Grumman Space Shuttle : Design 518 & 532 to H-33

[hesham]

Hi,

I found that report about the Grumman H-33,they said it was drawing number
518,and I don't know if they mean G-518 or not.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720005228_1972005228.pdf

 

[Stargazer]

The G-518 appears in my list as an "early orbiter project" so I guess it's safe to say that this is indeed a Model G-518 related proposal.

 

[circle-5]

The G-518 appears in my list as an "early orbiter project" so I guess it's safe to say that this is indeed a Model G-518 related proposal.

The Grumman Design 518 orbiter was an entirely different vehicle. See attached photos of the correct 518 orbiter, from the Grumman model shop. Note how the number 518 is cleverly painted on the orbiter's vertical fin.

 

[Stargazer]

The Grumman Design 518 orbiter was an entirely different vehicle.

Maybe so. But then the same model number could refer to quite a series of alternate designs. In case you did not see it in the photograph, it says "DRAWING NUMBER: 518 MOD 826". It seems logical that "518" indicates the model and "826" the variant.

 

[Nik]

Re: Grumman 518

That's a very handsome bird...

I like the proportions, the dihedral...

Thank you.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

I so want that!

 

[Orionblamblam]

I have decent diagrams of that around here somewhere...

 

[circle-5]

Another view of the 1970 Grumman Design 518 Orbiter model, plus a Grumman rendering of the 518 separating from its manned booster, plus a rendering of the H-33. Let's see if the H-33 has anything in common with Design 518, that would justify identical model numbers.

The H-33 was proposed later, in 1971, during the third contract of Shuttle Phase B studies; it had three, smaller main engines instead of two on the 518; it used a completely different, Boeing G-3 booster and was attached in a dorsal, not ventral, configuration; it was much smaller than the 518 and was not fully reusable. It was considered a stage-and-a-half design, while the 518 was fully reusable. The H-33 relied on two disposable LH2 external tanks (over 25 metric tons ea.) mounted on the fuselage sides, whereas the 518 carried all of its propellants internally -- note H-33 wind tunnel model photo caption: without external tanks. Design 518 had a radically different, lifting body type airframe; it also had a much higher staging velocity than the H-33, and the list goes on. Of course, the anti-glare shields on both orbiters are black, so that could make them "related" projects.

It is, in fact, *not* correct to assume that Drawing Number 518 could be anything other than just that -- a drawing number. The actual item Description in Hesham's document is "Basic H-33 Orbiter Body". It appears just above said drawing number.

Both renderings were lifted off the Internet -- thank you to the forgotten sources.

 

[circle-5]

And here is a 3-View drawing of the Grumman H-33 orbiter, from the NTRS document.

 

[Orionblamblam]

This is *not* the decent drawing of the 518 that I have somewhere.

 

[Triton]

Grumman Boeing H33 space shuttle booster, sans orbiter, concept model found on eBay.

URL:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Original-Vintage-1960s-Experimental-Grumman-Boeing-Space-Shuttle-Desktop-Model-/270863765527?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3f10bd1017

Seller's description:

Original experimental concept flyback space shuttle booster. This is a Grumman Aerospace Corporation-Boeing concept. I do not believe very many of these desktop models were made. I have done a fair amount of research and have only located one other one.The other is on display at the Smithsonian in New York City [sic]. It is 17 1/2 inches tall with a 11 inch wingspan. This model originally had a orbiter vehicle attached to the back of the booster. It has not been with the booster since I have owned it. The booster is in good condition but does have several paint chips that are visibly seen in the photos provided.

 

[Triton]

Grumman Boeing H33 space shuttle booster, sans orbiter, concept model found on eBay.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Another fourm member (not me) is *REALLY* hoping to be able to get this, and mate it up with the proper shuttle orbiter...

 

[hesham]

Hi,


from NASA report; http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720022227_1972022227.pdf
here is the Grumman H-33 with drop tanks,but the report still don't work.

 

[circle-5]

Grumman H-33: yes. Grumman Design 518: no.

 

[Stargazer]

Grumman H-33: yes. Grumman Design 518: no.

If you know more about the designations used by Grumman for the H-33, please tell us.

What I have in my list is that the G-518 slot was used for a series of orbiter projects, including H-33 (518 MOD 826).

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Hopefully this hasn't been posted before - I came across it while looking for something else:

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20160012503.pdf

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

And some more. Big report

 

[hesham]

Amazing find my dear Paul,

and this report solves the problem in the H-33 topic;

 

[Michel Van]

thx both of you, for the picture B)

 

[Archibald]

What a truly astonishing report. Packed with beautiful pictures. also exploring the feasibility of a F-1 powered booster, which made so much sense.

 

[circle-5]

Factory model of the Grumman Design 518 Orbiter. Until this report, I had no idea the front panel line was for a swing-nose and the ones just behind the flight deck were for pop-out pairs of turbojets. What an exceptional document!

 

[Crackerbarrel67]

 

[soloseven]

I just purchased this very model off eBay that is pictured in the report. Design 532.
Only the booster with the 5 F1 engines, too bad the orbiter has been lost to time.
This booster had 5 F1 engines and would fly back! Woof! What a monster.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Merged two Grumman Space Shuttle topics as they were very interlinked.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I just purchased this very model off eBay that is pictured in the report. Design 532.
Only the booster with the 5 F1 engines, too bad the orbiter has been lost to time.
This booster had 5 F1 engines and would fly back! Woof! What a monster.

The late John Aldaz (circle5) had the orbiter and was desperate to buy the booster, and his collection has been sold on, so the orbiter is out there somewhere.

 

[Nik]

Thank you all.

There's some sweet birds documented above...

 

[Crackerbarrel67]

I just purchased this very model off eBay that is pictured in the report. Design 532.
Only the booster with the 5 F1 engines, too bad the orbiter has been lost to time.
This booster had 5 F1 engines and would fly back! Woof! What a monster.

Its large...more like a piece of furniture than a model. I am boxing it up for shipment.... [email protected]

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Amazing Grumman-Boeing H-33 artwork in super-high-res on Flickr:

https://flic.kr/p/2kmbrwZ

(attached a 50% size copy to forum)

 

[TimothyC]

Hopefully this hasn't been posted before - I came across it while looking for something else:

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20160012503.pdf

Thank you for having posted that link Paul. I used it as a major reference to my lasted twitter thread:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1391963028711780353

View: https://twitter.com/ArnieHolmes/status/1391963028711780353

 

[Tybarious]

Some more photos of the Grumman Shuttle

https://nyheritage.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16694coll109/id/5981/rec/236https://nyheritage.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16694coll109/id/5984/rec/4https://nyheritage.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16694coll109/id/5936/rec/2

 

[Archibald]

I just purchased this very model off eBay that is pictured in the report. Design 532.
Only the booster with the 5 F1 engines, too bad the orbiter has been lost to time.
This booster had 5 F1 engines and would fly back! Woof! What a monster.

Yes it was a monster. Four million pound at (vertical) liftoff - 1814 metric tons - and a few hundred tons at landing. Almost as massive as a 747 with the rocket propellant tanks empty except for some kerosene to run the turbofans. The damn thing needed a battery of fighter jet turbofans to flyback, a pity they didn't use the General Electric GE4 from the SST, more than 30 tons of thrust.

default(1).jpg looks it has three Titan solids strapped below the external tank. If that was the Titan IIIM solids from the MOL, they had seven segments so 6 O-rings, per three, that's 18 O-rings flying close from each others. What could possibly go wrong ?

 

[Scott Kenny]

I think I see why this wasn't pursued.

The stack onto the vertical launcher (what is that, a Saturn 5 first stage?) looks really weak and prone to damage.