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

Manned anti-Satellite systems ("space fighters")

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,421
Reaction score
283
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
I am gethering info for a future article for APR on manned satellite interceptors. The systems I can think of off the top of my head that have decent illustrations:
1: Dyna Soar interceptor variants
2: Soviet "Spiral 50-50"
3: SAINT II
4: Space Cruiser
5: GD lenticular interceptor (illustrated below)
6: Grumman LM variant
7: Gemini-based interceptor

Am I missing any? I've heard of British concepts from the 60's, but I've not seen illustrations. The article will illustrate all the designs with all-new scale drawings.

The possibility also exists for scale model kits (1/72) being made for the GD design. Several DS models have been released; some years ago I started on a Spiral in 1/72, but it's so big that it'd be *damn* expensive.
 

Attachments

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,282
Reaction score
114
Am I missing any?
Soyuz 7K-P (Perekhvatchik, Interceptor)
Soyuz 7K-PPK (pilotiruemiy korabl-perekhvatchik, manned interceptor spacecraft)

Soyuz 7K-VI and ALMAZ (TKS) i know there advance space-based reconnaissance Program
but they have a recoilless gun on board so in theory they can play "space fighter"

for Spiral 50-50 "reconnaissance" and 50-22 "Interceptor"
you have check this page ? (russian)
http://www.buran.ru/htm/spiral.htm
http://www.buran.ru/htm/spiral_5.htm
it seems that after Spiral programs end, there was plans to launch OC with Soyuz Booster.

here som grafic from OC (OS orbital spaceplane) from that site
Photo reconnaissance
Cockpit is mini space Capsul
manned interceptor spacecraft
interceptor Rocket
 

Attachments

robunos

You're Mad, You Are.....
Senior Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
1,758
Reaction score
18
Michel Van said:
but they have a recoilless gun on board so in theory they can play "space fighter"

for Spiral 50-50 "reconnaissance" and 50-22 "Interceptor"
you have check this page ? (russian)
http://www.buran.ru/htm/spiral.htm
http://www.buran.ru/htm/spiral_5.htm
it seems that after Spiral programs end, there was plans to launch OC with Soyuz Booster.
english language version of the page is here:-

http://www.buran.ru/htm/molniya3.htm

cheers,
Robin.
 

Matej

Multiuniversal creator
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
2,617
Reaction score
42
Website
www.hitechweb.genezis.eu
archipeppe said:
That's my personal contribution to the discussion, in particular for the DARPA "Space Cruiser".
Nice drawings. In this case I realized, how complicated is it to have human aboard. Thanks God for progress in technology.
 

archipeppe

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
1,564
Reaction score
75
Matej said:
Nice drawings. In this case I realized, how complicated is it to have human aboard. Thanks God for progress in technology.
You're right Matej, especially if we take into account that "Space Cruiser" (despite to its so magnificient name) was the closest thing to a "space fighter" ever conceived until now.

It was to be launched by a submarine, through a SLBM, instead of the MIRVs onboard.
High maneuverability, due to its 17 small engines, across 2/3 orbits of lifeflight.

No pressurized section, so the crewman has to wear pressurized suit all over the time. This allows to save weight and to be less sensible to damages in an eventual battle.

The high gees ballistic reentry was to be performed "a la ICMB" pointing nose down. After reentry a "Rogallo wing" was to be deployed, with landing skids, to achive landing or splashdown. In this way it was possibile to have a flexible, high covert (due to its launch nature) and even cheap military space vehicle.
 

Lauge

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
437
Reaction score
1
Greetings

Since this is my very first post on this website, bear with me:

On http://www.ussr-airspace.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=24_53&products_id=1282 and http://www.ussr-airspace.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=24_53&products_id=1283 there are models of two Soviet "space battle stations", armed with directed energy weapon(-s) and missiles respectively.

Whether these two are relevant to the current discussion is of course a little uncertain, since the information on the above website leaves the following questions open:
1. Are these supposed to be manned systems? They are referred to as "space stations", which would seem to indicate that they are, but there is no confirmation. Also, the models seem to show no indication of "habitation", that is windows, docking rings, hatches, etc.
2. What is the manoeuvre capability of these systems, that is, would they fit the definition of a space "fighter", or are they more what you would call an orbiting battle station or a killer satellite?
3. Last but not least: Are these in fact real projects (It seems so, from the website, but I haven't seen them mentioned anywhere else), or are they merely the results of a model-makers overheated imagination?

Regards,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Denmark

PS: http://www.ussr-airspace.com/index.php?main_page=index has quite a lot of other models of various (and spurious) air and space projects.
 

Attachments

Grif

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jan 19, 2008
Messages
52
Reaction score
0
As to British ideas on this line, go here:

http://spaceuk.org/sr53/sr53.htm

for some stuff about the Saunders-Roe rocket fighters. The rest of the site has some very interesting stuff about British rocketry, too!
Grif
 

McTodd

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 21, 2007
Messages
69
Reaction score
3
Lauge said:
3. Last but not least: Are these in fact real projects (It seems so, from the website, but I haven't seen them mentioned anywhere else), or are they merely the results of a model-makers overheated imagination?
At first, I thought one of them (the second, with the shiny missile tubes) was an Almaz, but it isn't. I suspect they're 'real' (that is, not purely works of an unoffical modelmaker's imagination) insofar as they may be based on official sketched ideas or concepts.

The first, the laser battle station, may be based on a Russian 'concept' from the old SDI days (just as the US military tossed out loads of 'concept' sketches at that time, none of which was actually practicable).

The second, the missile carrier, looks more practicable so may derive from more detailed, technically plausible concept drawings.
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,806
Reaction score
264
Lauge, these are quite a real projects from NPO Energiya from 70-80s timeframe, based on DOS-7K space station core module.
They should have been able to destroy wide range of targets, from satellites at high and low Earth orbit, to MIRVs.
Missile carrier has much more fuel onboard as volume was not taken by energy generators for laser.
Both variants were intended for launch in Buran cargo bay, and would be visited by cosmonauts crw of two for overhauls for a week period max, but most of the orbiting time they should be unmanned.
 

Attachments

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,659
Reaction score
243
archipeppe said:
That's my personal contribution to the discussion, in particular for the DARPA "Space Cruiser".
Very nice pics. The Space Cruiser would have been the ultimate ride - from a submarine to the stars!! :eek:
But there's something I don't understand with this thing. Did it used the two stages of the Poseidon, thus replacing only the nuclear warheads ? Sounds a bit too long in this case, as the Space cruiser was nearly as long as the missile itself (around 30 feet each).

What's the height (length ?) of a launch tube in a SSBN ?
 

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,282
Reaction score
114
What's the height (length ?) of a launch tube in a SSBN ?
same as length of the SSBM
see Picture

I think that The Space Cruiser had to be assemble be for launch
Sub surface, open SSBM ports, pull Space cruiser out,
Navy Astronaut in, put on top of Poseidon and Launch ...
 

Attachments

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,421
Reaction score
283
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Michel Van said:
What's the height (length ?) of a launch tube in a SSBN ?
same as length of the SSBM
see Picture

I think that The Space Cruiser had to be assemble be for launch
Sub surface, open SSBM ports, pull Space cruiser out,
Navy Astronaut in, put on top of Poseidon and Launch ...
I don't know that they thought the process through all that well; that's why I don;t really buy the sub-launched idea. if they *really* wanted to have a sub launched option, is seems that they'd do better to have the Trident and the spaceplane fuly assembled and stored in a "pod" that could be carried on the subs back like a DSRV. When the time comes, the pilot leaves the sub and enters the pod via a tunnel (like the DSRV), gets in, checks the systems, and then the pod is cut loose and floats to the surface. A combo of these:



 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,659
Reaction score
243
Thank you very much for those brilliant explanations!
 

archipeppe

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
1,564
Reaction score
75
Thinking about Space Cruiser concept, I've always wondered how it was possible to launch the whole thing by a submarine due to lenght constraints of launch tubes.
I support the idea of Michel Van because it seems (at least to me) more practical than any other, and it is perfectly according to the "vertical staking" manner usually expolited by Americans to launch something (anything) in Space.

In any case Russians are very demonstrated that space launches by submarine are feasible (with some degree of success), and it makes the Space Cruiser concept still appealing even today.
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,659
Reaction score
243
Hmmm maybe its time to open a dedicated thread about Space Cruiser ?


Another option would be to use only the first stage of the Poseidon.
Seems the Space cruiser had 17 small rocket engines.
Sadly I can't find dimensions of Poseidons stages...

But you still have the problem of putting the astronaut in this thing - I really can't imagine the guy waiting the launch for days or even weeks in its machine...
 

Antonio

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,371
Reaction score
50
I really can't imagine the guy waiting the launch for days or even weeks in its machine...
I agree
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,659
Reaction score
243
pometablava said:
I really can't imagine the guy waiting the launch for days or even weeks in its machine...
I agree
... don't think either it would be possible to dug a door into a launch tube so that our pilot can climb in its cockpit...
That's why I think Orion idea is probably the most realistic.
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,421
Reaction score
283
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Michel Van said:
I think that The Space Cruiser had to be assemble be for launch
Sub surface, open SSBM ports, pull Space cruiser out,
Navy Astronaut in, put on top of Poseidon and Launch ...
This would require a minimum of three SLBM launch tubes: one for the booster, one for the Spaceplane, and one for the crane needed to move the spaceplane.

Either way - vertical storage requiring assembly or horizontal storage in a "pod" is a massively unpleasant proposition. The pod approach would be faster to launch, but would slow the sub, and would expend more hardware. However, the Navy did repeately study designs that used such pods to carry larger missiles like the Minuteman and Peacekeeper, giving subs global range. Obviously, they were never built.

Another possibility would be horizontal storage within the sub itself, but that would require a virtually complete redesign of the hull.
 

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,282
Reaction score
114
but that would require a virtually complete redesign of the hull.
let stay on that point

a Posidon C-3 is around 782 cm long without Warheads
with a Space Cruiser on top is something of 1590-1600 cm (52 ft) long
that 1/3 longer as the launch tube in sub (10,39 meter or 34 ft)
those tube are 2,5 meter 8.2 ft outside sub hull.
so why not extend the launch tube for 2,5 meter under the sub ?
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,421
Reaction score
283
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
In that case you'd want to extend *up*, producing something like the Soviet "Delta" class boomers. Going up allows you to blend into the sail and not penetrate the hull much more than it already has been.

 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,659
Reaction score
243
Welcome here. The link you posted is, well, Orionblablam review ;)
 

XP67_Moonbat

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
2,154
Reaction score
13
Space Cruiser patent. I had to make an account to see though. Interesting reading though.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6530543.html

Moonbat
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
221
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Model of DOS-7K laser weapon space station from the USSR-Russia Aviation and Space Collectibles web site.

MILITARY SPACE STATION MODEL OF NPO ENERGIA ( ORIGINAL DESIGNER OF THIS STATION IN 70-80-s).DESIGNED TO BE CAPABLE TO DESTROY MILITARY SPACE OBJECTS,BALISTIC MISSILES IN FLIGHT AND IMPORTANT OCEANIC AND GROUND TARGETS. EXACT COPY IN DESK TOP SIZE 12 x 10.5`
http://www.ussr-airspace.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=24_53&products_id=1282
 

Attachments

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
221
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Model of DOS-7 rocket weapon military space station from USSR-Russian Aviation and Space Collectibles web site.

A MODEL OF MILITARY SPACE STATION `DOC-7K` WITH ROCKET WEAPON. HAND MADE FROM METAL BY SCIENCE PRODUCTION ASSOCIATION `ENERGIA` EXACT DETAILED COPY-REPLICA, AS IT WAS DESIGNED BY NPO ENERGIA IN 70-80-s. THESE MILITARY STATIONS SUPPOSE TO BE DELIVERED TO ORBITES BY MULTIUSABLE SPACE CRAFT `BURAN`. WITH FINISH OF COLD WAR PROJECT WAS TEMPORARLY FROZEN.
http://www.ussr-airspace.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=24_53&products_id=1283
 

Attachments

CNH

CLEARANCE: Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2010
Messages
264
Reaction score
44
The British proposals came from an RAF requirement, OR9001.

RAE wrote a very nice report, but unless the UK was going to spend almost its entire defence budget on this one project, it had little chance.

I would guess at a date of around 1964. It's ten years since I read the file!
 

Attachments

Barrington Bond

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
926
Reaction score
23
Thank you! Been wanting to see that for years.

Do you know who had input into its design? Terence Nonweiler had any input?

Regards,
Barry Hinchliffe
 

blackstar

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,687
Reaction score
15
CNH said:
RAE wrote a very nice report, but unless the UK was going to spend almost its entire defence budget on this one project, it had little chance.
They were already spending a lot of money on the submarine launched airplane and S.I.D., right?
 

CNH

CLEARANCE: Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2010
Messages
264
Reaction score
44
Nonweiler - no.

The pics come from a RAE report which is in the PRO, although it is a long time since I looked at it. Unfortunately, I can't even remember the PRO reference.

Like most RAE reports, it was all very theoretical, without any attempt to consider what might have already been developed. There was some airy mention of development costs near the beginning [£600M? At 1960s prices.]

It kept the boffins busy, but its relationship to the real world, as so often at RAE, was small to negligible.
 

Nik

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
382
Reaction score
0
Flip ships...

Uh, slightly OT, but there was another way to square a very tall vertical launch assembly with a low-profile ship. One step beyond the 'pod' is the genuine Flip-Ship, an oceanographic research platform...

http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/flip-ship/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RP_FLIP

A 'flip-sub' is probably a step tooo far, though...
 

Barrington Bond

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
926
Reaction score
23
It didn't look like Nonweiler had input into that design...
Regards,
Barry
 

Spark

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Aug 29, 2008
Messages
361
Reaction score
0
Barrington Bond said:
It didn't look like Nonweiler had input into that design...
Regards,
Barry
Hi Barry, CNH ,

On the general arrangement drawing the name Dr. Handel Davies appears.
The scale of the drawing was one inch to ten feet.
I think the propellants were none cryo, but storeable for military quick reaction.
The last point is open to correction.
There was a paper by Val Cleaver or one of his team with a vehicle of similar but more sensible layout.
This vehicle could alter itsorbital inclination by twenty degrees to either side of the primary orbit
and reach out some thousands of nautical miles from a 300 n.mile parking orbit.
 

dannydale

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
May 13, 2007
Messages
213
Reaction score
3
XP67_Moonbat said:
http://www.ninfinger.org/models/vault2004/hs_spaceplane_study.jpg
That's the DARPA Space Cruiser. Nice find, too.
 

OM

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
753
Reaction score
0
Website
www.io.com
dannydale said:
XP67_Moonbat said:
http://www.ninfinger.org/models/vault2004/hs_spaceplane_study.jpg
That's the DARPA Space Cruiser. Nice find, too.
...I thought this was the Navy's 1970's attempt at a sub-launched manned space "fighter"? Is my IIRC shorting out again?
 
Top