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

British Spacestation

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,610
Reaction score
595
next to famous B.I.S. 1948 Study by H. E. Ross
and 1990 British Aerospace Space Station

were there other British Space Stations proposal ?
 

Barrington Bond

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
929
Reaction score
80
Mention is made in this thread for RAF space station.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5657.msg45774.html#msg45774

Regards,
Barry
 

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,610
Reaction score
595
so the RAF look first for big MOL Station (10 men)
later in begin 1960's Modular Space Station

but were no station proposal by B.I.S. or Industry during 1960-80 ?
 

Spark

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Aug 29, 2008
Messages
361
Reaction score
19
Michel Van said:
so the RAF look first for big MOL Station (10 men)
later in begin 1960's Modular Space Station

but were no station proposal by B.I.S. or Industry during 1960-80 ?

Hi Barry, Michel and Dark Lord

The Programme official lasted from late 1953 or early 1954 to July1960.
The Spaceplane was to have been operational from 1965, so one assumes that the Space Station would have been operational from 1965 or shortly there after?
It was assumed that People would have an essential role in space. Remember the state of technology Fifty years ago radios and computers! Changing valves, etc .? Taking photographs. “Satellite inspection”. The operational requirement was for a ten man space station, my memory falters but rotation was an overlapping four week cycle So a five man ferry would be orbited every two weeks.
RAE were not sure about orbital rendezvous and docking, so early studies were done for a large vehicle with a return craft attached. A ten man return craft, capsule? This must have been middle fifties. A separate craft was deemed necessary at some point that was capable of rendezvous with the space station. Meccano like construction was looked at but thought impractical with “suited” crew. Some bright spark thought of large separately launched plug in modules but who was responsible or when exactly not known. Except I was aware of it in 1961 and had the impression the idea was 1959 or before.
There was at that time at least four UK companies working on spacesuits. Normalair, Siebe Gorman, Frankenstein, and the Windak consortium.
One very strange solitary reference with out explanation in a document from 1959, I think it was the Frankenstein suit under discussion was it was “suitable for the moon vehicle and re-entry” your guess is as good as mine. Any thoughts? What were the dates for project Horizon?

It seems certain that the UK was looking at larger members of the Blue Streak family for SLV purposes before the USA did similar with the Saturn 1.
In Flight 1960 November? There are figures given for cost savings for a Moon Expedition if launched from an African high altitude equatorial base. These figures agree with the costs if the large cargo SLV were used if derived from those given by Pardoe for the BS SLV
When talking to Charles Martin about the RAF/Military Blue Streak SLV I mentioned the 14ft diameter 16ft diameter and 20ft diameter variants. He said do not forget the 15ft one there was a lot of work done on it. He was most emphatic about it and that it should be included.
Personally I know nothing more about it other than it must have been military and I guess would have been compatible with USA military work of the time and hence at a later date the reason for the width of the Shuttle cargo bay.
Sorry running out of time final thought there were studies BIS circa1960 for a moon station and comments about a forty foot long habitation module.
 

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,610
Reaction score
595
for British 1960`s Manned lunar exploration here:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,6954.0.html

There are figures given for cost savings for a Moon Expedition if launched from an African high altitude equatorial base.
is that the B.I.S. proposal by P. A. E. Stewart ?

the Frankenstein suit under discussion was it was “suitable for the moon vehicle and re-entry”

Frankenstein :D got someone picture of that suit ?
 

Barrington Bond

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
929
Reaction score
80
BBC article about Frankenstein...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/articles/2007/01/10/100107_spacesuit_feature.shtml

Regards,
Barry
 

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,610
Reaction score
595
Wat a shame

in end they make Space Suit for 2001
a movie prop...
 

Barrington Bond

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
929
Reaction score
80
They were also interested in inflatable space stations ;D

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1962/1962%20-%201602.html?search=frankenstein

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1962/1962%20-%202047.html?search=frankenstein
 

Attachments

  • frankinflate.JPG
    frankinflate.JPG
    112.5 KB · Views: 237

Spark

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Aug 29, 2008
Messages
361
Reaction score
19
Michel Van said:
for British 1960`s Manned lunar exploration here:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,6954.0.html

There are figures given for cost savings for a Moon Expedition if launched from an African high altitude equatorial base.
is that the B.I.S. proposal by P. A. E. Stewart ?

the Frankenstein suit under discussion was it was “suitable for the moon vehicle and re-entry”

Frankenstein :D got someone picture of that suit ?

Hi Michel,

The article was from
FLIGHT, 25 November 19G0
Missiles
and
Spaceflight
MOUNT KENYA LAUNCH-SITE PROPOSED
A multi-phase plan for a British space-research programme was
put forward by Mr E. G. D. Andrews, chief designer (rockets),
Bristol Siddeley Engines, in a lecture before the British Interplanetary
Society on Saturday last, November 19. In his paper,
British Participation in Space Research, Mr Andrews gave estimates
of the probable costs involved, an appraisal of the British
Commonwealth's resources in this field, and a study of the various
types of possible launch vehicles
 

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,610
Reaction score
595
why is launch from an African high altitude equatorial base, so important ?

first
Rocket engine work not good on sealevel, because the airpressure at engine nozzle
that called "Aerostatic back-pressure and optimum expansion problem"
more here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine_nozzle#Aerostatic_back-pressure_and_optimum_expansion
you can adapt Rocket engine for airpressure, but it work not good in high altitude
so all engine in first stage are a compromise
also has the Rocket push true atmosphere Wat bring lost in energy and speed

if you build a launch pad over 16.404 ft or 5000 meter.
the airpressure drop from 1013,25 hPa to 506,6 hPa !
you understand now why there so many proposal for Aircraft launch rockets ;)

second:
if launch rocket in east direction, the rocket gain more speed by earth rotation
but if launch site in more to north or south less speed you gain.
at equator and Launch to the east, you get 1522 ft/sec, 464 meter/sec GRATIS

launch from high altitude equatorial base you get in theory 30% more payload.

Ideal high altitude equatorial site
Mount kenya http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Kenya
Mount Kilimanjaro http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilimanjaro
Cotopaxi in Ecuador: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotopaxi
 

Spark

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Aug 29, 2008
Messages
361
Reaction score
19
Michel Van said:
why is launch from an African high altitude equatorial base, so important ?

first
Rocket engine work not good on sealevel, because the airpressure at engine nozzle
that called "Aerostatic back-pressure and optimum expansion problem"
more here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine_nozzle#Aerostatic_back-pressure_and_optimum_expansion
you can adapt Rocket engine for airpressure, but it work not good in high altitude
so all engine in first stage are a compromise
also has the Rocket push true atmosphere Wat bring lost in energy and speed

if you build a launch pad over 16.404 ft or 5000 meter.
the airpressure drop from 1013,25 hPa to 506,6 hPa !
you understand now why there so much proposal for Aircraft launch rockets ;)

second:
if launch rocket in east direction, the rocket gain more speed by earth rotation
but if launch site in more to north or south less speed you gain.
at equator and Launch to the east, you get 1522 ft/sec, 464 meter/sec GRATIS

launch from high altitude equatorial base you get in theory 30% more payload.

Ideal high altitude equatorial site
Mount kenya http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Kenya
Mount Kilimanjaro http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilimanjaro
Cotopaxi in Ecuador: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotopaxi
Hi Michel

"Mr Andrews considered three potential launching sites within
the Commonwealth—Spadeadam Waste, Woomera, and a possible
site on the top of Mount Kenya, of which he said: "Situated on
the equator and rising to a height of over 17,000ft, this dormant
volcano seems to be the ideal launching site for interplanetary
probes and other difficult launchings. The Indian Ocean lies
some 380 miles to the east of it and beyond that lie a number of
islands under Commonwealth control and suitable for tracking
stations. Singapore is directly in line some 4,000 miles away."
The following five factors, the speaker suggested, made such a
site preferable to that at Woomera.
(1) An equatorial trajectory makes it easier to place satellites into
orbit in the plane of the ecliptic; and the easterly launch makes it
possible to launch "stationary" satellites efficiently. (2) An equatorial
launch provides the maximum initial velocity (1,500ft/sec) for a vehicle
launched in an easterly direction. (3) The low atmospheric pressure at
17,000ft causes the specific impulse of the rocket engine to be increased
at launch by about six per cent. (4) The improvement in specific impulse
enables an increased launch weight to be used without corresponding
increase in engine weight, hence increasing the mass ratio of the vehicle
by nearly the same amount. (5) The low density of the atmosphere
results in lower aerodynamic drag during the initial phases of the launch.
"Compared with an equatorial sea level site, the gain could be
worth about l,5OOft/sec. Although this does not sound very high
it corresponds to an increase in payload of between 20 and 30 per
cent, depending on the conditions. For the launch of a manned
expedition to the Moon this could be worth £5m per shot. The
only known technical disadvantage is that the launch trajectory
passes through the deepest section of the Van Allen belt.""
 

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,610
Reaction score
595
Frankenstein-Beaufort

is that related to P. Frankenstein and Sons Ltd. ?
 

TsrJoe

CLEARANCE: Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
442
Reaction score
241
ref. RAF. Air Cadets educational booklet on 'Space Travel' (US. Goodyear concept)...
 

Attachments

  • 1968SpaceTravelAirCadetsBook9-08.jpg
    1968SpaceTravelAirCadetsBook9-08.jpg
    18.2 KB · Views: 14
Top