• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

AMSCI/ALSV - Air-launched mini shuttles from early 1980s - help needed

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
I think that you remember these tiny stuff that Boeing, Rockwell and GD proposed to USAF under family of programs - "Air-Launched Sortie Vehicle", ALSV/“Advanced Military Spaceflight Capability Technology Identification”, AMSCI and so on.

Don't you have higher-resolution scans of these proposals? These are for my friends' future book on MIG 50x50 Spiral and other Soviet air-launched concepts, that will be published in spring, 2008.

Thanks in advance!

P.S. Literature list that may contain stuff needed

1. Interavia Aerospace Review, 1982, v.37, II, N 2, p.117.
5. Plight International, 1984, v.125, 14/1, N 3897, p.72.
8. Air Force Magazine, 1984, v.67, N 4, p.25-26.
10.Aerospace America, 1985, v.23, II, N 2, p.50-53.
11. Journal of Spacecraft, 1986, v.23, XI-XII, N 6, p.612-619.
12. International Defense Review, 1982, v.15, N 8, p.1113.
13. Popular Mechanics, 1982, XII, p.120.
14. Space World, 1983, N T-1-229, p.33.
15. Plight International, 1982, v.122, 4/XII, N 3839, p.1637.
18. Smith B.A. Study shows space sortie concept viable by 1990. Aviation Week and Space Technology, 1982, v.117, 1/XI, N 18, p.69-70.
19. Aviation Week and Space Technology, 1982, v.117, 20/XII, N 25, p.63.
20. Aviation Week and Space Technology, 1982, v.116, 14/VI, N 24, p.28.
22. Aviation Week and Space Technology, 1982, v.117, 9/III, N 6, p.49.
23. Air Force Magazine, 1983, v.66, N 11, p.111.
30. Spaceflight, 1984, v.26, III, К 3, p.123-128.
32. Spaceflight, 1985, v.27, I, N 1, p.3.
33. Spaceflight, 1987, v.29, III, N 3, p.90-91.
34. Interavia Air Letter, 1986, 20/V, N 11001, p.6.
35. Air et Cosmos, 1986, 6/IX, N 1107, p.46.
36. Plight International, 1986, v.130, 30/VIII, N 4026, p.60.
37. Plight International Show Daily, 1986, 2/IX, N 3, p.36.
38. Air et Cosmos, 1986, 20/XII, N 1122, p.31-32.
 

Attachments

  • alsv_b82.jpg
    alsv_b82.jpg
    26.8 KB · Views: 833
  • alsvb79a.jpg
    alsvb79a.jpg
    23 KB · Views: 2,311
  • tav_ri1.jpg
    tav_ri1.jpg
    34.9 KB · Views: 793
  • tav_ri2.jpg
    tav_ri2.jpg
    41.4 KB · Views: 744
  • alsv_r8x.jpg
    alsv_r8x.jpg
    33.8 KB · Views: 789
  • tavgd82b.gif
    tavgd82b.gif
    8.4 KB · Views: 302

Antonio

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Don't you have higher-resolution scans of these proposals?

I'll sent you some of it to your email

Future book on MIG 50x50 Spiral and other Soviet air-launched concepts, that will be published in spring, 2008.

A future customer is waiting from right now

(I hope that book never be published with this "people" at http://www.aviapress.com/. I ordered "Soviet Long Range and Naval Aviation missiles" book which theoretically was shipped 25-10-2007 but never received. All the emails I've sent to "customer service" remain without answer...I'm a bit dissapointed (to say something soft), not for the money lost but because I've very interested on the book contents)
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
pometablava said:
Don't you have higher-resolution scans of these proposals?

I'll sent you some of it to your email

Future book on MIG 50x50 Spiral and other Soviet air-launched concepts, that will be published in spring, 2008.

A future customer is waiting from right now

(I hope that book never be published with this "people" at http://www.aviapress.com/. I ordered "Soviet Long Range and Naval Aviation missiles" book which theoretically was shipped 25-10-2007 but never received. All the emails I've sent to "customer service" remain without answer...I'm a bit dissapointed (to say something soft), not for the money lost but because I've very interested on the book contents)

Nope, they are Vadim Lukashevich and Igor Afanasyev (www.buran.ru) - and me too, waiting patiently for)
Regarding Aviapress - two weeks not a big time so far with a Russian post with average salary rate of 200 USD.
I'd began worry at third week or so.
 

archipeppe

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
That's my personal contribution to the discussion...
 

Attachments

  • Sortie Vehicle_02.jpg
    Sortie Vehicle_02.jpg
    292 KB · Views: 463
  • Sortie Vehicle_01.jpg
    Sortie Vehicle_01.jpg
    157.2 KB · Views: 429

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
And that's mine;) Thank you, Archipeppe - that's look good, hope that original drawings can improve it even more)
 

Attachments

  • boeingals.jpg
    boeingals.jpg
    162.8 KB · Views: 309
  • boeingals1.jpg
    boeingals1.jpg
    136.6 KB · Views: 317
  • boeingals2.jpg
    boeingals2.jpg
    87.6 KB · Views: 218
  • boeingals2-1.jpg
    boeingals2-1.jpg
    108.5 KB · Views: 217
  • boeingals3.jpg
    boeingals3.jpg
    150.6 KB · Views: 296

archipeppe

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Great Flateric!!!! :) :)

I really missed these drawings when I realized mine ones....
I based my work upon the only two artist's concepts avaible on web.

For sure with this fresh informations I can really improve my work.

Many, many thanks.
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
For Rockwell ALSV I have only this crappy side view and two cross-sections
 

Attachments

  • ritawgrid.jpg
    ritawgrid.jpg
    237.1 KB · Views: 173

CFE

CLEARANCE: Secret
From a technical standpoint, was the ALSV concept even feasible? Much like the Russian MAKS (ALSV-ski?) it would need to be "nearly SSTO." The drop tank lets you get away with a lighter structure than a true SSTO, and air launch buys you a high subsonic initial velocity (plus avoiding certain velocity losses due to the trajectory.)

Also, how risky would the top-mounted launch have been? Many engineers turned against it after the D-21+M-21 collision. But the truth is that clean separations had been achieved when the mated D-21 & M-21 separated in a shallow dive. The Enterprise ALT flights should have also redeemed that launch method.
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
CFE said:
Many engineers turned against it after the D-21+M-21 collision.

Much of the proplem there was that separation occured around Mach 3. The D-21 went up, hit the M-21's shock wave, then bounced back down. Not a problem for subsonic sep.
 

archipeppe

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Orionblamblam said:
Much of the proplem there was that separation occured around Mach 3. The D-21 went up, hit the M-21's shock wave, then bounced back down. Not a problem for subsonic sep.

Yep.

It is my opinion that air launch is the only feasible option if you try to setup an "almost SSTO".
Indeed any of the much projects developed by this tecnique (not counting the suborbital X15, SpaceShip One and with the exception of the unmanned OSC Pegasus) has never reached the hardware status.

Perhaps....
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
As Igor Afanasyev said, 'there are tiny details that makes really exciting drawing from cute one')
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
The Boeing Space Sortie vehicle and associated 747. The final design used seven modified RL-10 rocket engines in the tail of the 747 for an extra boost to help climb right at separation; an earlier iteration used a single SSME, but that was much more thrust than was needed.
 

Attachments

  • smallboeing sortie drawing 1.gif
    smallboeing sortie drawing 1.gif
    19.4 KB · Views: 266
  • smallboeing sortie drawing 2.gif
    smallboeing sortie drawing 2.gif
    37.5 KB · Views: 305

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
cool Art Scott ! (also the other ;D )

made with Wat program ?

back to Boeing Air-launched mini shuttles

how solve Boeing the Problem with Shuttle&Tank not hitting 747 Empennage after separation ?
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Michel Van said:
made with Wat program ?

AutoCAD


how solve Boeing the Problem with Shuttle&Tank not hitting 747 Empennage after separation ?

The RL-10 rocket engines in the tail of the 747 would help get the 747 into a high-angle climb. At separation, two RL-10's on the Sortie woudl fire (the outboard ones, in order to miss the 747 tail with their exhaust), and the 747 would immediately dive. Think of it as a 747/Shuttle separate, but with thrust on the Shuttle. Since the separation occured at subsonic speed, there'd be little worry of unfortunate shock impingement.
 

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
i check my data on Harddrive and found this

Literature list adding
”Air-launched Shuttle Concepts” -- Peebles, JBIS 1983/p.153
”Military Mini-Shuttle Could Fly by 1988” -- Space World 1982/October/p.41

is this data to the ALSV correckt ?

In 1979, Boeing and the US Air Force Rocket Propulsion Laboratory proposed a small unmanned "Air-Launched Sortie Vehicle", ALSV consisting of a reusable spaceplane and a huge expendable propellant tank. The vehicle could overfly any point on Earth within 90 minutes of the launch order and also perform other military missions such as satellite inspection. It then returns to a military airbase and lands horizontally like the Space Shuttle.

The ALSV stack would be carried piggy-back to an altitude of 11.3km by a modified Boeing 747 carrier aircraft, where it separates and fires its engines to head for Earth orbit. The tank would be drained of fuel and jettisoned at 108.8km altitude. The concept would have required no new technologies, although the Boeing 747 carrier aircraft would have required many modifications including LOX,LH2 propellant tanks in the fuselage (the ALSV drop tank has little insulation to save weight so the propellant must be transferred only shortly before launch) and an SSME installed in the tail to allow a rapid 60 degree climb while carrying a fully fueled ALSV. The vehicle would have been ready for a first launch in 1988, but USAF decided not to pursue the project further due to its limited payload carrying capability.

Liftoff Thrust: 1381.725kN. Total Mass: 390,100kg. (Boeing 747+ALSV).
Payload capability: 1,590kg to 185km sunsynchronous orbit. Payload bay size: 1.52 x 2.74m

Stage 1 : 9 x RL-10. Liftoff thrust: : 1381.725kN. Isp: Gross Mass: 124,738kg. Empty Mass: 9,070kg + 5,900kg drop tank. Length: 15.85m. Span: 9.14m. Drop tank length: 24.4m. Drop tank maximum diameter: 4.3m. Propellants: LOX/LH2.

Source: copy of Markus Lindroos Homepage

had Boeing or USAF consider to use ALSV as a Manned Shuttel or Manned Hyper Sonic Transporter ?
you can put for small capsule with 2 to 3 person in Cargo bay
better say a sardine tincan with USAF Personel inside ;D
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
The Rockwell design. Note that this vehicle was to be manned, while the Boeing vehicle was not. To my eye, it looks like the Rockwell design has a very small propellant supply. There's a fair amount in the fuselage, but that ET still looks pretty small. I suspect that the difference is that Boeings design was pretty conservative, while Rockwells Sortie vehicle was in a family of designs that included pure SSTO designs (including a rocket powered SSTO that took off from runways using its own landing gear... a serious engineering challenge).

Rockwell also did not use rockets on the 747, but clearly massively alterred the tail to provide clearance.
 

Attachments

  • smallrockwell sortie drawing 1.gif
    smallrockwell sortie drawing 1.gif
    19.9 KB · Views: 381
  • smallrockwell sortie drawing 2.gif
    smallrockwell sortie drawing 2.gif
    42.3 KB · Views: 417

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
that Rockwell design:

this ET is very small. to small for my taste.
is the fuel super cooled down ?
( if you cool down LOX to 54,75° Kelvin, its Density goes from 1.140 g/cc to 1,3 g/cc.)

and is that one SSME in Shuttle ?
 

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
let me guess...

the SSME was the only big Lox/LH2 engine rockwell had in 1980s ;D ;D ;D

that engine is very thirsty, in theory one need 236000 kg Lox/Lh2 to go orbit.
a Boeing 747 Cargo has Payload of 112600 kg...

Scott, you got data about weight of Shuttle and ET on Boeing 747 ?
 

starviking

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Michel Van said:
that Rockwell design:

this ET is very small. to small for my taste.
is the fuel super cooled down ?
( if you cool down LOX to 54,75° Kelvin, its Density goes from 1.140 g/cc to 1,3 g/cc.)

Maybe it stages? Drop the tank and continue to orbit on internal fuel and oxidizer? The orbiter look big enough for that.

Starviking
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Orionblamblam said:
The Rockwell design.

A minor "oops." This is the Rockwell design from 1983... their Space Sortie design from 1985 was quite a bit different.
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
This is the 1985 Rockwell design. The source drawings were nowhere near as detailed as I would've liked. Note that Rockwell further modified the 747... stretched fuselage with much larger wing.
 

Attachments

  • smallrockwell 1985 sortie 2.gif
    smallrockwell 1985 sortie 2.gif
    23.9 KB · Views: 344
  • smallrockwell 1985 sortie 1.gif
    smallrockwell 1985 sortie 1.gif
    8.8 KB · Views: 317

CFE

CLEARANCE: Secret
Looks like Rockwell ripped off the LS-200 Starclipper orbiter for the 1985 concept.

In both the Boeing and Rockwell designs, what was the speed, altitude and attitude of the 747 mothership when the orbiter was released? I am trying to figure out why the rocket engine in the 747 was necessary. I assume it would be required to overcome the added drag of the orbiter. I would not expect the 747 and orbiter to separate in anything other than a near-level attitude.

The Soviets didn't think they needed rocket power on the An-225 mothership for the similar MAKS project. That's not to say that the Soviets knew better, though.
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
CFE said:
Looks like Rockwell ripped off the LS-200 Starclipper orbiter for the 1985 concept.

The Starclipper and the Rockwell design both used the same Flight Dynamics Lab designed lifting body. Just different scales.

Other data on these designs will be released in an APR article... someday.
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Here is a General Dynamics AMSC design circa 1983. Two man crew, 5000 lbs payload. Drawn up to same specs as for the Space Sortie, but clearly with a somewhat different design.



PS: If'n y'all like these drawings, feel free to subscribe to Aerospace Projects Review, or buy the drawings & documents I've got for sale... sales of these helps fund further research and production of drawings.
 

Attachments

  • smallGD 1983 amsc 1.gif
    smallGD 1983 amsc 1.gif
    13.4 KB · Views: 364
  • smallGD 1983 amsc 2.gif
    smallGD 1983 amsc 2.gif
    29.6 KB · Views: 262

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
One of the Rockwell TAV designs. This used an unusual ground effect "sled" first stage.
 

Attachments

  • small rockwell gem tav dwg 1.gif
    small rockwell gem tav dwg 1.gif
    14.8 KB · Views: 226
  • small rockwell gem tav dwg 2.gif
    small rockwell gem tav dwg 2.gif
    20 KB · Views: 272

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
little bit more of Rockwell's ASLV...
 

Attachments

  • ri_aslv_1sm.jpg
    ri_aslv_1sm.jpg
    182.4 KB · Views: 203

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Hi,

the Lockheed LS-200 Starclipper.
 

Attachments

  • c46ca4a8.jpg
    c46ca4a8.jpg
    74.3 KB · Views: 340

starviking

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Nice model Hesham.

I'm not sure it fits in this this 'Air-launched' thread. US Space Shuttle projects perhaps?
 

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
starviking said:
Nice model Hesham.

I'm not sure it fits in this this 'Air-launched' thread. US Space Shuttle projects perhaps?

That's Lockheed Starclipper.
by the company's senior designer Max Hunter, exist in 2 version

one
Lockheed ILRV design created for the USAF in 1966.
second
Lockheed LS-200 Starclipper.
became a US Space Shuttle projects

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/staipper.htm

by the way its not a Air-launched mini shuttles
who ever Starclipper is some times confuse with the FDL-5 Flying Bodies Studie
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,722.msg14399.html#msg14399
but i don't know if that is launch with tanks like Starclipper from a Aircraft
 

RobertWL

CLEARANCE: Restricted
What exactly was the intended roles for these Mini-shuttles? And was there any estimates for per-launch costs? I'm kind of intrigued by these designs, don't know why really. ;D
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
flateric said:
RobertWL said:
What exactly was the intended roles for these Mini-shuttles?

keyword "SDI"

Can you elaborate more on this? Satellite inspection and destruction? Maintenance of orbital SDI systems such as kinetic kill, laser, and/or rail gun satellites? Intercept of launched ICBMS? Were these mini-shuttles meant to be armed?

Was the Soviet MAKS project launched from an An-225 Mriya a response to the American mini-shuttles?
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Triton said:
Satellite inspection and destruction?

Yes.

Maintenance of orbital SDI systems such as kinetic kill, laser, and/or rail gun satellites?

Yes.

Intercept of launched ICBMS?

No (far too slow response time).

Were these mini-shuttles meant to be armed?

Not as such, though there were a number of proposals for loading their cargo bays with MIRVs.

Also: recon.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Orionblamblam said:
Triton said:
Satellite inspection and destruction?

Yes.

Maintenance of orbital SDI systems such as kinetic kill, laser, and/or rail gun satellites?

Yes.

Intercept of launched ICBMS?

No (far too slow response time).

Were these mini-shuttles meant to be armed?

Not as such, though there were a number of proposals for loading their cargo bays with MIRVs.

Also: recon.

Thank you Orionblamblam. ;D I had a feeling too that they would be used as bombers. ;)
 

Meteorit

CLEARANCE: Secret
Can anyone explain the relationship between the ALSV, AMSCI and TAV programs? They are often lumped together without much further thought and I haven't really been able to find a clear answer. Was one a continuation or a subpart of another, or what? Also, I would like to know which companies submitted designs to which programs (there appear to be some listings on Marcus Lindroos's site, but any further input or validation would be appreciated).
 

XP67_Moonbat

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Meteorit,

Here you go buddy. Gotta love Webarchive, right?
http://web.archive.org/web/20070608224025/www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceLVs/Slides/index.htm

Enjoy!

Moonbat
 

Similar threads

Top Bottom