Shuttle, especially the early development and alternative designs is "Space Shuttle: The History of Developing the National Space Transportation System" by Dennis R. Jenkins. Highly recommended.

Regards,

Greg

More than a good book this is THE book.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6802
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #64 on: April 04, 2009, 02:26:46 pm »
A good book on the Space Shuttle, especially the early development and alternative designs is "Space Shuttle: The History of Developing the National Space Transportation System" by Dennis R. Jenkins. Highly recommended.

Regards,

Greg

More than a good book this is THE book.

There is to be one more edition, after the last Shuttle flight and the program's over.  With luck the publishers will agree with the author that the final edition should be the Giant End-All-Be-All Edition.
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 archipeppe

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1462
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #65 on: April 07, 2009, 12:33:45 am »
Does anyone know anything about this Space Shuttle "Block II" concept?

It cames by John Frassanito & Associates a well known architectural firm specialized in supporting NASA to render new projects.
As far I know this only a design concept w/o any link with a real project.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9458
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #66 on: April 07, 2009, 01:16:46 pm »
Does anyone know if there were any real plans to deliver nuclear weapons from the Space Shuttle cargo bay? Or was this just paranoia on the part of Mstislav Keldysh?

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6802
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #67 on: April 07, 2009, 01:48:51 pm »
Does anyone know if there were any real plans to deliver nuclear weapons from the Space Shuttle cargo bay?

Not really, no. Undoubtedly the USAF noodled the idea around, but orbiting nukes have never been particularly popular.
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 Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9458
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #68 on: April 07, 2009, 03:24:40 pm »
Does anyone know if there were any real plans to deliver nuclear weapons from the Space Shuttle cargo bay?

Not really, no. Undoubtedly the USAF noodled the idea around, but orbiting nukes have never been particularly popular.

Interesting. According to Efraim Akin at the Institute of Applied Mathematics (IPM) of the Soviet Academy of Sciences:

Quote
When we analyzed the trajectories from Vandenberg we saw that it was possible for any military payload to re-enter from orbit in three and a half minutes to the main centers of the USSR, a much shorter time than (a submarine-launched ballastic missile) could make possible (ten minutes from off the coast.)

Quote
The military very sensitive to the variety of possible means of delivering the first strike, suspecting that a first-strike capability might be the Vandenberg Shuttle's objective...

Hendrickx, Bart and Vis, Bert Energiya-Buran: The Soviet Space Shuttle, Springer-Praxis, 2007
p. 54

According to Boris Gubanov, Energiya-Buran chief designer:

Quote
The studies showed that the Space Shuttle could carry out a return maneuver from a half or a single orbit... approach Moscow and Leningrad from the south, and then performing a "dive" drop in this region a nuclear charge, and in combination with other means paralyze the military capability of the Soviet Union.

Hendrickx, Bart and Vis, Bert Energiya-Buran: The Soviet Space Shuttle, Springer-Praxis, 2007
p. 54

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6802
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #69 on: April 07, 2009, 04:10:26 pm »
According to Efraim Akin at the Institute of Applied Mathematics (IPM) of the Soviet Academy of Sciences:

It's always prudent to be a little skeptical of the paranoia inheirant to totalitarian states. Yes, the Shuttle *could* lug nukes to orbit. No, it doesn't make any sense for it to do so. But then, it also doesn't make a whole lot of sense to purge your officer ranks or commit acts of genocide on your own people, but the Kremlin was certainly willing to do *those.* And people who do crazy things assume that everybody else is just as equivalently nutty.

Remember, the Soviets spent a lot more work on FOBS than the US did. The US had abandoned the idea of orbital nukes by the mid sixties or so... for the same reason why lunar based nukes were abandoned: Polaris and Minuteman missiles were so damned cheap.

Had the Shuttle ever hauled nukes to orbit, and been caught doing so, every single launch would have been the start of WWIII. And using the Shuttle itself as a "bomber" is just plain silly. Even in the early days, when Shuttle turnarond time would be measured in weeks, not the many months it actually turned out to be, it would still take *days* to prep a Shuttle for launch. A Minuteman? Just turn your key, sir. Not exactly a reasonable first strike weapon.
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 hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #70 on: June 04, 2009, 10:08:32 am »
Hi,

a concept from 1947,a modern space shuttle.
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-432/ch4.htm

Offline archipeppe

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1462
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #71 on: June 04, 2009, 11:26:32 am »
Maybe the first design is something that belongs to end '40s, but the second one for sure not.
It seems to be some NASAish study of early '70s when Shuttle project was still not frozen.

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #72 on: June 05, 2009, 12:20:26 pm »
Thank you my dear Archipeppa,

and here is a Fully-reusable shuttle concept. North American Rockwell c. 1970.
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/S/Space_Shuttle.html

Offline archipeppe

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1462
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #73 on: June 06, 2009, 01:11:28 am »
Thank you my dear Archipeppa,

and here is a Fully-reusable shuttle concept. North American Rockwell c. 1970.
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/S/Space_Shuttle.html

Interesting post Hesham, because this kind of design almost represents what NASA really did wanted when started STS programme.
TSTO, both stages manned and fully reusable. The second stage winged or, at least, a lifting body with a wide pressurized section and a small Cargo Bay.

All these things before that NASA was forced to have the USAF's "help". Military wanted at least only two things: a wider (as possible) Cargo Bay to host huge KH satellites and the greater cross-range as possibile to launch from Vandemberg AFB and return to Edwards.
Exactly what the the actual Shuttle would be.....

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #74 on: June 06, 2009, 10:00:17 am »
Thank you my dear Achipeppe,

and again shuttle concepts.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Space_Shuttle_concepts.jpg

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3708
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #75 on: June 06, 2009, 11:33:28 am »
nice

from Left to right, top to down

Convair  - SERV
Lockheed - Starclipper
North American - Phase A shuttle design
Baseline Shuttle with unmanned Cargo stage
McDonnell Douglas Space Shuttle Phase A ?

NASA Baseline version
I love Strange Technology

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #76 on: June 08, 2009, 02:24:28 pm »


  The shuttle concepts,what was this project in the second picture ?.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/postneo/3209064558/

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6802
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #77 on: June 08, 2009, 10:12:47 pm »
Grumman-Boeing H-33.
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 hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586
« Last Edit: November 28, 2014, 05:01:15 am by hesham »

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #79 on: June 23, 2009, 10:21:50 am »

  The McDonnell Douglas 8 mach two stage (booster-orbiter) shuttle.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720015248_1972015248.pdf

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2100
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline robunos

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1659
  • You're Mad, You Are.....
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #81 on: June 27, 2009, 02:24:52 pm »
Quote
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/06/24/side-mount-shuttle.html

It's Shuttle-C all over again..............

cheers,
         Robin.
Where ARE the Daleks when you need them......

Offline PMN1

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 653


Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #84 on: July 04, 2009, 11:41:52 am »


  I can't believe that,Rockwell shuttle with canard !.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740008138_1974008138.pdf

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8186
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #85 on: July 05, 2009, 08:19:31 am »
'Space Tomcat', yeah
"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: 20586
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #86 on: August 15, 2009, 11:24:09 am »
Hi,

herte is the North American/Rockwell impression of the space shuttle concept
of the 1971.
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1971/1971%20-%200148.html
« Last Edit: August 15, 2009, 11:25:52 am by hesham »

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #87 on: August 17, 2009, 10:29:32 am »


Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #89 on: August 19, 2009, 10:26:08 am »

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #91 on: August 22, 2009, 12:53:54 pm »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9458
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #92 on: August 24, 2009, 10:40:56 am »
Martin Astrorocket (1963)

Text by Marcus Lindroos from the late Space pages. Since Marcus doesn't seem to be creating a new web site for the pages, I thought that I would add this information.

Quote
Both NASA and the military investigated various reusable TSTO launch vehicle concepts during the early 1960s. In November 1962, the heads of the military and civilian future space transportation efforts signed an agreement to coordinate their hypersonic research vehivle programs. The U.S. Air Force initially was very interested in airbreathing HTHL SSTO aerospaceplanes -- General Dynamics and North American received $1.5-million contracts for preliminary USAF concept studies in June 1963 and the Department of Defense had spent some $46 million on advanced airbreathing vehicle research by FY 1963 -- but quickly concluded that scramjets and other propulsion systems were not yet sufficiently lightweight and efficient for single-stage vehicles. Airbreathing propulsion and rocket propulsion on HTHL TSTO boosters, on the other hand, would be bigger since they require large wings and huge hydrogen fuel tanks and consequently have a higher dry mass which translates to higher cost. For these reasons, NASA preferred all-rocket TSTO boosters for its "Space Transporter" class of vehicle, since the required engines already had been developed for the Saturn program. The Space Transporter studies were based on the following specifications: (1) 10 passengers + crew of 2 with 3,000kg of cargo to LEO, (2) reduced payload into polar orbit, (3) maximum acceleration of three G, (4) 95% mission reliability and 99.9% probability of passenger survival, and (5) launch rate options of four, eight and sixteen per month over an operational period of 10 years. In general, the 1960s RLV studies were focused on mission/technology requirements rather than detailed vehicle design. NASA's main priorities for the 1970s were large space stations and manned lunar & planetary missions; the reusable "space transporters" and post-Saturn heavy-lift rockets were simply regarded as necessary adjuncts to reduce the transportation cost.

NASA initially regarded horizontally launched TSTOs as safer for passenger transport than vertically launched systems, since the launch G-loads are reduced and the abort characteristics are better than for VLs. However, the US Air Force had more flexibility with respect to G limits and was willing to consider both vertically and horizontally launched Aerospaceplanes. Martin's "Astrorocket" would have been launched vertically because the designers felt the VL mode frees design from gross liftoff weight constraints (Martin regarded about 450t as the upper limit for a HTHL TSTO). The vertical takeoff mode would provide additional mission flexibility since no rocket powered horizontal launch sled would be required. The Astrorocket would have used less efficient but storable hypergolic propellants on both stages so consequently the liftoff weight was high: 1134t. The payload capability to a 555km orbit was only 2.27t and the crew of three astronauts could stay in orbit for up to two weeks. Both stages carry turbojets for powered landing and self-ferry between launch sites. The liftoff thrust would be 13,350KN and stage separation would occur at an altitude of 64km while the vehicle is travelling at 9600km/h.

Specifications:

Liftoff Thrust: 1,320,820 kgf. Total Mass: 1,133,786 kg. Core Diameter: 7.0 m. Total Length: 78.0 m. Flyaway Unit Cost $: 36.00 million. in 1985 unit dollars.

Stage Number: 1. 1 x Astrorocket-1 Gross Mass: 981,859 kg. Empty Mass: 132,000 kg. Thrust (vac): 1,500,000 kgf. Isp: 293 sec. Burn time: 164 sec. Isp(sl): 258 sec. Diameter: 7.0 m. Span: 40.0 m. Length: 65.0 m. Propellants: N2O4/Aerozine-50 No Engines: 9. LR87+

Stage Number: 2. 1 x Astrorocket-2 Gross Mass: 151,927 kg. Empty Mass: 23,500 kg. Thrust (vac): 220,000 kgf. Isp: 345 sec. Burn time: 181 sec. Isp(sl): 230 sec. Diameter: 3.0 m. Span: 20.0m. Length: 30.0 m. Propellants: N2O4/Aerozine-50 No Engines: 1. LR87+

Bibliography:

"Reusable Launch Vehicles" -- Osmun, Space/Aeronautics 1964/September/p.43

"Space Transporter Study" -- SPACEFLIGHT 1965/p.124

Frontiers of Space -- Bono & Gatland, Macmillan, New York, 1969.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070609090821/www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceLVs/Slides/sld002.htm
« Last Edit: August 24, 2009, 10:46:17 am by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9458
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #93 on: August 25, 2009, 12:33:59 pm »
North American and General Dynamics Phase B Shuttle (1970)

Text by Marcus Lindroos from the late Space pages.

Quote
Illustration depicts an early shuttle Phase-B design by North American / General Dynamics. NASA awarded two $8-million Phase-B contracts to consortiums led by North American Rockwell and McDonnell-Douglas in May 1970. The booster (model B8D) was based on an earlier General Dynamics Phase-A study while the low-crossrange straight-wing “NAR-130” orbiter was designed by North American Rockwell.

North American “NAR-130” low crossrange orbiter reentry. The straight-wing design would remain a secondary option until late 1971 mostly due to internal NASA politics although nobody seriously believed it would ever be built.

North American / General Dynamics shuttle on the launch pad. When NASA awarded the shuttle Phase-B study contracts, it was still requesting funding for simultaneously developing its 12-man space station and the shuttle. Each project would have cost $5 billion in FY 1971-77 but sceptics in Congress regarded them as a precommitment to a $50-100 billion manned mission to Mars. The Nixon Administration was also skeptical since the space program would have to compete with social programs and the Vietnam War effort for funds.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050313201532/www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceLVs/Slides/sld029.htm
« Last Edit: August 27, 2009, 02:13:29 pm by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9458
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #94 on: August 25, 2009, 12:51:13 pm »
North American and General Dynamics Phase B Shuttle (1970)

Text by Marcus Lindroos from the late Space pages.

Quote
GD booster / NAR orbiter orbiter separation at 70km altitude.The orbiter version depicted here is the elegant “NAR-134-B” delta wing high-crossrange version. It would have weighed 98,762kg empty and a 9,072kg payload could be accomodated. For some reason, the Phase B contract only called for a 6,804-kg payload capability to a 500-km 55 de.g orbit. This was similar to Max Faget’s “DC-3” specifications, although the US Air Force wanted much more. But the system had considerable growth potential since the orbiter/booster landing jets might be removed on some missions. NASA still had not decided if the shuttle would make powered or unpowered glide landings, but there was considerable evidence that dead-stick glide landings were feasible although the jet engines were retained for now.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050313201532/www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceLVs/Slides/sld029.htm
« Last Edit: August 27, 2009, 02:13:43 pm by Triton »

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7671
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #95 on: August 25, 2009, 02:40:50 pm »
From Aviation Week 9-17 1963, the Astrorocket concept :
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9458
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #96 on: August 26, 2009, 09:59:36 am »
First image is a model of the McDonnell Douglas Martin Marietta space shuttle (1970-71) in 1:96 scale on display at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21392874@N00/3673223829/

Second image is a model of the McDonnell Douglas Martin Marietta space shuttle (1970-71) in1:80 scale on display at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21392874@N00/3674033746/in/photostream/

Third image is a model of the McDonnell Douglas Martin Marietta space shuttle, scale unknown, in the hands of a private collector.
http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/000361.html

Fourth image is a model of the McDonnell Douglas/Martin Marietta High Cross Range Orbiter, scale unknown (note golf ball for size), in the hands of a private collector.
http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/000361.html

Fifth image is a High Cross Range Orbiter model (photo from McDonnell Douglas, unknown scale, date or location)
http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/000361.html

Sixth image is of High Cross Range Orbiter models, scale unknown, in the hands of a private collector.
http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/000361.html
« Last Edit: August 26, 2009, 11:14:29 am by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9458
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #97 on: August 26, 2009, 10:44:28 am »
First image is a model of the Grumman/Boeing Phase C Orbiter.

Remaining images are of a model of the Grumman Phase C orbiter and booster?
http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/000361.html
« Last Edit: August 26, 2009, 11:14:53 am by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9458
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #98 on: August 26, 2009, 03:40:12 pm »
Artwork of Lockheed LS-200 "Starclipper" Phase A shuttle from 1975 Russian edition of Frontiers of Space by Philip Bono and Kenneth Gatland.
http://epizodsspace.airbase.ru/bibl/bono/persp/01.html
« Last Edit: August 26, 2009, 03:58:35 pm by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9458
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #99 on: August 26, 2009, 04:19:48 pm »
Space shuttle concept models from the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brokenarc/3350715144/

Model, Space Shuttle, Grumman/Boeing F-1 Expendable Booster Concept, 1 from the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum Collections Database web site:

Quote
NASA studied this Grumman concept for a partially reusable space transportation system during the Shuttle research effort in 1969-1972. This two-stage system featured a reusable orbiter and disposable external fuel tank attached to a recoverable booster similar to the Saturn V launch vehicle used to send astronauts to the Moon. After the booster burned out and was jettisoned, the orbiter's engines, fed from the attached disposable tank, would ignite for final ascent into orbit. The booster would land in the ocean and be retrieved; the orbiter would return from space to a runway landing. This concept sought to reduce cost by making use of proven, existing booster technology rather than developing a new launch vehicle for the orbiter. NASA transferred a variety of concept models to the Museum after settling on the final Space Shuttle design.

Model, Space Shuttle, Grumman/Boeing F-1 Expendable Booster Concept, 1 from the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum collection.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2009, 02:14:11 pm by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9458
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #100 on: August 27, 2009, 02:05:00 pm »
Model, Space Shuttle, Grumman 2-Stage SRB Parallel Burn Concept, 1:192 from the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum Collections Database web site:

Quote
NASA studied this concept for a partially reusable space transportation system during the Shuttle research effort in 1969-1972. This two-stage system featured two solid rocket boosters (used as a 1st stage) and a delta-wing fly-back orbiter with engines fed by an external liquid propellant tank (used for both stages of ascent). Both the boosters and external tank would be jettisoned when their propellants were expended, but the boosters would be recovered and reused. NASA transferred a variety of concept models to the Museum after settling on the final Space Shuttle design, which was similar to this concept.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2009, 02:13:01 pm by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9458
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #101 on: August 27, 2009, 02:12:39 pm »
Model, Space Shuttle, Lockheed Fully Reusable Concept, 1:200 from the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum Collections Database web site:

Quote
NASA studied this Lockheed concept for a two-stage, fully reusable space transportation system during the Shuttle research effort in 1969-1972. Unlike similar designs that perched the orbiter on top of a booster vehicle, this one attached the orbiter underneath. The booster would lift the orbiter to a set altitude, then separate and depart as the orbiter ignited its engines to continue its ascent into space. Both piloted vehicles would return to land. The upswept wings on these vehicles also differed from other design concepts. NASA transferred a variety of concept models to the Museum after settling on the final Space Shuttle design.

Marcus Lindroos identifies this concept as the Boeing/Lockheed Phase B delta-wing shuttle concept (1970).
http://web.archive.org/web/20050313201406/www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceLVs/Slides/sld028.htm
« Last Edit: August 27, 2009, 02:22:59 pm by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9458
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #102 on: August 27, 2009, 02:18:43 pm »
Model, Space Shuttle, General Dynamics / Convair FR-4 2-Stage Triamese Concept from the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum Collections Database web site:

Quote
NASA studied this General Dynamics/Convair concept for a fully reusable space transportation system early in the Shuttle research effort of 1969-1972. This two-stage system featured three piloted fly-back vehicles, an orbiter sandwiched between two boosters, all using liquid propellants. All would ignite together for lift-off, and the boosters would detach and fly to land when their fuel was consumed while the orbiter continued on to space. All three vehicles had snap-out wings and jet engines for return flight. NASA transferred a variety of concept models to the Museum after settling on the final Space Shuttle design.

Marcus Lindroos states that the General Dynamics / Convair FR-4 2-Stage Triamese Concept is from 1968.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050310051817/www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceLVs/Slides/sld020.htm
« Last Edit: August 27, 2009, 02:25:16 pm by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9458
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #103 on: August 27, 2009, 02:30:03 pm »
Model, Space Shuttle, Delta-Wing High Cross-Range Orbiter Concept from the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum Collections Database web site:

Quote
NASA used this Space Shuttle orbiter concept model in wind tunnel tests to learn about the flight characteristics of the vehicle's shape. Although the orbiter would spend most of its time in space, its aerodynamic shape would affect its passage through the atmosphere during launch and descent. This model has wide delta wings for greater cross-range maneuverability during final descent; that is, without engine power, it could glide across a wider swath of land to reach the runway than other wing shapes. However, delta wings meant a heavier orbiter and more surface heating during reentry. NASA transferred a variety of wind tunnel and concept models to the Museum after settling on the final Space Shuttle design.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9458
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #104 on: August 27, 2009, 02:36:59 pm »
Model, Space Shuttle, Martin Marietta Spacemaster Two-Stage Concept, 1:96 from the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum Collections Database web site:

Quote
NASA studied this Martin Marietta concept for a fully reusable space transportation system during the Shuttle research effort in 1969-1972. It featured two piloted fly-back vehicles - a twin-fuselage booster craft and a delta-wing orbiter - in a two-stage configuration. The liquid-propellant booster would carry the orbiter to a set altitude, then detach and be piloted back to land. After separation the orbiter would ignite its own engines to reach orbit. Both vehicles had retractable air-breathing jet engines for powered airplane-like flight during descent to landing. NASA transferred a variety of concept models to the Museum after settling on the final Space Shuttle design.

NOTE: It appears that the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum only has a model of the orbiter from the Martin Marietta "Spacemaster" concept. A twin-body booster would have been attached to the orbiter.

http://web.archive.org/web/20050310052527/www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceLVs/Slides/sld027.htm
« Last Edit: August 27, 2009, 05:24:33 pm by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9458
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #105 on: August 27, 2009, 02:41:21 pm »
Model, Space Shuttle, McDonnell Douglas / Martin Marietta Reusable Concept, 1:80 from the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum Collections Database web site:

Quote
NASA studied this McDonnell Douglas/Martin Marietta concept for a fully reusable space transportation system during the Shuttle research effort in 1969-1972. This two-stage system featured two piloted fly-back vehicles, a booster and an orbiter, both using liquid propellant. The booster would carry the orbiter to a set altitude, then detach to return to base. After separation, the orbiter's engines would ignite for final ascent into orbit. This concept had a second configuration for heavy payloads (such as large space station components) that did not need an astronaut crew; the booster, augmented by six solid rocket boosters, would launch a large disposable cargo carrier. NASA transferred a variety of concept models to the Museum after settling on the final Space Shuttle design.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9458
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #106 on: August 27, 2009, 02:46:21 pm »
Model, Space Shuttle, McDonnell Douglas / Martin Marietta Reusable Concept, 1:96 from the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum Collections Database web site:

Quote
NASA studied this McDonnell Douglas/Martin Marietta concept for a fully reusable space transportation system during the Shuttle research effort in 1969-1972. This two-stage system featured two piloted fly-back vehicles, a swept-wing booster and a delta-wing orbiter, both with large internal liquid propellant tanks visible in the cutaway. The 12-engine rocketplane would lift the attached orbiter to a set altitude, then detach to fly home as the orbiter ignited to complete its ascent into space. The orbiter's delta wings and retractable jet engines would improve maneuverability for the return flight to landing. NASA transferred a variety of concept models to the Museum after settling on the final Space Shuttle design.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9458
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #107 on: August 27, 2009, 02:52:18 pm »
Model, Space Shuttle,Grumman/Boeing G-3 2-Stage Fully-Reusable Concept, 1:192 from the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum Collections Database web site

Quote
NASA studied this Grumman concept for a fully reusable space transportation system during the Shuttle research effort in 1969-1972. It featured two piloted fly-back vehicles - a booster and a large orbiter - both having retractable jet engines for powered descent to landing. All propellants were carried inside each vehicle. The booster had straight wings, but the orbiter had large delta wings for better maneuverability. NASA transferred a variety of concept models to the Museum after settling on the final Space Shuttle design.

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 12939
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #108 on: August 27, 2009, 02:54:55 pm »
Brilliant! I remember seeing these as a kid in various illustrations, and was so sure then that the year 2000 would be full of space travels and amazing aircraft...
30 years down the line, the outlook is definitely dull... Burt Rutan excepted of course, as he provides BOTH space travel AND amazing aircraft for younger generations to dream...

As for the Boeing/Lockheed Phase B delta-wing shuttle concept, is the Lockheed shuttle design related in some way to their L-301 (X-24C) proposal? There seems to be some likeness in configuration and general lines.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9458
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #109 on: August 27, 2009, 03:38:21 pm »
Model, Space Shuttle,Grumman/Boeing 2-Stage F-1 Flyback Booster Concept, 1:192 from the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum Collections Database web site:

Quote
NASA studied this Grumman/Boeing concept for a partially reusable space transportation system during the Shuttle research effort in 1969-1972. This two-stage system featured two piloted fly-back vehicles, a booster and an orbiter, both using liquid propellant. The orbiter was mounted on a large external tank above the booster. Powered by five F-1 engines, the booster would carry the orbiter to a set altitude, then detach to return to base. After separation, the orbiter's engines, fed from the tank, would ignite for final ascent into orbit. Moving all the orbiter's propellants into a disposable external tank made the orbiter smaller and lighter-weight. NASA transferred a variety of concept models to the Museum after settling on the final Space Shuttle design.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9458
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #110 on: August 27, 2009, 03:49:28 pm »
Model, Space Shuttle,Grumman 2-Stage LRB Parallel Burn Concept, 1:192 from the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum Collections Database web site:

Quote
NASA studied this Grumman Aerospace concept for a partially reusable space transportation system during the Shuttle research effort in 1969-1972. This two-stage system featured a piloted fly-back orbiter mounted on a disposable tank attached to two recoverable liquid propellant boosters. The boosters and the orbiter's engines would ignite together for liftoff. When the boosters burned all their propellant, they would be jettisoned and fall to the ocean for recovery, while the orbiter's engines, still fed from the tank, powered the vehicle into orbit. In the final analysis, solid rocket boosters were chosen over liquid rocket boosters in a design quite similar to this one. NASA transferred a variety of concept models to the Museum after settling on the final Space Shuttle design.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9458
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #111 on: August 27, 2009, 03:55:48 pm »
Model, Space Shuttle, Swing Engine Concept, 1:100 from the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum Collections Database web site:

Quote
This concept model depicts an alternative arrangement of the space shuttle's main engines. The three engines arranged in a row would be attached to the external fuel tank while firing and then be raised and stowed in the aft section of the orbiter after ascent was completed. This arrangement put the main engines close to the same level as the solid rocket boosters on each side and kept propellants and their plumbing out of the orbiter. In the final design the three main engines were clustered in a triangle in the aft end of the orbiter, and propellants were routed into the orbiter to feed the engines. NASA transferred various concept models to the Museum after settling on the final space shuttle design.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9458
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #112 on: August 27, 2009, 04:03:06 pm »
Model, Space Shuttle, Straight-Wing Low Cross-Range Orbiter Concept from the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum Collections Database web site:

Quote
NASA used this Space Shuttle orbiter concept model in wind tunnel tests to learn about the flight characteristics of the vehicle's shape. Although the orbiter would spend most of its time in space, its aerodynamic shape would affect its passage through the atmosphere during launch and descent. This straight wing model would have less cross-range maneuverability during final descent; that is, without engine power during the downward glide, it would have to complete its descent very close to a runway. However, straight wings meant a lighter-weight orbiter and less surface heating during reentry. NASA transferred a variety of wind tunnel and concept models to the Museum after settling on the final Space Shuttle design.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9458
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #113 on: August 27, 2009, 04:07:17 pm »
Model, Space Shuttle, North American Rockwell Partially Reusable Concept, 1:200 from the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum Collections Database web site:

Quote
This concept for a partially reusable space transportation system emerged near the end of the Shuttle research effort in 1971-1972. It featured a piloted orbiter with a disposable external fuel tank attached to two liquid propellant booster rockets. In this stage-and-a-half system all engines (four per booster and four on the orbiter) would ignite for lift-off. After the boosters burned out and were jettisoned, the orbiter, fed from the disposable tank, would continue into orbit. The final Shuttle concept was quite similar to this but had two reusable solid-propellant boosters and only three orbiter engines. NASA transferred a variety of concept models to the Museum after settling on the final Space Shuttle design.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9458
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #114 on: August 27, 2009, 04:12:01 pm »
Model, Space Shuttle, North American Rockwell Fully Reusable Concept, 1:100 from the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum Collections Database web site:

Quote
NASA studied this North American Rockwell original concept for a fully reusable space transportation system early in the Shuttle research effort in 1969-1972. This two-stage system featured two fly-back, straight-wing vehicles, a booster and an orbiter, both using liquid propellants stored internally. The large rocketplane would boost the orbiter to a set altitude, where the orbiter would detach and ignite its engines for the ascent into space. The winged booster was powered by multiple rocket engines for ascent plus retractable jet engines for returning and landing like an airplane. The orbiter, sized for two pilots and ten passengers on roundtrip flights to space, also had jet engines for descent to landing. NASA transferred a variety of concept models to the Museum after settling on the final Space Shuttle design.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9458
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #115 on: August 27, 2009, 04:18:37 pm »
Model, Space Shuttle, North American Rockwell Expendable Booster Concept,1:200 from the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum Collections Database web site:

Quote
NASA studied this concept for a partially reusable space transportation system during the Shuttle research effort in 1969-1972. This two-stage system featured an orbiter and disposable external fuel tank attached to a disposable first-stage similar to the Saturn V booster previously used to launch astronauts to the Moon. After the booster burned out and was jettisoned, the orbiter's engines, fed from the attached disposable tank, would ignite for final ascent into orbit. This concept sought to reduce cost by making use of proven, existing booster technology rather than developing a new launch vehicle for the orbiter. NASA transferred a variety of concept models to the Museum after settling on the final Space Shuttle design.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9458
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #116 on: August 27, 2009, 04:24:39 pm »
Model, Space Shuttle, North American Rockwell 2-Stage Concept, 1:200 from the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum Collections Database web site:

Quote
NASA studied this North American Rockwell concept for a partially reusable space transportation system during the Shuttle research effort in 1969-1972. This two-stage system featured two piloted fly-back vehicles, a booster and an orbiter, both using liquid propellant. The orbiter was mounted on a large external tank above the booster. Powered by five F-1 engines, the booster would carry the orbiter to a set altitude, then detach to return to base. After separation, the orbiter's engines, fed from the tank, would ignite for final ascent into orbit. Moving all the orbiter's propellants into a disposable external tank made the orbiter smaller and lighter-weight. NASA transferred a variety of concept models to the Museum after settling on the final Space Shuttle design.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9458
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #117 on: August 27, 2009, 04:30:38 pm »
Model, Space Shuttle, North American Rockwell - Convair Fully Reusable Concept from the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum Collections Database web site:

Quote
NASA studied this North American Rockwell concept for a two-stage, fully reusable space transportation system during the Shuttle research effort in 1969-1972. It featured two piloted fly-back vehicles--a large booster and a smaller orbiter, both with delta wings and pop-up jet engines for powered return to landing. The booster would lift the orbiter to a set altitude, then separate and depart as the orbiter ignited its engines to continue ascent into space. All liquid propellants were carried inside each vehicle. NASA transferred a variety of concept models to the Museum after settling on the final Space Shuttle design.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2009, 04:46:01 pm by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9458
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #118 on: August 27, 2009, 04:45:44 pm »
Model,Space Shuttle,Grumman/Boeing H-33 2-Stage Partially-Reusable Concept,1:192 from the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum Collections Database web site:

Quote
NASA studied this Grumman concept for a partially reusable space transportation system during the Shuttle research effort in 1969-1972. It featured two piloted fly-back vehicles - a large booster and a small orbiter - both with retractable jet engines for powered descent to landing. This design reduced the orbiter's weight and size by putting its propellants into disposable external fuel tanks that could be jettisoned after ascent. NASA transferred a variety of concept models to the Museum after settling on the final Space Shuttle design.

Grumman/Boeing H-33 "Phase B" Shuttle (1971) from Marcus Lindroos' late Space pages:
http://web.archive.org/web/20050313201421/www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceLVs/Slides/sld033.htm
« Last Edit: August 27, 2009, 04:59:17 pm by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9458
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #119 on: August 27, 2009, 04:55:09 pm »
Model, Space Shuttle, Lockheed Starclipper LS200-8 Stage-and-a-Half Concept,1:96 from the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum Collections Database web site:

Quote
NASA studied this Lockheed Martin concept for a partially reusable space transportation system during the Shuttle research effort in 1969-1971. It featured a delta-wing orbiter vehicle flanked by two large external fuel tanks. It was called a stage-and-a-half vehicle because the orbiter would launch itself without a booster and fly all the way to orbit using its own rocket engines fed by the external fuel tanks (the half-stage), which would be jettisoned when empty. The reusable orbiter had retractable wings and air-breathing jet engines that deployed after reentry, enabling it to fly like an airplane to landing. NASA transferred a variety of concept models to the Museum after settling on the final Space Shuttle design.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9458
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #120 on: August 28, 2009, 12:42:11 pm »
Wind tunnel presentation model from the estate of Dr. Maxime Faget. Bonham's Auction House Sale 17402 - The Space Sale: Celebrating the 40th Anniversary of the First Manned Lunar Landing, New York, 16 Jul 2009.

Description from catalog:
Quote
Model of early 1970s Space Shuttle Orbiter, stainless steel 17 inches long. Mounted at angle on wood base. The base bears a plaque reading: "Presented to Max Faget on the occasion of his retirement, December 1981. From the Personnel of the Engineering and Analysis Division. 'Old configurations never die, they just get mounted.'"

This design is virtually identical to that in Faget's 1971 patent application. The model is mounted at an angle to replicate the high angel of attack planned for re-entry by this vehicle.

Catalog of the sale:
http://forms.butterfields.com/pdf/17402_Space_lowres.pdf
« Last Edit: August 28, 2009, 02:09:20 pm by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9458
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #121 on: August 28, 2009, 12:56:15 pm »
Lockheed Shuttle Prototype model from the estate of Dr. Maxime Faget. Bonham's Auction House Sale 17402 - The Space Sale: Celebrating the 40th Anniversary of the First Manned Lunar Landing, New York, 16 Jul 2009.

Description from catalog:
Quote
Lockheed Space Shuttle model designed by Lockheed Missiles and Space Company, 10 inches long, being a delta winged orbiter which slides onto a metal bracket to suspend above a triangular wood base. A plaque on the base reads: "Lockheed Space Shuttle, M.A. Faget"

This model design is associated with NASA's July 1970 Alternative Space Shuttle Concept (ASSC) initiative to determine the feasibility of a non-fully reusable shuttle. Plans for this orbiter were for use with either a V-shaped stage-and-a-half (expendable tanks), a reusable booster, or a combination of both.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2009, 02:09:42 pm by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9458
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #122 on: August 28, 2009, 01:15:38 pm »
Early Space Shuttle Model from the estate of Dr. Maxime Faget. Bonham's Auction House Sale 17402 - The Space Sale New York, 16 Jul 2009.

Description from catalog:
Quote
Model of a reusable booster and space orbiter, plastic and metal, 25 inches long. The lower booster vehicle has 8 rocket engines at the rear and a hole to allow placement for a display rod (no longer with the model). Two sets of jet engines on each wing were designed to allow this booster to make a runway landing after returning from orbit. The orbiter is mounted "piggy-back" on top of the booster and held in place by three metal pins. Each vehicle has a large vertical and delta-shaped horizontal stabilizers.

This model is associate with the initial design concepts at the Manned Spacecraft Center led by Dr. Faget. It very closely resembles the drawings submitted by Dr. Faget to the US Patent Office titled "Space Shuttle Vehicle and System." He received a patent for his design in November 1972. The model is constructed in the same manner as models used in NASA wind and shock tunnels.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2009, 03:02:58 pm by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9458
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #123 on: August 28, 2009, 01:25:56 pm »
North American Rockwell and General Dynamics Space Shuttles Model, from the estate of Dr.Maxime Faget. Bonham's Auction House Sale 17402 - The Space Sale New York, 16 Jul 2009.

Description from catalog:
Quote
A large and impressive model set by Rockwell and General Dynamics, composite material, metal, and wood. Features a pair of shuttle orbiters each designed to use a common booster vehicle. The booster, 15 inches tall, is mounted vertically at the center rear of a wood display stand. It has 12 silver rocket engines at the rear, a large V-tail stabilizer, and detailed paint and decal markings. The straight-wing orbiter, 11 inches long,and the delta-wing orbiter, 10 ½ inches long, each have two rear rocket engines. Both have detailed paint and decal markings. The landing gear of each is permanently mounted to the base, though each can alternatively be lifted from metal pegs on the landing gear and mounted to the booster vehicle. A large metal plaque on base reads: “Space Shuttle - North American Rockwell Space Division - General Dynamics Convair Division.” Smaller plaques alongside read: “Limited Cross Range Orbiter,” “Maximum Cross Range Orbiter.”

The designs for these vehicles were released by these contractors during November 1970, in response to NASA’s Phase B Integral Launch and Re-entry Vehicle competition.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2009, 01:42:36 pm by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9458
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #124 on: August 28, 2009, 01:34:11 pm »
Space Shuttle Reusable Engines Prototype model from the estate of Dr. Maxime Faget. Bonham's Auction House Sale 17402 - The Space Sale: Celebrating the 40th Anniversary of the First Manned Lunar Landing, New York, 16 Jul 2009.

Quote
Prototype model displaying reusable engines for the Space Shuttle, made by Technical Services Division, MSC, Houston, TX, plastic, metal and decals, comprising a 9 inch wide aft end of an orbiter alongside a 5½ inch diameter external tank, mounted onto a 13 by 9 inch wood base. With original 15 by 9 by 10 inch wood carrying case. There are four modified Apollo J-2 rocket engines attached to the base of the external tank. Hinged arms allow these four engines to be moved and mated to the orbiter section. There is a removable interstage ring attached to the external tank. The inside lid of the carrying case has a series of scale drawings titled: “Orbiter Configuration 040B and External Tanks. MSC-SDD- Oct. 12, 1971.” A side view shows how the orbiter and external tank are located above a booster vehicle. Additional side and aft drawings show the translation of the rocket engines from the external tank to the orbiter. The case lid bears a NASA meatball logo.

A new propulsion concept by Maxime Faget. This design allowed for the engines to be reused after removal from the external tank or to be jettisoned reducing weight during an ascent abort. The design was never implemented for a shuttle flight vehicle, but it was patented in December 1975 by Dr. Faget, W. Petynia, and W. Taub.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2009, 02:10:04 pm by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9458
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #125 on: August 30, 2009, 09:52:00 pm »
McDonnell Douglas Space Shuttle model from the estate of Dr. Maxime Faget. Bonham's Auction House Sale 17402 - The Space Sale: Celebrating the 40th Anniversary of the First Manned Lunar Landing, New York, 16 Jul 2009.

Quote
Model of a concept Space Shuttle designed by McDonnell Douglas, plastic, metal and decals. Comprises a booster, 10 inches long, and a delta-winged orbiter, 6 inches long. The orbiter is separable from the booster section. The two parts slot onto pins above a wooden base with a plaque reading: “McDonnell Douglas Space Shuttle, McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company.”

This particular concept was one of the many industry designs responding to a 1970 NASA Phase B competition for an integrated launch and re-entry vehicle, commonly called a space shuttle. The entire vehicle would be launched vertically with the larger booster section returning to a runway landing for reuse. The orbiter section would continue into earth orbit and perform a gliding re-entry and runway landing once the mission was completed. Presented to Dr. Faget during the early 1970’s.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2009, 12:17:57 am by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9458
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #126 on: August 31, 2009, 12:21:47 am »
McDonnell Douglas Space Shuttle, 1971

Scott "Orionblamblam" Lowther on the The Unwanted Blog writes:
Quote
Based on the generic NASA 040 configuration. This was clearly getting close to the final Orbiter configuration as actually built, but differed in several important respects… wingtip RCS units, 4 J-2S engines (rather than 3 SSMEs), a raised cupola over the cockpit, two manipulator arms, a docking adapter in the nose, two turbojets.

http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=3755
« Last Edit: August 31, 2009, 12:25:52 am by Triton »

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586

Offline martinbayer

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 310
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #128 on: September 11, 2009, 12:09:19 pm »
Would be marching to the beat of his own drum, if he didn't detest marching to any drumbeat at all so much.

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #129 on: September 20, 2009, 12:46:51 pm »

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3708
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #130 on: September 21, 2009, 06:33:31 am »
Hi,

a twin-body space shuttle.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710013659_1971013659.pdf

looks this a feasibility study by NASA
for Martin Marietta 1969 Proposal "Spacemaster"
part of Shuttle Phase-A Study
I love Strange Technology

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #131 on: September 23, 2009, 11:25:49 am »

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2100
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #132 on: September 23, 2009, 01:48:06 pm »
Good find Hesh! Now that's something you don't see every day..
« Last Edit: November 29, 2009, 11:40:27 am by XP67_Moonbat »
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline Nick

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 54
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #133 on: September 25, 2009, 08:12:01 am »
Hi,

the Boeing and Lockheed shuttle concepts from many designs
to those companies.
http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1970/1970%20-%200285.html

Hi there,

I know this is my first post here but I am building a resin model of this very concept! Made by Kaiyodo in Japan, I found it at SMW 2008. I will have it on display at Telford this year. This is the first image I've ever seen of this idea!

Nick

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #134 on: October 02, 2009, 11:28:44 am »
Hi,

This 1969 artist’s concept illustrates the use of three major elements of NASA’s
Integrated program, as proposed by President Nixon’s Space Task Group.
http://galaxywire.net/tag/space-art/page/2/#

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3708
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #135 on: October 02, 2009, 12:07:58 pm »
1969 aah
the good old time of Phase A study
were the Shuttle had to be replacement for Saturn IB

some year later the Shuttle mutated horrible into today STS  :P
I love Strange Technology

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #136 on: October 29, 2009, 10:35:58 am »
Hi,

here is NASA shuttle with twin tail fin and double-delta wing.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730012163_1973012163.pdf

Offline agricola64

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 86
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #137 on: October 29, 2009, 11:31:30 am »


 Please see this;
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1979/1979%20-%201198.html

this is the configuration thats used in Lee Correy's book "Shuttle Down" .. i always thought it was author's fancy .

servus

markus

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #138 on: November 26, 2009, 10:21:51 am »
Hi,

here is the Parallel Burn Concept.


Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #139 on: November 29, 2009, 09:57:51 am »

  The McDonnell Douglas 8 mach two stage (booster-orbiter) shuttle.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720015248_1972015248.pdf

In this report,NASA spoke about the McDonnell-Douglas Model-255 and
Model-256.

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #140 on: November 30, 2009, 09:54:17 am »

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2100
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #141 on: November 30, 2009, 10:30:51 am »
Oh yeah, that's Martin's Spacemaster concept.

The illustration actually originates from the back of Dennis R. Jenkin's SPACE SHUTTLE book, 1996 edition. I recieved my copy courtesy of the discard pile at the library. Some people, I tell you!

Going off-topic for a second, now that Shuttle program will be history soon, I wonder if Dennis Jenkins is plannning the ultimate edition of his book. I'd get it for sure.
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6802
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #142 on: November 30, 2009, 12:36:38 pm »
I wonder if Dennis Jenkins is plannning the ultimate edition of his book.

He *wants* to do so. He's told me that given his druthers, the final edition would re-incorporate all that had been cut out of earlier editions, and it would be truly hugenormous. But a lot of that is up to the publisher.
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 sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9710
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #143 on: November 30, 2009, 01:18:37 pm »
Going off-topic for a second, now that Shuttle program will be history soon, I wonder if Dennis Jenkins is plannning the ultimate edition of his book. I'd get it for sure.
Speaking of the Shuttle and history it seems ATK can't wait to get rid of the workforce working on the boosters.  Now that the SRBs and Titan IV motors are out of production I wonder how long before the US loses the capability to build large motors.   :(
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline martinbayer

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 310
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #144 on: November 30, 2009, 01:45:27 pm »
I don't want to start a heated argument, but in my view the ability to build large solid rocket motors may well be as (ir)relevant to future space transportation as the ability to build large piston driven steam locomotives may be to future rail transportation (and yes, given specific circumstances, they might make a comeback, but right now that doesn't look too likely)... ;)

Martin
Would be marching to the beat of his own drum, if he didn't detest marching to any drumbeat at all so much.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6802
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #145 on: November 30, 2009, 01:50:48 pm »
I don't want to start a heated argument, but in my view the ability to build large solid rocket motors may well be as (ir)relevant to future space transportation ...

Solid rockets have more applications than space transport. If the capability to reliably build large solids is damaged or lost, the ICBM/SLBM fleet is going to get old and creaky *really* fast.
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 martinbayer

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 310
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #146 on: November 30, 2009, 01:58:17 pm »
Compared to the Titan and STS boosters, I consider ICBMs as *medium* rather than *large* solids. Also, the choice of sferrin's examples seemed to imply that he was concerned about segmented designs, which pose a whole different set of problems, rather than monolithic motors.

Martin
Would be marching to the beat of his own drum, if he didn't detest marching to any drumbeat at all so much.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9710
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #147 on: November 30, 2009, 02:13:13 pm »
Compared to the Titan and STS boosters, I consider ICBMs as *medium* rather than *large* solids. Also, the choice of sferrin's examples seemed to imply that he was concerned about segmented designs, which pose a whole different set of problems, rather than monolithic motors.

Martin

No, just large motors in general.  Reinventing the wheel won't be cheap.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6802
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #148 on: November 30, 2009, 02:26:58 pm »
Compared to the Titan and STS boosters, I consider ICBMs as *medium* rather than *large* solids.

Once you get to ICBM first-stage size, there's not much difference. More thana  few feet in diameter, and you're ina  whole different world as far as production goes. Small tactical motors a few inches in diameter can be a home handicraft, as Hamas/Hezbollah show. But truly large motors like the first stage of the Minuteman requires a whole lot of a lot of things that don't exist in large quantites... very large propellant mixers, large test stands, propellant bunkers with the proper quantity-distance issues, and most importantly the people who know the tricks of the trade.

Small missiles like AAM's are built in large numbers by many companies. Production is essentially nonstop. Large motors like ICBMs are built relatively rarely by a small number of companies, and a small number of experts. Here, the loss of a sinlge person to death, retirement or the internet company down the road can have *dire* consequences. I watched that happen with United Tech/CSD out in California. As things started to go "funny" there, people started leaving or just not caring. The result was that things got worse. And as things got worse, the customers lost faith and started pullign contracts. Which made more people leave. Which made things worse. And so on until facilities started exploding and people started dying.

Last I heard, all the major test facilities, huge massive 1960's constructions of concrete and steel, had been dynamited and bulldozed into oblivion. The records were lost and destroyed, the talent scattered.
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 XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2100
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #149 on: November 30, 2009, 02:29:48 pm »
That's a damn shame.
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6802
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #150 on: November 30, 2009, 02:36:24 pm »
That's a damn shame.

That's make an adequate epitaph for much of aerospace.
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 Sn1008

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 4
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #151 on: November 30, 2009, 04:06:43 pm »
Question, what would it take to recover that kind of knowledge?  Would you need to interview the people who built the rockets to get the "tricks of the trade" and or the original data and blueprints in order to rebuild the industry?

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6802
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #152 on: November 30, 2009, 04:40:45 pm »
Question, what would it take to recover that kind of knowledge?  Would you need to interview the people who built the rockets to get the "tricks of the trade" and or the original data and blueprints in order to rebuild the industry?

Depending on how long you've gone since you had the capability, you might well need to start pretty much from scratch. If you aren't in an industry with a lot of "tribal knowledge," you'd be amazed at just how far short of the mark you get even with complete blueprints.

Let's say you have the complete blueprints for, say, the Thunderchild Inter Planetary Ballistic Missile. The USSF built a thousand of them thirty years ago, tested the hell out of 'em, and they worked beautifully. But the last time they were in production was twenty years ago, and the last time they came in for a complete refurb and overhaul was fifteen years ago. Now you need to refub 'em again. Alright, fine. You have the prints and the process instructions.

Step one says to remove the existing solid propellant from the case. Last time, they used a mechanical, robotic "excavator" to scoop out the propellant. But that facility was shut down a decade ago because of environmental complaints from the yuppies who decided to move into the area. "No problem" you say, you simply ship them to your *new* facility that uses high-velocity water jets to wash out the propellant. The water jets cut through the propellant like a hot knife through butter, but doesn't damage the case. Great! That gets rid of the sparking issue everyone was so freaked out about with the metallic cutter heads with the old system. So, you put the first Thunderchild motor into the water washout setup, turn it on and... BLAM!

The instant the water jet touches the propellant from the very first motor, it detonates. Entertainingly, the other fifty Thunderchild motors were stored within the blast radius of the first, and they all sympathetically detonate, turnign your sparklingly new facility into so much confetti. What the hell happened?

Ooops. Turns out that the last time through the system, the propellant used had the normal iron oxide burn rate modifier replaced with ferrocene. Ferrocene has all kinds of nifty advantages. Sadly, ferrocene has the unfortunate habit of migrating over time out of the propellant, and gathering on exposed surfaces. So when the supersonic waterjet hit ther surface, it hit a patch of propellant supersaturated with burn rate modifier... which modified the burn rate to over the speed of sound, turning that patch of propellant into a high explosive. Neato! Too bad that the notification that the propellant had been changed was a minor notation that nobody really noticed, buried fifty-eight pages into the process paperwork that you didn't really read, and couldn't have anyway due to it being a faded fifth-generation photocopy. And of course, the post-it note that said "don't use a supersonic waterjet, makes propellant go FOOM" fell out of the folder during the paperwork handoff. And the guy who wrote it got run over by a giant radioactive rubber Jimmycarterbot in that big foodriot at the UberWalMart three years back....


This may sound a tad flippant, but it's actually based on an actual incident.

There are a lot of bits and pieces of rocket motors that don't neatly fit into the blueprints. A notation that some particular widget is Part Number XYZ from FailCo doesn't really help much since FailCo got bought out by Predatory Lending Practices, Inc, which turned the FailCo division into a toy manufacturing division, and then sold it off for parts. And I've seen more than a few process instructions that called for doing something that was not defined within the process instructions... often this meant using some chemical that was no long approved (generally due to environmental concerns). And I was even involved with the re-creation of a substance that was *physically* *impossible* to manufacture, as described.

If you get out of the IBM business, chances are *really* good that if you want to get back into it, your best bet is to take the ICBMs you actually have out into the desert and blow 'em straight to hell with a few tons of high explosive and napalm. And then start from scratch.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2009, 04:43:29 pm by Orionblamblam »
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 mz

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 682
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #153 on: November 30, 2009, 05:20:18 pm »
At least Aerojet manages to do significant size 40 tonne mass solid Atlas V boosters (UPDATE: Peacekeeper first stage is 54 t in mass so it's close) without having a Shuttle SRB contract... I think it's stretching it to say ICBM:s are relying so much on that.
A single Shuttle SRB weighs more than an unfueled Saturn V. You can lose a lot of expensive infrastructure and dangerous (there have been some close calls) and slow operations if you don't have to stack and move huge solids around at every launch. Never mind designing your abort system for them - they tend to fail catastrophically and also their optimal flight profile is fast at low altitude meaning high abort Q loads - both leading to a huge launch escape motor and thus performance problems (already suffering from the low delta vee given to the second stage by a solid is not helping).
« Last Edit: November 30, 2009, 05:24:05 pm by mz »

Offline Proponent

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 57
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #154 on: November 30, 2009, 05:30:32 pm »
If large solids go out of use for space launch, wouldn't the appropriate action be to
  • 1. Have the USAF pay for the upkeep of solid expertise,
  • 2. Have the USAF go back to liquid ICBMs, or
  • 3. Have the USAF subsize the use of solid LVs to the point that solids are more attractive than liquids for space launch.
What seems to be happening now is the reverse of Option 3: the space-launch world subsidizes the USAF's solids, which makes no sense at all.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2009, 07:01:30 pm by Proponent »

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1983
  • I am not actually here.
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #155 on: November 30, 2009, 06:04:23 pm »
I don't know what this is, or how it got here.


Offline martinbayer

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 310
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #156 on: November 30, 2009, 06:44:13 pm »
mz,

I agree. Even the GEM-60 strap-ons of the Delta IV surpass the first stages of the Minuteman III and Trident D-5 in terms of propellant mass. As long as EELVs keep flying, the risk of ICBMs and SLBMs becoming an endangered species would appear negligible  ;D.

Martin
Would be marching to the beat of his own drum, if he didn't detest marching to any drumbeat at all so much.

Offline Proponent

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 57
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #157 on: November 30, 2009, 06:58:23 pm »
I don't know what this is, or how it got here.



Within the last year or so, there was a news report about an incident at ATK's Utah operation where the burning of unneeded solid propellant got a bit out of control.  Maybe that's what we're seeing here?

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9710
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #158 on: November 30, 2009, 08:44:25 pm »
I don't know what this is, or how it got here.



Within the last year or so, there was a news report about an incident at ATK's Utah operation where the burning of unneeded solid propellant got a bit out of control.  Maybe that's what we're seeing here?

I'm actually surprised there's anybody here who doesn't know what that is.  It was an ammonium perchlorate production facility that blew up back in the late 80s.  It accounted for something like HALF of all US annual production of the stuff.  It had been going gangbusters and had the stuff stockpiled all over the place.  There's an extensive write up somewhere online that describes it.  (Read it, don't feel like hunting it down.)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #159 on: December 01, 2009, 09:18:02 am »

Offline Sn1008

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 4
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #160 on: December 01, 2009, 05:31:25 pm »
Concerning the ATK facility that detonated that produced all of the aluminum perchlorate produced in our country, it occurred in the late eighties.  This is a link to an article about that event.  When I think about it, too bad someone could not have videotaped it. ;D

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6802
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #161 on: December 01, 2009, 08:24:20 pm »
Concerning the ATK facility that detonated that produced all of the aluminum perchlorate produced in our country...

It was not an ATK facility.  ATK was simply their biggest customer.

Quote
  When I think about it, too bad someone could not have videotaped it. ;D

Huh? Someone *did* videotape it.





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 Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9458
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #162 on: December 01, 2009, 09:35:29 pm »
Shuttle Liquid Fly Back Booster Configuration Options by TJ Healy, Boeing Reusable Space Systems, 1998

Quote
This paper surveys the basic configuration options available to a Liquid Fly Back Booster (LFBB), integrated with the Space Shuttle system. The background of the development of the LFBB concept is given. The influence of the main booster engine (BME) installations and the Fly Back Engine (FBE) installation on the aerodynamic configurations are also discussed. Limits on the LFBB configuration design space imposed by the existing Shuttle flight and ground elements are also described. The objective of the paper is to put the constrains and design space for an LFBB in perspective. The object of the work is to define LFBB configurations that significantly improve safety, operability, reliability and performance of the Shuttle system and dramatically lower operations costs. 
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19980231024_1998376505.pdf

Offline Sn1008

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 4
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #163 on: December 02, 2009, 09:34:06 pm »
I stand corrected from my original post.

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #164 on: December 04, 2009, 09:35:43 am »

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #165 on: December 20, 2009, 09:44:36 am »
Shuttle Liquid Fly Back Booster Configuration Options by TJ Healy, Boeing Reusable Space Systems, 1998

Quote
This paper surveys the basic configuration options available to a Liquid Fly Back Booster (LFBB), integrated with the Space Shuttle system. The background of the development of the LFBB concept is given. The influence of the main booster engine (BME) installations and the Fly Back Engine (FBE) installation on the aerodynamic configurations are also discussed. Limits on the LFBB configuration design space imposed by the existing Shuttle flight and ground elements are also described. The objective of the paper is to put the constrains and design space for an LFBB in perspective. The object of the work is to define LFBB configurations that significantly improve safety, operability, reliability and performance of the Shuttle system and dramatically lower operations costs. 
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19980231024_1998376505.pdf

Hi,

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19990007761_1998377046.pdf

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6802
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #166 on: December 20, 2009, 11:21:51 am »
North American's Space Shuttle as of 1971, with 4 J-2 engines. Much embiggened version here: http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=4901

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 OM

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 753
    • OMBlog
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #167 on: December 20, 2009, 03:59:57 pm »
...Scott, can you tweak the contrast just a little on this one? I honestly can't make out 1/10th of what's there because it's so light.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6802
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #168 on: December 20, 2009, 04:59:14 pm »
...Scott, can you tweak the contrast just a little on this one? I honestly can't make out 1/10th of what's there because it's so light.

Sigh.

Fine.

Even though my call at the end of the blog post for people to subscribe, donate, mail blocks of gold, whatever, went unanswered, I went ahead and uploaded a clearer grayscale version at the end of the post.

Now, who wants to touch me? I SAID WHO WANTS TO F'ING TOUCH ME???
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 Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 674
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #169 on: January 12, 2010, 11:13:44 am »
repetitive post deleted
« Last Edit: January 12, 2010, 11:20:32 am by Byeman »

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 674
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #170 on: January 12, 2010, 11:17:56 am »
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?)

It is ridiculous to think it would rupture the ET.  It would have been modified to accept the loads from the extra propulsion.   Also this was the time of the ET Aft Cargo Carrier.

I have some documents that I can share.  Need to find them
« Last Edit: January 12, 2010, 11:21:15 am by Byeman »

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 674
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #171 on: January 12, 2010, 11:22:08 am »
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.

There also was a modified Delta II second stage

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 674
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #172 on: January 12, 2010, 11:25:37 am »
Quote
Agena in a shuttle bay = as dangerous as a Centaur ?
(non cryogenic, but highly toxic corrosive... on the other hand Shuttle OMS use storable propellants)

the OMS used fuel  is monomethylhydrazine (MMH), which is oxidized with nitrogen tetroxide (N2O4).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomethylhydrazine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinitrogen_tetroxide
safe storable propellants

the Agena used fuel is UDMH , which is oxidized with Inhibited white fuming nitric acid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UDMH
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_fuming_nitric_acid
the oxidizer tank need protective metallic fluoride coating !
Quote
Being a powerful oxidizing agent, nitric acid reacts violently with many organic materials and the reactions may be explosive
something you don't want in a Shuttle cargobay in case the oxidizer tank, feedline or valve leaks

(they had proposed Transtage as ad-on booster under the ET in 1982)



MMH and N2O4 is not "safe" , they are just as bad as UDMH and IRFNA

N2O4 has nitric acid present.

It wasn't a Transtage, it was a modified Titan 1st stage

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 674
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #173 on: January 12, 2010, 11:33:21 am »
Here's a little something on Shuttle-derived concepts I found on my quest for SRB-X.


Was a NASA competitor to the CELV (Complementary ELV).  The commercial proposals were the Titan 34D7 (which became the Titan IV) and 16.7' dia Atlas with 5 H-1's on the booster.  The SRB-X was two parallel shuttle SRB's, with a 2 segement SRB in the middle, topped by a Titan III second stage and a Centaur G'*.


* Both the Titan 34D7 and 16.7' dia Atlas had Centaur G' upperstages
« Last Edit: January 12, 2010, 11:35:45 am by Byeman »

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 674
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #174 on: January 12, 2010, 11:39:12 am »
But if the Shuttle did have to put down somewhere unusual, NASA would have a hell of a time picking it up and putting it on the 747.

Not really.  A stiff legged derrick was use at MSFC for the vibration tests.  This was then used at White Sands for STS-3.  By the time, OV-101 was delivered to Dulles, two rental cranes were used.

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 674
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #175 on: January 12, 2010, 11:42:20 am »
Does anyone know if there were any real plans to deliver nuclear weapons from the Space Shuttle cargo bay?

Not really, no. Undoubtedly the USAF noodled the idea around, but orbiting nukes have never been particularly popular.

Interesting. According to Efraim Akin at the Institute of Applied Mathematics (IPM) of the Soviet Academy of Sciences:

Quote
When we analyzed the trajectories from Vandenberg we saw that it was possible for any military payload to re-enter from orbit in three and a half minutes to the main centers of the USSR, a much shorter time than (a submarine-launched ballastic missile) could make possible (ten minutes from off the coast.)

Quote
The military very sensitive to the variety of possible means of delivering the first strike, suspecting that a first-strike capability might be the Vandenberg Shuttle's objective...

Hendrickx, Bart and Vis, Bert Energiya-Buran: The Soviet Space Shuttle, Springer-Praxis, 2007
p. 54

According to Boris Gubanov, Energiya-Buran chief designer:

Quote
The studies showed that the Space Shuttle could carry out a return maneuver from a half or a single orbit... approach Moscow and Leningrad from the south, and then performing a "dive" drop in this region a nuclear charge, and in combination with other means paralyze the military capability of the Soviet Union.

Hendrickx, Bart and Vis, Bert Energiya-Buran: The Soviet Space Shuttle, Springer-Praxis, 2007
p. 54

The soviets thought this because they didn't believe the economic justification, in which they were right.

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3708
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #176 on: January 13, 2010, 12:35:31 am »
welcome to this forum Byeman

Quote
Michel Van
(they had proposed Transtage as ad-on booster under the ET in 1982

It wasn't a Transtage, it was a modified Titan 1st stage

i have only vague information about Transtage under a Shuttle ET
its possibly that the authors mix up the Titan Hardware

I have some documents that I can share.  Need to find them
we would be pleased, if you post the documents in this forum
I love Strange Technology

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 674
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #177 on: January 23, 2010, 05:49:27 am »
Aft Cargo Carrier

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9458
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #178 on: April 08, 2010, 11:15:43 am »
Proposed General Dynamics-Convair space shuttle design model for auction at the Bonhams Auction House web site.

URL: http://www.bonhams.com/cgi-bin/public.sh/pubweb/publicSite.r?sContinent=USA&screen=lotdetailsNoFlash&iSaleItemNo=4570360&iSaleNo=17778&iSaleSectionNo=1


Description:
Quote
Lot No: 1134
PROPOSED GENERAL DYNAMICS-CONVAIR SHUTTLE DESIGN.

Prototype model with three 8-inch long shuttle vehicles attached together in launch configuration with a fourth 8-inch long shuttle displayed in landing configuration. All made from plastic and metal. A plastic 6 by 10 ½ inch base has a metal plaque that reads: "General Dynamics Convair Triamese Concept" along a raised section along the back edge. All shuttles can be removed from the display stand.

This is a model proposed in the early 1970s that would employ two outer vehicles as booster stages to allow the center section vehicle to achieve orbital velocity. All vehicles could land after use with deployable wings and air breathing jet engines. Presented to Dr. Faget during the NASA Shuttle proposal efforts.

Estimate: $4,000 - 6,000

« Last Edit: April 08, 2010, 12:24:46 pm by Triton »

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 12939
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #179 on: April 09, 2010, 01:31:08 am »
Cool find! Here's the zoomed in picture from the same site:

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3708
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #180 on: May 17, 2010, 03:19:13 am »
in 1980s were alot illustration of a "passengers Pod" for the STS

was that real project or only wishful thinking by some illustrators ?
I love Strange Technology

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1629
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #181 on: May 17, 2010, 04:25:19 am »
in 1980s were alot illustration of a "passengers Pod" for the STS

was that real project or only wishful thinking by some illustrators ?

There was actually a business proposal for that idea.  However, I don't think it was serious.  Not a real company with money.  And a stupid idea.

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1589
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #182 on: May 17, 2010, 12:31:03 pm »
"Aircraft II, the sequel" maybe ?  ;D
Conservatoire de l'Air et de l'Espace d'Aquitaine - Bordeaux - Mérignac / Dassault aviation museum
http://www.caea.info/en/plan.php

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6802
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #183 on: May 17, 2010, 04:12:51 pm »
There was actually a business proposal for that idea.  However, I don't think it was serious.  Not a real company with money.  And a stupid idea.


I can recall having a brochure or something on that. I *think* it was a Gary Hudson concept... my memory of the brochure has it related to the Phoenix SSTO somehow. But I can't clearly remember seeing that thing in damn near 20 years. What the hell did I do with it???
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 OM

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 753
    • OMBlog
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #184 on: May 18, 2010, 01:41:16 am »
I can recall having a brochure or something on that. I *think* it was a Gary Hudson concept...

...Raised on sci.space.shuttle a few years back. I think Jorge mentioned it was a Gary Hudson concept. Nothing ever got past brochure stage, IIRC

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 674
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #185 on: May 18, 2010, 06:04:05 am »
It was proposed before the first flight of the shuttle.

http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/the_future_of_space_tourism.shtml

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 589
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #186 on: May 18, 2010, 07:54:40 am »
I can recall having a brochure or something on that. I *think* it was a Gary Hudson concept... my memory of the brochure has it related to the Phoenix SSTO somehow. But I can't clearly remember seeing that thing in damn near 20 years. What the hell did I do with it???

I believe in the mid-80s Society Expeditions talked about offering people a trip on the shuttle (in a passenger cabin to be transported in the cargo bay). A very quick Google search has just thrown up this Popular Mechanics item so far.

Of course the Phoenix SSTO was being developed by Gary Hudson for Society Expeditions too. I'm not sure whether Phoenix came after they flirted with using the shuttle (obviously pre-Challenger), or were two parallel ideas?

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 12939
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #187 on: May 18, 2010, 08:16:05 am »
Gary Hudson-related pages on Stargazer:

The Pacific American 'Phoenix M' :
http://stargazer2006.online.fr/space/phoenix-m.htm

The Rotary Rocket Roton ATV:
http://stargazer2006.online.fr/space/roton.htm

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 589
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #188 on: May 18, 2010, 09:47:19 am »
More background on Society Expeditions' plans for using the shuttle, including discussions with NASA, is given in http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/space_tourism_a_flight_of_fantasy_or_the_next_major_space_product.shtml. Details were in the following reference:

Quote
Society Expeditions Inc., 1985, " One Year Goals for Space Tourism", presentation to NASA dated August 30, 1985.

I don't suppose anyone has a copy?!
« Last Edit: May 18, 2010, 09:53:17 am by FutureSpaceTourist »

Offline ozmosis

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 82
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #189 on: June 09, 2010, 05:31:54 pm »
Robert McCall paintings (From his official website)

Several of his paintings showed many of the original shuttle designs

Offline The Artist

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 517
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #190 on: June 09, 2010, 10:15:56 pm »
Just to point out that in the selection of images posted by ozmosis, images 114-011 and 115-012 are portions of the same painting. The color has been shifted between the two images and while I can't recall having seen the original, every printed reproduction I've seen had the brown color scheme.

And to ozmosis, a few words of caution in posting Robert McCall paintings here. First. While he painted for NASA, the US Air Force Art Program, The US Navy and many - if not all - of the aerospace companies, he also painted for the entertainment community (2001: A Space Odyssey, Star Trek The Motion Picture, The Black Hole and Tora! Tora! Tora! to name a few) as well as painting for his own amusement. Designs that may look convincing may be fictional.

Second. Posting wholesale from an artist's website may be at odds with the terms of service here. I'm sure he placed a copyright notice on his site. And, even though he's passed away, I'm sure his family has control of the copyrights. Posting an image or two - with proper credit - where appropriate to the discussion might be fine but flooding like this could be asking for trouble.
"Thank you for summing that up."

Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III

Offline ozmosis

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 82
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #191 on: June 09, 2010, 11:57:16 pm »
Just to point out that in the selection of images posted by ozmosis, images 114-011 and 115-012 are portions of the same painting. The color has been shifted between the two images and while I can't recall having seen the original, every printed reproduction I've seen had the brown color scheme.

"Our world in space" by Isaac Asimov

And to ozmosis, a few words of caution in posting Robert McCall paintings here. First. While he painted for NASA, the US Air Force Art Program, The US Navy and many - if not all - of the aerospace companies, he also painted for the entertainment community (2001: A Space Odyssey, Star Trek The Motion Picture, The Black Hole and Tora! Tora! Tora! to name a few) as well as painting for his own amusement. Designs that may look convincing may be fictional.

All the above designs were done for Aerospace/NASA, you can point to every shuttle in the images and know which design submission for the STS they were based on

Second. Posting wholesale from an artist's website may be at odds with the terms of service here. I'm sure he placed a copyright notice on his site. And, even though he's passed away, I'm sure his family has control of the copyrights. Posting an image or two - with proper credit - where appropriate to the discussion might be fine but flooding like this could be asking for trouble.

All art done for NASA immediately becomes public domain

Offline The Artist

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 517
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #192 on: June 10, 2010, 09:02:20 am »
Just to point out that in the selection of images posted by ozmosis, images 114-011 and 115-012 are portions of the same painting. The color has been shifted between the two images and while I can't recall having seen the original, every printed reproduction I've seen had the brown color scheme.

"Our world in space" by Isaac Asimov

And to ozmosis, a few words of caution in posting Robert McCall paintings here. First. While he painted for NASA, the US Air Force Art Program, The US Navy and many - if not all - of the aerospace companies, he also painted for the entertainment community (2001: A Space Odyssey, Star Trek The Motion Picture, The Black Hole and Tora! Tora! Tora! to name a few) as well as painting for his own amusement. Designs that may look convincing may be fictional.

All the above designs were done for Aerospace/NASA, you can point to every shuttle in the images and know which design submission for the STS they were based on

Second. Posting wholesale from an artist's website may be at odds with the terms of service here. I'm sure he placed a copyright notice on his site. And, even though he's passed away, I'm sure his family has control of the copyrights. Posting an image or two - with proper credit - where appropriate to the discussion might be fine but flooding like this could be asking for trouble.

All art done for NASA immediately becomes public domain

I have that book and the full image has the brown coloring.

My caution about the validity of the designs was meant as a general warning - not about any one image you posted in this group. While you can point out the source of the by-passed shuttle designs in some of his work, his images of the future in space could very well contain informed speculation - derived from concepts he saw but in the end just his "Gee-wiz, wouldn't this be cool if . . ."

While your third comment is mostly true, that does not mean that every image you see in a NASA publication is in the public domain. The writers and editors of those documents may use - with permission - art which is not in the public domain. Two points taken from the NASA web site. http://www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/features/MP_Photo_Guidelines.html

NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted. If copyrighted, permission should be obtained from the copyright owner prior to use. If not copyrighted, NASA material may be reproduced and distributed without further permission from NASA.

Some NASA audiovisual material may incorporate music or footage, which is copyrighted and licensed for the particular NASA work. Any editing or otherwise altering of the work may not be covered under the original license, and therefore would require permission of the copyright owner.



Additionally, as you acknowledged, McCall did work for the aerospace companies as well as for NASA. Work done for an aerospace company does not necessarily fall into the public domain. Normally, freelance work done for a company would come under the control of the company - look up "work for hire." However. Since the sixties McCall had the stature within the industry to be able to set his terms and maintain control (beyond the initial commissioned use) of his images. Then you may have to deal with the current owners of the work as he did sell some of his work. Some of these owners - museums, banks, etc - may have purchased the copyright as well as the physical painting. Even with that kind of sale, Robert may have retained the right to use the image in his portfolio - including his online portfolio. So. Don't go thinking that because it has a shuttle or an Apollo astronaut on the Moon it's automatically a NASA image and in the public domain.
"Thank you for summing that up."

Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6802
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #193 on: June 10, 2010, 09:33:10 am »
All art done for NASA immediately becomes public domain

While I believe that's technically true, it has become popular to argue "intellectual property." I'm thinking of one major aerospace corporation in particular (Boegins with a "B") that has decided that imagery in any form of any vehicle it has designed is *their* intellectual property. Which means that if you took a photograph of one of their jetliners, fighters, bombers, space capsules or space shuttles that they or one of their aquired companoies designed and/or built and you try to market that photograph, in forms such as a poster, print or calendar, they could very well send attack lawyers to ruin your day. Additionally, this includes not just photos, but drawings or paintings *you* make.

I'm not sure this has been fought out in court yet. Largely because nobody can afford to fight it out with them.
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 PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10262
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #195 on: June 25, 2010, 03:04:53 am »
From Tony Buttler:
Quote
A contact has just acquired the attached tunnel model from a retired Convair engineer's estate sale. We know nothing about it, but this might be a proposed weapons pod for the B-58 Hustler or a variant of. Have you ever seen it before, or do you have any ideas what it could be? The model is machined aluminium and measures 11 inches in length. My contact would greatly appreciate any help as to its identity.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10262
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #196 on: June 25, 2010, 03:31:02 am »
Shape looks like one of the boosters from the 1968 General Dynamics / Convair FR-4 2-Stage Triamese Shuttle concept.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline SOC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1156
  • APA Contributor
    • IMINT & Analysis
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #197 on: June 25, 2010, 06:10:24 pm »
It looks similar enough to the shuttle idea that I'd be very suprised if it was something different.  Pretty sure I've never seen anything quite like that among the B-58 weapon options.

Offline OM

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 753
    • OMBlog
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #198 on: June 26, 2010, 08:17:32 pm »
It looks similar enough to the shuttle idea that I'd be very suprised if it was something different.  Pretty sure I've never seen anything quite like that among the B-58 weapon options.

...And then there's the fact that it fails the puzzle piece test: ergo, it just don't fit the bottom side of a Hustler even if the tailfins are folded flat. My votes with it being a WTTA for the Triamese.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6802
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #199 on: June 27, 2010, 05:22:42 am »
I'll just add my "me too" to the "it's a triamese shuttle" chorus.
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 dannydale

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 212
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #201 on: June 29, 2010, 02:21:03 pm »
There's also the slight matter of the heat patina around the nose and fin leading edges, which argues for a high supersonic or low hypersonic testing regime. The bias in the nose discoloration indicates a positive alpha during one or more tests of the model.

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2100
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #202 on: June 29, 2010, 06:52:25 pm »
The top spaceplane in the last post is the Boeing Boomerang concept. Oh how I'd love to see the report on that!  :o
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3752.0/highlight,boeing+boomerang.html
« Last Edit: June 29, 2010, 06:55:27 pm by XP67_Moonbat »
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2100
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #203 on: August 12, 2010, 09:43:43 pm »
Though I'm a little skeptical on the X-37/SDV combo, this article is still interesting
http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/2010/05/boeings-new-hlv-concept-could-be-dc-3.html

In the article is a link to this AIAA paper, Heavy Lift Launch Vehicles with Existing Propulsion Systems, from Boeing
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0BzLX4wxxT-QNNDBiZWEyMjktZTdkYS00YTBjLWE1NTYtMjE1NWVkODM5NTg3&hl=en&authkey=CM2-8_cF

« Last Edit: August 12, 2010, 09:45:31 pm by XP67_Moonbat »
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9458
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #204 on: August 17, 2010, 04:01:42 pm »
Wind tunnel model of Space Shuttle said to be from 1975. Notice the absence of a vertical tail.

Source: http://www.wind-tunnel-models.com/wind_tunnel_model_space_shuttle.html

Offline Catch-22

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 33

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9458
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #206 on: September 06, 2010, 09:25:18 pm »

Shuttle transporter sketch for sale

www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=1575791234&searchurl=bsi%3D420%26kn%3Drocket%26sortby%3D1%26x%3D0%26y%3D0


Description:
Quote
An archive of original material relating to the Virtus Transporter System for the Space Shuttle with a ring bound publication of the Space Division of Rockwell International. The Virtus System would seem to have been a proposed Transport System for the Space Shuttle which did not get beyond the drawing board. Comprises 1) An original coloured drawing of the Virtus System - with a cylinder being loaded onto the parent aircraft; watercolour +/- coloured crayon measuring 11 1/2" x 8 3/4 " (29 x 22cms) with a sketch of the Aircraft on paper pasted on board titled in pencil - "First Rough Sketch - showing unloading of External Tank. Off Virtus - March 1974" signed Douglas Ettridge. "External Tank 155ft long x 27ft dia." written underneath the painting 2) Another coloured sketch on paper of the Virtus airborn with the Space shuttle flying beneath - about A4 size. 3) Colour printed plate of the Virtus System with shuttle flying beneath titled "Original conception (now abandoned) for a Helium filled aircraft for Orbiter airlift". (Artist) Douglas Ettridge. 4) Offprint from "Aviation Weekly and Space Technology" Feb.4th 1974 : 4 pages including title page with photographs of a model of the Virtus System and of a sketch similar but more advanced than Item 1. Text explains the Virtus system proposed by John M.Conroy, builder of the Guppy Aircratft; gives spec. and plans. 5) Photocopy of (4) from the published article page nos 38-41. 6) Ring Bound document titled "Space Shuttle Transportation System November, 1973. Pubd. Space Division Rockwell International Public Relations Department. 27p printed on one side - look like photocopies but ring bound. Comprises a complete illustrated specification for the Space Shuttle. 7) Two sheets scrap paper with handwritten notes - "Edwards AFB" on one and an address written on another - "Charles I Stanton, NASA Headquarters, 600 Independence Avenue, Washington DC Code MHO" with scribbles on reverse. 8) Three loose sheets of faded photocopies of photographs of the Space Shuttle. 9) About 15 sheets of irregular tracing paper with sketches of the Virtus System and parts thereof; some folded and none signed - but look like Ettridge's work. 10) 1 sheet of headed notepaper for Santa Barbara Aviation, Inc, Santa Barbara Airport Goleta Califiornia with 8 lines of typewritten text on reverse referring to "Manufacturing Facility" describing another picture of a Hanger for Construction,Sub assembly and final assembley of the Virtus. 11) The original (torn) A4 buff envelope containing this material titled in longhand "Virtus Transporter 17th March 1974. (Ettridge was an established Aviation artist - see Artinfo etc.; John M.Conroy did design the Guppy system for transporting Saturn V Rocket Boosters - see wapedia) . An interesting and unique collection.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2010, 09:26:56 pm by Triton »

Offline Graham1973

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 886
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #207 on: February 07, 2011, 07:37:33 am »
Proposal to replace the External tank and SRB with a three stage booster which could also be used as an unmanned launcher

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19840019718_1984019718.pdf

Offline Graham1973

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 886
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #208 on: February 08, 2011, 04:06:52 am »
« Last Edit: February 08, 2011, 05:27:15 am by Graham1973 »

Offline OM

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 753
    • OMBlog
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #209 on: February 11, 2011, 10:49:34 pm »
The top spaceplane in the last post is the Boeing Boomerang concept. Oh how I'd love to see the report on that!  :o

...*That's* Boomerang? I'd always heard the carrier vehicle was more of a flying wing, hence the "Boomerang" moniker.

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2100
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #210 on: February 12, 2011, 12:19:45 pm »
That's what the thread calls it.
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline RyanC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 812
  • Crazy Researcher
    • Alternate Wars
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #211 on: March 15, 2011, 07:10:01 pm »
Space Shuttle-Derived SRB-X.

Original artwork, and then redrawn artwork by me.

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 674
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #212 on: March 16, 2011, 04:46:41 am »
Space Shuttle-Derived SRB-X.

Original artwork, and then redrawn artwork by me.

There are only struts connecting the SRBs, not a solid member as you have depicted. The forward stuts connect to the Titan second stage which you have eliminated in your drawing.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2011, 04:48:16 am by Byeman »

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1629
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #213 on: March 16, 2011, 06:13:12 am »
Yeah, that solid connection would act like a wing, or at least a sail in any kind of wind conditions.  I could see that vehicle getting blown off course.  You'd really want to minimize the surface area.

Offline fightingirish

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1933
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #214 on: April 12, 2011, 12:23:35 pm »


Quote
  • Shuttle Enterprise, the first orbiter built, will move from the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center in Virginia to the Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum in New York.
  • The Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center in Virginia will become the new home for shuttle Discovery, which retired after completing its 39th mission in March.
  • Shuttle Endeavour, which is preparing for its final flight at the end of the month will go to the California Science Center in Los Angeles.
  • Shuttle Atlantis, which will fly the last planned shuttle mission in June, will be displayed at the Kennedy Space Center Visitor’s Complex in Florida.

NASA also announced that hundreds of shuttle artifacts have been allocated to museums and education institutions.
  • Various shuttle simulators for the Adler Planetarium in Chicago, the Evergreen Aviation & Space Museum of McMinnville, Ore., and Texas A&M's Aerospace Engineering Department
  • Full fuselage trainer for the Museum of Flight in Seattle
  • Nose cap assembly and crew compartment trainer for the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio
  • Flight deck pilot and commander seats for NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston
  • Orbital maneuvering system engines for the U.S. Space and Rocket Center of Huntsville, Ala., National Air and Space Museum in Washington, and Evergreen Aviation & Space Museum
Source: nasa.gov - NASA Announces New Homes for Space Shuttle Orbiters After Retirement
Slán,
fightingirish

Slán ist an Irish Gaelic word for Goodbye.  :)

Offline bigvlada

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 369
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #215 on: April 15, 2011, 11:28:00 pm »
Why is New York chosen as the recipient of Enterprise instead of Houston? Wasn't that decision a slap in the face to the aerospace industry over there?

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 589
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #216 on: April 15, 2011, 11:50:05 pm »
Why is New York chosen as the recipient of Enterprise instead of Houston?

May be Houston thought it was their's by right and didn't make enough effort to secure it http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2011/04/guest_commentary_dont_blame_nasa_or_politics_for_a.html

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3708
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #217 on: April 16, 2011, 01:27:05 am »
Why is New York chosen as the recipient of Enterprise instead of Houston? Wasn't that decision a slap in the face to the aerospace industry over there?

there several reason for that "Move"
one is New York is closer to in Washington, D.C. compare to Houston, Texas
Wat also much cheaper to transport

also in Houston has the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, the Saturn V rocket on display
I love Strange Technology

Offline Graham1973

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 886
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #218 on: April 20, 2011, 07:17:17 pm »
Several options considered for Air-Testing the shuttle, a cross between figures 7 & 9 might be the solution for what happens at the start of Moonraker.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740021179_1974021179.pdf
« Last Edit: April 21, 2011, 02:28:47 am by Graham1973 »

Offline Graham1973

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 886
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #219 on: April 28, 2011, 09:24:43 am »


 Please see this;
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1979/1979%20-%201198.html

this is the configuration thats used in Lee Correy's book "Shuttle Down" .. i always thought it was author's fancy .

servus

markus

I've just come into possession of a copy of the 4 part version published in Analog and the shuttle is not in that configuration:

Quote
The ship was running light to get into polar orbit without the assist of Earth's eastward rotation, an additional Orbital Maneuvering System (OMS) kit, or the external boost of a pair of Titan engines under the External Tank

(Lee Correy, Shuttle Down (Pt 1), Analog, December 1980)

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 674
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #220 on: April 28, 2011, 11:07:00 am »
Documentation of the Titan LBM (liquid boost module) is on a competing forum.

Offline Graham1973

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 886
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #221 on: April 29, 2011, 07:41:09 am »
Documentation of the Titan LBM (liquid boost module) is on a competing forum.

Which forum?

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1629
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #222 on: April 29, 2011, 10:46:18 am »
Documentation of the Titan LBM (liquid boost module) is on a competing forum.

Which forum?

NASAspaceflight.com

Offline George Allegrezza

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 708
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #223 on: April 29, 2011, 10:57:41 am »
Ah yes, the forum where blood feuds to the death erupt over whether a rocket should be fueled by kerosene or hydrogen. 

(I'm a subscriber, natch.)

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1629
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #224 on: April 29, 2011, 01:35:16 pm »
Ah yes, the forum where blood feuds to the death erupt over whether a rocket should be fueled by kerosene or hydrogen. 

(I'm a subscriber, natch.)

And every other thread ultimately devolves into a discussion of DIRECT.

Actually, it's only certain threads.  Avoid them and you avoid the repetitive discussions that go nowhere.

Offline RyanC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 812
  • Crazy Researcher
    • Alternate Wars
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #225 on: April 29, 2011, 02:37:13 pm »
And every other thread ultimately devolves into a discussion of DIRECT.

They are also severely over-optimistic about the programmatic and developmental costs of DIRECT by several orders of magnitude. If it was that easy to design and build a Shuttle Derived LV, then Constellation would have been years ahead of schedule and about 25% under budget.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2011, 03:00:39 pm by RyanCrierie »

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1629
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #226 on: April 30, 2011, 07:29:13 am »
They are also severely over-optimistic about the programmatic and developmental costs of DIRECT by several orders of magnitude. If it was that easy to design and build a Shuttle Derived LV, then Constellation would have been years ahead of schedule and about 25% under budget.

Yeah, but over-optimism and self-delusion are pretty common to any discussion by space enthusiasts.  SpaceX's fans also often go overboard.  Anybody who actually _works_ in the field soon learns that press releases are not the same as actual hardware.

Offline OM

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 753
    • OMBlog
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #227 on: May 01, 2011, 01:14:26 pm »
They are also severely over-optimistic about the programmatic and developmental costs of DIRECT by several orders of magnitude. If it was that easy to design and build a Shuttle Derived LV, then Constellation would have been years ahead of schedule and about 25% under budget.

Yeah, but over-optimism and self-delusion are pretty common to any discussion by space enthusiasts. 

...The same can be *very* easily applied to space critics, it should be pointed out in all fairness.

Offline Caravellarella

  • Farfadet/Korrigan
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 967
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #228 on: May 07, 2011, 04:10:01 am »
Dear Boys and Girls, here is an artist's impression with a caption in French showing a Lockheed "project" for a passenger-carrying space shuttle......

The picture comes from the 1st July 1969 issue of Aviation Magazine International......

Terry (Caravellarella)
Because L'ORÉAL keeps telling me I'm worth it......
I can scarcely contain my indifference......
Maybe it's MAYBELLINE......
Vamp till ready......
RIMMEL; get the London Look......

Offline The Artist

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 517
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #229 on: May 09, 2011, 09:01:57 pm »
That looks like a Star Clipper variation.
"Thank you for summing that up."

Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III

Offline RyanC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 812
  • Crazy Researcher
    • Alternate Wars
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #230 on: May 30, 2011, 07:12:26 pm »
Robert McCall Sketches for STS-1 Patch

Robert Pearlman at CollectSpace has researched this and this is what he posted:

Link to CollectSpace Forum

Quote
Here is the timeline as referenced by NASA memos of the day (many thanks to Valerie Neal at the National Air and Space Museum for her help with researching these!):

May 1977 -- Naming process not yet started, according to a letter from the Assoc. Admin. for External Affairs

Jan. 1978 -- Office of Public Affairs internal memo suggested that Orbiter 102 be named Kitty Hawk

May 1978 -- A naming committee that was formed at NASA HQ reported a list of recommended "names having a significant relationship to the heritage of the United States or to the Shuttle's mission of exploration." Kitty Hawk was 11th in a prioritized list of 15 names headed by Constitution and Independence. (Columbia was not on that list.)

With credit to Valerie Neal, here is the list per a May 26, 1978 memo from the Associate Administrator for Space Transportation Systems (John Yardley) to the Director, Public Affairs on the subject:

Recommended List of Orbiter Names
(In descending order of preference)

Constitution
Independence
America
Constellation
Enterprise [reserved for possible 5th orbiter, to carry on OV-101's name]
Discoverer
Endeavour
Liberty
Freedom
Eagle
Kitty Hawk
Pathfinder
Adventurer
Prospector
Peace


25 January 1979: NASA announces the names of the four orbiter fleet in press release no. 79-10, "Shuttle Orbiters Named after Sea Vessels".

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1629
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #231 on: May 30, 2011, 07:29:48 pm »
Thanks for that.  It's interesting.  I'm researching the history of the naming of the Enterprise for an article that I'm writing for Star Trek magazine.  I did not know that they considered using the name for an active orbiter.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9458
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #232 on: July 08, 2011, 11:49:24 am »
North American/General Dynamics Phase B shuttle?

Source:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/forthebirds/4340668695/in/set-72157623256022329/
« Last Edit: July 08, 2011, 11:52:15 am by Triton »

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8186
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #233 on: July 15, 2011, 11:14:10 am »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline circle-5

  • Concept Models Guy
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1081
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #234 on: August 15, 2011, 10:36:58 am »
Enterprise crew at rollout ceremony.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8186
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #235 on: September 11, 2011, 01:27:41 pm »
enjoy! now in free access

Shuttle Variations And Derivatives That Never Happened - An Historical Review
Carl F. Ehrlich, Jr.
Consultant, Calabasas, CA 91302
James A. Martin
The Boeing Company, Huntington Beach, CA 92647
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3708
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #236 on: September 12, 2011, 02:50:48 am »
Ultra Cool PDF  B)
THX, Flateric  ;D
I love Strange Technology

Offline OM

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 753
    • OMBlog
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #237 on: September 19, 2011, 09:13:07 pm »
...And then there was Figure 12 of Section IV, the "lenticular payload". I can see someone at Boeing was guilty of watching too much Star Trek back then  :o



Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9458
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #238 on: October 21, 2011, 01:27:33 pm »
General Dynamics Convair Division Multipurpose Reusable Cruise-Spacecraft artist's concept found on eBay.

URL:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/GENERAL-DYNAMICS-ARTISTS-CONCEPT-FRAMED-PRINT-/220870517063?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item336ce8a147

Offline ikke666

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 83
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #239 on: November 25, 2011, 10:40:02 am »

Can any-one post  pics (i love scale 3 view drawings) of early space shuttle concept art with the specs of the concept?  ::)

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6802
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #240 on: November 25, 2011, 11:46:31 am »
You mean like this?
 
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=12527
 
or this?
 
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=12450
 
or this?
 
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=12417
 
or this?
 
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=12346
 
Those links have higher rez versions of these:
 
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 Graham1973

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 886
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #242 on: November 25, 2011, 09:35:06 pm »
Sorry about the lack of specs on this one, but it's a cool picture dating from shortly after the final decision on which shuttle they were going to build.

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1629
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #243 on: November 26, 2011, 07:41:13 am »
Sorry about the lack of specs on this one, but it's a cool picture dating from shortly after the final decision on which shuttle they were going to build.

Looks to me like it is depicting a tug pulling a payload away, with another payload in the forward bay. They never actually carried anything like that, and that doesn't seem like a good way to do it. Would you want a robotic craft approaching the shuttle under power? Probably better to have the shuttle do the approach.

Offline Matej

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2617
  • Multiuniversal creator
    • Hitechweb - bizare aviation
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #244 on: November 26, 2011, 08:42:30 am »
Just found in one presentation. Kinda funny and "reality representative".

Bizarre aviation expert.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6802
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #245 on: November 26, 2011, 09:35:05 am »
Just found in one presentation. Kinda funny and "reality representative".

Huh. What's the date on the presentation?
 
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=1732
 
 
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: 2617
  • Multiuniversal creator
    • Hitechweb - bizare aviation
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #246 on: November 26, 2011, 10:01:48 am »
Wow, thats nice. It was in one of the first sixty presentations that appear, when you type "FESTIP filetype:PDF" to the google. Not something I was looking for, so I did only printscreen.

Bizarre aviation expert.

Offline ikke666

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 83
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #247 on: November 26, 2011, 10:36:05 am »

thanks for the respons  ;D
loved the links to the nasa pdf's  :)

Offline PlanesPictures

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 889
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #248 on: November 26, 2011, 11:07:41 am »
from my work

Offline Graham1973

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 886
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #249 on: November 26, 2011, 04:08:10 pm »
Sorry about the lack of specs on this one, but it's a cool picture dating from shortly after the final decision on which shuttle they were going to build.

Looks to me like it is depicting a tug pulling a payload away, with another payload in the forward bay. They never actually carried anything like that, and that doesn't seem like a good way to do it. Would you want a robotic craft approaching the shuttle under power? Probably better to have the shuttle do the approach.

What it depicts is the last gasp of the Integrated Manned Program. The Space Tug (left in orbit by another shuttle) has just docked with & is pulling a Refuelling Module (RM) away from the shuttle. Once it has topped up it's fuel tanks the tug will release the RM and re-rendezvous with the shuttle to dock with the payload held in the shuttles RMS arms.

After placing the payload into transfer orbit the tug will re-dock with the RM & again top up it's tanks before returning the RM to the shuttle.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720023151_1972023151.pdf

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1629
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #250 on: November 27, 2011, 12:39:08 pm »
What it depicts is the last gasp of the Integrated Manned Program. The Space Tug (left in orbit by another shuttle) has just docked with & is pulling a Refuelling Module (RM) away from the shuttle. Once it has topped up it's fuel tanks the tug will release the RM and re-rendezvous with the shuttle to dock with the payload held in the shuttles RMS arms.

After placing the payload into transfer orbit the tug will re-dock with the RM & again top up it's tanks before returning the RM to the shuttle.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720023151_1972023151.pdf

That's interesting. But I note that the payload has its own upper stage (including rocket bell) so it should not require a boost to GEO. I think that is a mistake on the artist's part.

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1589
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #251 on: November 27, 2011, 12:39:40 pm »
Ultra Cool PDF  B)
THX, Flateric  ;D

Agreed. Mutated shuttles aplenty... I'm very fond of the stretched orbiter, much less stubby-looking than the orginal. Almost graceful !
By contrast the hammerhead ET is, eerhm, quite phallic looking. Kind of Austin Powers shuttle - groovy baby  !
« Last Edit: October 10, 2012, 10:50:19 am by Archibald »
Conservatoire de l'Air et de l'Espace d'Aquitaine - Bordeaux - Mérignac / Dassault aviation museum
http://www.caea.info/en/plan.php

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 12939
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #252 on: November 30, 2011, 07:34:03 am »
Apparently the name  Triamese was not just for the FR-4 variant, but for the whole FR- series of designs. Also it appears that the FR- series were NASA-given, not Convair, designations:

Quote
There were at least five ways to build a fully-reusable shuttle, and NASA had appropriate designations and descriptions:

FR-1
: the Triamese;
FR-2
: a two-stage vehicle with the engines of both stages ignited at launch;
FR-3
: a two-stage vehicle with engines in the orbiter ignited only upon staging (Faget's shuttle was an FR-3; so were the concepts of McDonnell Douglas);
FR-4
: a variant of the Triamese with the core stage not of the same length as the twin booster stages;
FR-5
: a concept designed to avoid a shift in its center of gravity as its propellant tanks would empty, thus easing problems of stability and control.

Source: The Space Shuttle Decision http://www.munseys.com/diskone/nasfour.htm

Offline Graham1973

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 886
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #253 on: December 02, 2011, 01:04:17 am »
What it depicts is the last gasp of the Integrated Manned Program. The Space Tug (left in orbit by another shuttle) has just docked with & is pulling a Refuelling Module (RM) away from the shuttle. Once it has topped up it's fuel tanks the tug will release the RM and re-rendezvous with the shuttle to dock with the payload held in the shuttles RMS arms.

After placing the payload into transfer orbit the tug will re-dock with the RM & again top up it's tanks before returning the RM to the shuttle.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720023151_1972023151.pdf

That's interesting. But I note that the payload has its own upper stage (including rocket bell) so it should not require a boost to GEO. I think that is a mistake on the artist's part.

Actually that upper stage is a solid fuel stage to circularize the orbit once it reaches GTO if I've read the report correctly.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2011, 04:47:52 am by Graham1973 »

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 12939
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #254 on: December 02, 2011, 02:30:03 am »
from my work

Awesome, Jozef, as usual. I especially like the second picture. Well done!



Offline Graham1973

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 886
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #257 on: March 26, 2012, 03:26:44 am »
Impressive, I've seen one of those pictures at the NTRS, but many are new to me.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7377
  • _ \\ //
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #258 on: March 26, 2012, 12:00:45 pm »
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/03/what-shuttle-should-have-been-the-october-1977-flight-manifest/

Quote
Soon after President Richard Nixon gave his blessing to the Space Shuttle Program on 5 January 1972, NASA targeted its first orbital flight for 1977, then for March 1978. By early 1975, the date had slipped to March 1979. Funding shortfalls were to blame, as were the daunting technical challenges of developing the world’s first reusable orbital spaceship with 1970s technology. The schedule slip was actually worse than NASA let on: as early as 31 January 1975, an internal NASA document gave a “90% probability date” for the first Shuttle launch of December 1979.
 
In October 1977, Chester Lee, director of Space Transportation System (STS) Operations at NASA Headquarters, distributed the first edition of the STS Flight Assignment Baseline, a launch schedule and payload manifest for the first 16 operational Shuttle missions. The document was in keeping with NASA’s stated philosophy that reusable Shuttle Orbiters would fly on-time and often, like a fleet of cargo airplanes. The STS Utilization and Operations Office at NASA’s Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Houston had prepared the document, which was meant to be revised quarterly as new customers chose the Space Shuttle as their cheap and reliable ride to space.
To the Stars

Offline George Allegrezza

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 708
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #259 on: March 26, 2012, 01:42:38 pm »
Well, the engine kept blowing up, taking its test stand with it on several occasions.  That tended to play havoc with the PERT charts.

Offline bercr

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 133
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #260 on: May 05, 2012, 01:17:30 pm »
Plenty of Hi-Res material on the SDASM Flickr photostream added May 4 2012 here
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=Space%20Shuttle%20program%20San%20Diego%20Museum#page=0

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2100
« Last Edit: May 14, 2012, 03:13:17 pm by XP67_Moonbat »
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7377
  • _ \\ //
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #262 on: June 09, 2012, 01:37:48 pm »
Shuttle Enterprise this week:


[IMAGE CREDIT: BBC NEWS/Michael Nagle/Getty Images]
:(
« Last Edit: June 09, 2012, 01:43:14 pm by Grey Havoc »
To the Stars

RGClark

  • Guest
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #263 on: July 15, 2012, 06:09:47 am »
from my work

 Thanks for that PlanesPictures. Great art work.

   Bob Clark


Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3708
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #265 on: July 26, 2012, 10:43:45 am »



http://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/6996760322/
This is the North American Rockwell full reusable Shuttle around june 1971


i not sure if that is from Grumman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/6996760322/
it's part of illustration of "Space Shuttle: Briefing Scope" NASA HQ MH71-6484 8-10-71
I love Strange Technology

Offline pometablava

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 3173
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #266 on: July 26, 2012, 01:05:48 pm »
Michel, you posted twice the same link ;)

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 12939
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #267 on: July 26, 2012, 01:32:27 pm »
I wasn't talking about the Shuttle, but more about the huge launch vehicle, which appears in all six illustrations.

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3708
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #268 on: July 26, 2012, 01:56:45 pm »
I wasn't talking about the Shuttle, but more about the huge launch vehicle, which appears in all six illustrations.


ooh, dat is Shuttle first stage booster  before they switch on Solid booster on 1973
I love Strange Technology

Offline ender

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #269 on: July 26, 2012, 02:26:16 pm »
Hello

it should be the June 1971 Phase B proposal combination of General Dynamics B9U booster and North American NAR-161-B orbiter.

Best regards,
Carmine

Offline NUSNA_Moebius

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 73
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #270 on: July 29, 2012, 11:10:53 am »
That looks like a Star Clipper variation.

Indeed.  And I've always like the Starclipper basic configuration.  Seemed workable and with a sizable portion of fuel storage on the craft itself, the external tanks with a bit of redesign could be jettisoned at a practically low altitude for proper recovery.  The external tanks could be given a more lifting body-ish design as well as a "platform" for the shuttle to "sit" on that also could work as a deflection lifting surface and protection for atmospheric reentry.  I'm sure plenty would argue against the design, but it seemed quite sound to me.

Offline The Artist

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 517
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #271 on: July 29, 2012, 08:08:22 pm »
If you haven't already, you must check out Scott's Aerospace Projects Review, Volume 3, Number 2. Good Star Clipper material in that one.
"Thank you for summing that up."

Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7377
  • _ \\ //
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #272 on: August 01, 2012, 05:43:04 am »
NASA Marshall Space Flight Center initial proposal/study for refurbishing Skylab for Shuttle operations: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/07/nasa-marshalls-skylab-reuse-study-1977/


Skylab in Phase III configuration, c. 1984. Image: Junior Miranda
(Wired.com)
To the Stars

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #273 on: August 01, 2012, 05:00:16 pm »
Hello

it should be the June 1971 Phase B proposal combination of General Dynamics B9U booster and North American NAR-161-B orbiter.

Best regards,
Carmine


There was also a North American Model-140 and Model-160 orbiters.

Offline circle-5

  • Concept Models Guy
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1081
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #274 on: August 18, 2012, 07:42:27 pm »
"Excess Personal Property":  $1,980,674,785.00
« Last Edit: August 18, 2012, 07:46:03 pm by circle-5 »


Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2100
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #276 on: September 02, 2012, 06:56:54 pm »
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586
« Last Edit: September 08, 2012, 08:47:08 am by hesham »

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2100
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #278 on: September 08, 2012, 02:31:07 pm »
The first stage carrier looks like an offshoot of the Boeing Boomerang. See here:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3752.msg29420.html#msg29420
 
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7377
  • _ \\ //
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #279 on: September 10, 2012, 12:25:16 pm »
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19542934

Quote
Bill Moggridge, a British industrial designer who created the original computer laptop shape, has died.

Mr Moggridge died from cancer at the age of 69.

His computer, the Grid Compass, was designed in 1979 and initially used by the American military. It retailed at $8,150 (£5,097) and was installed on board the space shuttle Discovery.

The magnesium-cased device was distinctive because the screen display folded down over the keyboard.


RIP
To the Stars

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 12939
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #280 on: October 05, 2012, 05:28:17 am »
Not being a Space Shuttle specialist (and not a "space person", more generally) I do not know exactly what project was evaluated in this sub-scale model hanging from below a Sikorsky CH-54, but I'm sure someone will identify soonest...

Quote
MANNED SPACECRAFT CENTER, HOUSTON,, TEXAS - - MSC SPACE ORBITER SHUTTLECRAFT — The one-tenth size dynamically scaled experimental model of the proposed "MSC 12.5K Space Orbiter Shuttlecraft" is shown mounted under a U.S. Army CH-54 helicopter prior to a successful drop test at Fort Hood, Texas, on May 4, 1970, The initial drop test at Fort Hood and the continuing drop tests at
the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico are to demonstrate the test vehicle's transition from a high angle of attack reentry to a level cruise attitude, the stability of the vehicle in stalled conditions, and to obtain freeflight data to assist in aerodynamic analytical transition prediction techniques. The shuttle test vehicle is about 13 feet long, with a fuselage two feet in diameter, an eight-foot wing span; and it weighs about 600 pound. Construction of the test vehicle is of aluminum and fiberglass. Maximum drop altitudes will be 12„000 feet.

Source: Sikorsky promotional photo, for release on May 22, 1970

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6802
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #281 on: October 05, 2012, 10:35:56 am »
Not being a Space Shuttle specialist (and not a "space person", more generally) I do not know exactly what project was evaluated in this sub-scale model hanging from below a Sikorsky CH-54, but I'm sure someone will identify soonest...

It's the "DC-3" orbiter, designed/pushed originally by Max Faget, and refined by McD.
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 hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #282 on: November 06, 2012, 07:37:12 am »

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #283 on: November 06, 2012, 07:39:29 am »
And in the picture 15,the comparison between, Chrysler,Lockheed,Grumman
and Boeing.

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 12939
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #284 on: November 08, 2012, 02:03:37 am »
Not being a Space Shuttle specialist (and not a "space person", more generally) I do not know exactly what project was evaluated in this sub-scale model hanging from below a Sikorsky CH-54, but I'm sure someone will identify soonest...

It's the "DC-3" orbiter, designed/pushed originally by Max Faget, and refined by McD.

Thanks, Scott. And thanks hesham for the nice document.

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #285 on: November 08, 2012, 05:24:09 am »
And in the picture 15,the comparison between, Chrysler,Lockheed,Grumman
and Boeing.


Thank you Stargazer,


by the way,the picture 13 was a McDonnell Douglas twin fuselage concept.

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #286 on: November 09, 2012, 02:09:49 pm »
A great NASA report,speaks about Rockwell 161C,and some shuttle concepts;


http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720013230_1972013230.pdf

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #287 on: November 09, 2012, 02:10:48 pm »
And;

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #288 on: November 10, 2012, 07:57:08 am »
Here is a Rockwell Space Shuttle designs,a strange booster in
picture 5,6,7 and 8.


http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710008963_1971008963.pdf

Offline pometablava

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 3173
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #289 on: November 10, 2012, 08:11:53 am »
That's a goldmine!

Thanks a lot Hesham :)

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #290 on: November 10, 2012, 08:24:16 am »
 Thank you my dear Pometablava.

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3708
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #291 on: November 11, 2012, 08:31:05 pm »
Nice find hesham !
I love Strange Technology

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #292 on: November 12, 2012, 05:26:16 am »
Thank you my dear Michel,


and here is a Rockwell Shuttle wing configurations;


http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790013835_1979013835.pdf

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #293 on: November 16, 2012, 05:45:10 am »
Hi,


  • Parallel expendable solid rocket motors. Proposed concepts: [1] McDonnell-Douglas/Martin Marietta, [5] North American Rockwell/General Dynamics, [8] Grumman/Boeing.
  • Parallel recoverable pressure-fed liquid rocket boosters. [2] McDonnell-Douglas/Martin Marietta, [4] North American Rockwell/General Dynamics, [7] Grumman/Boeing.
  • A single recoverable pressure-fed liquid rocket booster. [3] McDonnell-Douglas/Martin Marietta, [6] North American Rockwell/General Dynamics.
  • A single recoverable liquid rocket booster derived from the Saturn S-IC stage. [9] Grumman/Boeing.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2012, 11:45:56 am by Stargazer2006 »

Offline GTX

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2383
  • All hail the God of Frustration!!!
    • Beyond The Sprues
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #294 on: November 16, 2012, 11:30:00 am »
Please!  No Green writing - it is almost impossible to read.

Offline Stingray

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 384
  • Brony rotorhead...
    • Stingray's List of Rotorcraft
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #295 on: November 16, 2012, 11:34:23 am »
Hesham, may I make a suggestion when pasting text from other sources?
Paste your copied text into a blank text document on your computer. Copy the text again from there, then paste it here on the forum. I do this all the time to avoid this kind of issue.

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #296 on: November 16, 2012, 02:06:29 pm »
OK my dears,


but I can't fix it now.

Offline ender

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #297 on: November 27, 2012, 08:12:48 am »
Sorry about the lack of specs on this one, but it's a cool picture dating from shortly after the final decision on which shuttle they were going to build.

better resolution

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/7142849071/in/photostream/

from the San Diego Air & Space Museum Archives

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7377
  • _ \\ //
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #298 on: January 15, 2013, 05:10:54 am »
Some more of Junior Miranda's work, this one illustrating a proposed Proposed Shuttle-Salyut mission from the late '70s:


From, and briefly mentioned in this Beyond Apollo article.

Quote
The 1977 ASTP repeat proposal gained little traction. Though talks aimed at a U.S. Shuttle docking with a Soviet Salyut space station had resumed in May 1975, no plans for additional U.S.-Soviet manned missions existed when the ASTP Apollo splashed down. Shuttle-Salyut negotiators made progress in 1975-1976, but the U.S. deferred signing an agreement until after the results of the November 1976 election were known.
 
In May 1977, the sides formally agreed that a Shuttle-Salyut mission should occur. In September 1978, however, NASA announced that talks had ended pending results of a comprehensive review. Following the December 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, work toward joint U.S.-Soviet manned space missions was abandoned. It would resume a decade later as the Soviet Union underwent radical internal changes that led to its collapse in 1991 and the rebirth of the Soviet space program as the Russian space program.
To the Stars

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1629
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #299 on: January 16, 2013, 09:38:14 pm »
There was actually artwork done of that Salyut docked to a shuttle. However, I think I've only seen it as a photocopy on a paper report. Presumably the actual artwork was kept at one of the centers, probably JSC.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7377
  • _ \\ //
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #300 on: January 28, 2013, 10:05:04 am »
To the Stars

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9458
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 12939
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #302 on: March 26, 2013, 02:30:57 am »
Grumman?

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9458
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #303 on: April 04, 2013, 01:16:43 pm »
McDonnell Douglas space shuttle concept model found on eBay.

URL:http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/Themes/Aeroish/images/bbc/quote.gif
http://www.ebay.com/itm/McDonnell-Douglas-Vintage-Piggyback-Conceptual-Space-Shuttle-Desk-Model-/321099750509?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4ac3095c6d

Seller's description:

Quote
Genuine manufacturer's resin model of McDonnell Douglas' space shuttle concept. Booster stage is 9" long, with 5" wingspan. The model could maybe use a light cleaning, and there are a few very small paint chips, and one equally small decal chip. Front locator pin for the shuttle stage is sheared off, but the shuttle still displays solidly on the booster. Wooden base and nameplate are in good condition.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9458
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #304 on: April 09, 2013, 10:31:19 pm »
Winning bid: US $2,081.00

Offline fightingirish

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1933
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #305 on: April 14, 2013, 10:19:04 am »
Probably posted in some place or in other format (b/w) in this forum.


Source: Le Fana de L'Aviation 1997-10 (335), page 52 & 53
Slán,
fightingirish

Slán ist an Irish Gaelic word for Goodbye.  :)

Offline cosmiste

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 5
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #306 on: May 16, 2013, 11:06:07 am »
Hello there,

It is a very interesting forum of yours, space projecters... A lot of wonderful technical stuffs here. :P

So i have a question for you, as I found no answers in the threads.

Does anyone knows about this Space Shuttle Hybrid Boosters project ?

The picture is from the book : George P Sutton - Rocket Propulsion Elements - 7th edition p580.

I have no idea of the year or the contractor that made the study, but I would love to get the specs of that lovely beast.


 

 

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7377
  • _ \\ //
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #307 on: June 23, 2013, 09:44:39 am »
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a091420.pdf

Quote
Examines organizational and procurement
issues surrounding NASA-DoD cooperation for
a specific case study--DoD use of NASA
standard spacecraft. Space shuttle operation,
as the U.S. standard launch vehicle
for both NASA and DoD payloads, refocuses
attention on NASA-DoD cooperation. Use of
standard spacecraft designs offers reduced
operational costs, but intensifies the difficulty
of determining agency needs and responsibilities
while retaining mission responsiveness.
A modified system-impact-assessment
approach compares total costs of
alternative procurement options and applies
both sensitivity and a fortiori analyses to
manage uncertainty. Principal conclusions
are: use of a new standard spacecraft design,
rather than any original NASA or DoD
designs, provides the basis for minimizing
the cost of the Air Force Test Program;
factors essential to NASA-DoD cooperation
are a common subset of missions, a common
organization responsibility, and an extensive
period of time to develop the organizational
mechanics; and the successful
NASA-DoD cooperation model is not easily
transferred to other situations. 207 pp.
To the Stars

Offline circle-5

  • Concept Models Guy
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1081
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #308 on: July 18, 2013, 09:56:25 pm »
Currently for sale on eBay, these real NASA photos of awesome Space Shuttle concepts from the future, going into like, outer space!!

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6802
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #309 on: July 18, 2013, 10:04:14 pm »
Currently for sale on eBay, these real NASA photos of awesome Space Shuttle concepts from the future, going into like, outer space!!

Hey, neat! SERV art!
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 danwild6

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 10
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #310 on: July 28, 2013, 01:55:43 am »
The links on the first page are dead anyone got updates

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8186
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #311 on: July 28, 2013, 03:36:30 am »
First page? Everything works for me. Give some examples of no-working urls.
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline danwild6

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 10
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #312 on: July 28, 2013, 03:42:24 am »

Offline OM

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 753
    • OMBlog
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #313 on: July 28, 2013, 05:59:50 pm »
. http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceLVs/Slides/index.htm does this work for you


..No, sorry, this one's broke too. Looks like it's a Markus Lindroos production, tho, based on the path syntax.

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #314 on: October 19, 2013, 07:47:17 am »
Hi,


here is the North American Rockwell Model 130C space shuttle.


http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710025631_1971025631.pdf

Offline cosmiste

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 5
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #315 on: February 08, 2014, 12:32:48 pm »
I am trying to draw a timeline of most In-Line shuttle Derived LVs toward SLS.
I found this pic from Wikipedia about a mysterious Morton Thiokol proposal from 1978 or 1979. It seems to be the first In Line LV studied but I did not find any details anywhere so far.

Does anyone knows the specs of that LV ?

 

Offline Graham1973

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 886
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #316 on: February 09, 2014, 12:05:05 am »
A couple of images of an early McDonnell-Douglas proposal.





Both are courtesy of the Project Apollo NASSP Wiki. The original documentation is offline due to the "Cry Wolfe" incident.

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20586
Re: US Space Shuttle Projects
« Reply #317 on: April 16, 2014, 07:36:26 am »
Hi,


I found those three different Shuttle projects in the magazine,Flieger Revue 10/1980,can anyone
ID them ?.