Shuttle Orbiter kidnapping Salyut - In search of old art

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,305
Reaction score
1,886
I remember an artist depiction of Shuttle napping Salyut station on orbit with twin arms with 'classic' cylinder space tug vivisecting another Soviet satellite at the background (station seems to have lost its solar battery)
Saw it at the end of 80s in several variations. Painting obviously had Western origin.


Anyone knows what I'm talking about? Anyone has this art?
 

aliensporebomb

If it flies, it's probably interesting...
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
67
Reaction score
3
Website
www.aliensporebomb.com
I believe I saw this artwork framed under glass at a naval facility in Minnesota back in the early 1990s sometime.


I was visiting the installation as guest and asked my host what the story was on the image and he just smiled.
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,305
Reaction score
1,886
there's always has been urban myth that Reagan was almost to authorize Challenger use to nap Salyut-7 after control of station was lost in Feb 1985 ::)
and yes, Roskosmos even filmed a documentary about it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_difdEhyJuk ;D
 

RanulfC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
993
Reaction score
495
flateric said:
I remember an artist depiction of Shuttle napping Salyut station on orbit with twin arms with 'classic' cylinder space tug vivisecting another Soviet satellite at the background (station seems to have lost its solar battery)
Saw it at the end of 80s in several variations. Painting obviously had Western origin.


Anyone knows what I'm talking about? Anyone has this art?
One of the Analog magazines had a black-and-white of the Shuttle grabbing a Salyut for one of it's articles. Early 80s IIRC but I can't recall a month.

Randy
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,987
Reaction score
3,528
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Stealing a space station is not something that can be done without being noticed... and it's hard to see how such an action *wouldn't* be considered an act of war. It seems to me that even if possible, it would be a monumentally stupid thing to do. Like using a ray gun mounted in the X-37 to take out Phobos-Grunt.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,869
Reaction score
448
Orionblamblam said:
Stealing a space station is not something that can be done without being noticed... and it's hard to see how such an action *wouldn't* be considered an act of war. It seems to me that even if possible, it would be a monumentally stupid thing to do. Like using a ray gun mounted in the X-37 to take out Phobos-Grunt.


...and an even more basic question: Why would we want it?
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,305
Reaction score
1,886
I feel shame for a r
Orionblamblam said:
Stealing a space station is not something that can be done without being noticed... and it's hard to see how such an action *wouldn't* be considered an act of war. It seems to me that even if possible, it would be a monumentally stupid thing to do. Like using a ray gun mounted in the X-37 to take out Phobos-Grunt.
while every normal here understands that whole story is BS (I feel ashamed - documentary scenarist is my friend - if I only knew that HE WORKS ON THIS!)
the reason given is kinds 'US preventing uncontrolled de-orbit of Soviet hardware using it's technology gap'
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,305
Reaction score
1,886
RanulfC said:
One of the Analog magazines had a black-and-white of the Shuttle grabbing a Salyut for one of it's articles. Early 80s IIRC but I can't recall a month.
B/W ink-pen drawing, yes? this was second variant I saw
 

starviking

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,278
Reaction score
453
Stephen Baxter wrote a short story in 1998, "War Birds" where a Salyut has its Solar Panels sliced off by a laser-armed shuttle, which then nabs it using its payload bay. Maybe he saw the same picture in Analog?
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,987
Reaction score
3,528
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
flateric said:
the reason given is kinds 'US preventing uncontrolled de-orbit of Soviet hardware using it's technology gap'

While there's some value it not letting space stations come crashing down willy-nilly all over the landscape... let's face it, even Mir coming down didn't really cause all that much anxiety. If a Salyut coming down was *really* though of as a threat... somebody would simply blast it to flinders with a missile.

In any event... IT'S ALIENS.
 

RanulfC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
993
Reaction score
495
flateric said:
RanulfC said:
One of the Analog magazines had a black-and-white of the Shuttle grabbing a Salyut for one of it's articles. Early 80s IIRC but I can't recall a month.
B/W ink-pen drawing, yes? this was second variant I saw
Yep that's the one, as I recall it accompanied an "fact" article which addressed the reasons we might want to do such a thing.

As I recall there were some vauge things about rescue's if the Cosmonauts were for some reason unable to EVA, or some such junk but the main point of the article was that the Salyut would fit into the cargo bay and since the Air Force (hinted: CIA/NRO also) had "buy-in" to the Shuttle that they "probably" had some plans in place to "aquire" a Salyut for intellgence purposes. (It was assumed at the time that at least some of the Salyuts were being used as experimental military technology platforms)

I don't recall being convinced that there was any reason to "assume" such opperations may or may not have been planned simply on the "fact" that a Salut core would fit in the bay. Wish I could remember who did the article.

RAndy

Randy
 

Graham1973

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
1,965
Reaction score
943
This cover could be what you are looking for.



Plot, a Palestinian Guest Cosmonaut hijacks Salyut 7 just after the Soviets add a particle cannon to the station. From memory the artist got the cover wrong, the addon is described as being closer to Kosmos 1686 in appearance. The novel dated from 1981.
 

shedofdread

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
512
Reaction score
214
OK, let's assume that there may have been a desire to *rescue* a Salyut... but was the Shuttle ever tested for safe re-entry and landing at whatever loaded weight it would have been up to? Just a thought and please remember that space really isn't my arena.

S
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,987
Reaction score
3,528
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
shedofdread said:
was the Shuttle ever tested for safe re-entry and landing at whatever loaded weight it would have been up to?

Salyut 5: 19,000 kg
Chandra X-ray observatory + two-stage IUS: 22,753 kg.

While Shuttle wasn't intended to re-enter and land with this payload, it would have been able to do so. However, I recall that there was some question about whether it could do it safely... ISTR some discussion about maybe breaking the landing gear.

Keep in mind: if you intend to bring back a Salyut in a Shuttle, you'll need a specially-built framework to mount the Salyut in, and that'll weigh something, probably a few tons. So Salyut 5 would be pushing the limits.
 

shedofdread

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
512
Reaction score
214
Thanks for that - So it's as I suspected; not a chance.

Mind you, I'm pretty sure I once saw a documentary about a plot to kidnap spacecraft from orbit. IIRC the whole scheme was run from a dormant volcano... In Japan... ;)
 

aliensporebomb

If it flies, it's probably interesting...
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
67
Reaction score
3
Website
www.aliensporebomb.com
The artwork I saw was of the quality you'd see on the box of a model at the local hobby shop - like "The Testors Antisat kit!" - the more I think about it the more I think it was put in place to make guests such as myself go "huh?" If they really had some kind of capability like that it's not something they would have as art on the walls for curious visitors to gawk at.
 

Byeman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
901
Reaction score
88
Orionblamblam said:
shedofdread said:
was the Shuttle ever tested for safe re-entry and landing at whatever loaded weight it would have been up to?

Salyut 5: 19,000 kg
Chandra X-ray observatory + two-stage IUS: 22,753 kg.

While Shuttle wasn't intended to re-enter and land with this payload, it would have been able to do so. However, I recall that there was some question about whether it could do it safely... ISTR some discussion about maybe breaking the landing gear.

Keep in mind: if you intend to bring back a Salyut in a Shuttle, you'll need a specially-built framework to mount the Salyut in, and that'll weigh something, probably a few tons. So Salyut 5 would be pushing the limits.

return from orbit capability - 32klb.
Abort landing capability - 65klb

The difference is if you want to refly the orbiter.


returning the Salyut is non starter.

A. the Salyut would have to be completely passive. There is no way for the US to do this short of entering the station and disconnecting the power system
b. The ASE (framework) would have to interface with station at the same areas as where it was handled on ground for crane lifts, etc
c. The Salyut CG and location in the payload bay would have to be within the shuttle's range
d. The Salyut probably can not handle the landing loads
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,869
Reaction score
448
Orionblamblam said:
flateric said:
the reason given is kinds 'US preventing uncontrolled de-orbit of Soviet hardware using it's technology gap'

While there's some value it not letting space stations come crashing down willy-nilly all over the landscape... let's face it, even Mir coming down didn't really cause all that much anxiety. If a Salyut coming down was *really* though of as a threat... somebody would simply blast it to flinders with a missile.

In any event... IT'S ALIENS.

The reason they might not want to do that would be there would still be relatively big chunks or dangerous bits that might survive. However, what one might have done with the Shuttle would be to rendezvous and attach a propulsion system with which the time and place of reentry could be controlled to assure maximum destruction in the atmosphere.

No need to actually bring the thing back down.
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,305
Reaction score
1,886
Graham1973 said:
This cover could be what you are looking for.
thanks for heads up, but no, this was not this cover
 

Attachments

  • THE-HUNTING-OF-SALYUT7-GUY-ALIMO__43726826_0.jpg
    THE-HUNTING-OF-SALYUT7-GUY-ALIMO__43726826_0.jpg
    84.5 KB · Views: 373

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,987
Reaction score
3,528
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
F-14D said:
The reason they might not want to do that would be there would still be relatively big chunks or dangerous bits that might survive.

Still better to blast it to bits while it's still in space. Even if the chunks are big... they're still "chunks," and thus more likely to burn up than the whole station.
 

archipeppe

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
1,954
Reaction score
1,078
shedofdread said:
Thanks for that - So it's as I suspected; not a chance.

Mind you, I'm pretty sure I once saw a documentary about a plot to kidnap spacecraft from orbit. IIRC the whole scheme was run from a dormant volcano... In Japan... ;)


Sure, it is referred to the famous James Bond's movie "You only live twice":


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Only_Live_Twice_(film)
 

Graham1973

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
1,965
Reaction score
943
Byeman said:
returning the Salyut is non starter.

A. the Salyut would have to be completely passive. There is no way for the US to do this short of entering the station and disconnecting the power system
b. The ASE (framework) would have to interface with station at the same areas as where it was handled on ground for crane lifts, etc
c. The Salyut CG and location in the payload bay would have to be within the shuttle's range
d. The Salyut probably can not handle the landing loads

This is from memory, but in the case of the novel whose cover I posted from memory, the author makes it clear that the pseudo - 'TKS' module with the Particle Cannon is the intended target rather than the whole space craft.

The shuttle ("Orbiter 102" aka Columbia) is described as being fitted with special equipment to allow the capture to take place, if you have a look at the cover you can see that the RMS terminates with a claw rather than the usual fitting.

Further, I'm wondering if your picture dates from the early 1970's. I've seen some pictures dating from around the time they finalised the shuttle design which depict it with two RMS arms. The picture below, depicting one proposed method of refueling the space tug is as good an examble as any.

 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,305
Reaction score
1,886
I will get copies of both drawings I was talking about in a few weeks. Unfortunately, not in hi-res, and only in b&w
Yes, Orbiter on pics uses two RMS arms if memory serves well to me.
 

Byeman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
901
Reaction score
88
Graham1973 said:
[
This is from memory, but in the case of the novel whose cover I posted from memory, the author makes it clear that the pseudo - 'TKS' module with the Particle Cannon is the intended target rather than the whole space craft.

The shuttle ("Orbiter 102" aka Columbia) is described as being fitted with special equipment to allow the capture to take place, if you have a look at the cover you can see that the RMS terminates with a claw rather than the usual fitting.

Further, I'm wondering if your picture dates from the early 1970's. I've seen some pictures dating from around the time they finalised the shuttle design which depict it with two RMS arms. The picture below, depicting one proposed method of refueling the space tug is as good an examble as any.


The "special equipment" would have to be in the payload bay to hold the equipment for return. The picture shows an empty bay.
The shuttle did have the ability to carry two arm but only could control one at a time. After Columbia, a TPS sensor boom (OBSS) was carried on every mission in the position of the second arm.
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,305
Reaction score
1,886
Byeman said:
The "special equipment" would have to be in the payload bay to hold the equipment for return. The picture shows an empty bay.
read the picture description once more;)
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,305
Reaction score
1,886
that one I was talking about
 

Attachments

  • Shuttle_Salyut_Kidnap.jpg
    Shuttle_Salyut_Kidnap.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 194

flanker

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
912
Reaction score
173
Well, that looks pretty epic. ;D Lazers, lazers everywhere!
 

archipeppe

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
1,954
Reaction score
1,078
flanker said:
Well, that looks pretty epic. ;D Lazers, lazers everywhere!

Yep, and those come directly from the Mooraker movie battle scene..... B)
 

XP67_Moonbat

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
2,174
Reaction score
132
Too bad we don't have a "like" button here. This would definitely qualify. :D
 

Similar threads

Top