CLEARANCE: Top Secret
- Jan 22, 2006
- Reaction score
Great pictures, many thanks for sharing it
Oh sorry everyone, and thanks to Arjen for posting those. I forgot that Twitter now requires two letters of recommendation and a chest X-ray in order to sign up.pometablava said:George,
Could you please attach the picture here?. Not everyone has an account in Twitter or Facebook and any link send us to "please sign here" page
That's part of the Shuttle program, surprisingly enough. I've seen a few reports on this concept, which was an alternate upper stage for the Shuttle back when it had a manned flyback booster. Instead of the manned orbiter, the idea was to use an expendable upper stage for heavier payloads. The reason why the solids were on the *sides* of the S-IVB rather than *behind* the S-IVB was so that the stage could sit on the back of the booster, rather than ahead of the booster as in the Saturn.Michel Van said:interesting is that third Picture a Launch Rocket it's feature a S-IVB stage separate from a stage with 8 solids
never see this version of Saturn Hardware
(h/t The Artist & Michel Van)
This... is... fantastic.The S-II was also looked at as an upper stage for the shuttle booster in this period.
Edit: Added Rockwell study reference.
Something I meant to comment on earlier but missedAbout the SOC - JSC logic behind it was pretty horrific. Judge by yourself...
Outstanding Academic Title, 1991, Choice MagazineAlthough building a space station has been an extraordinary challenge for America's scientists and engineers, the securing and sustaining of presidential approval, congressional support, and long-term funding for the project was an enormous task...books.google.fr
Quote of note
"Let's don't build [a space station] that caters to the users; we'll build one that is an operational base, a facility, and then what we'll do is just let the users come on board and when they come on board they will have to make their own beds.
An interesting design for a space station Paul Lloyd, I like the early 1950s space station designs.Contractor's model for the McDonnell Douglas Phase B station and my not-very-accurate CGI model of it.
I read that it would spin, to give 1/6 g in the cylinder and 1/3 g in the cone. Power would have been provided by a couple of nuclear isotope generators (enclosed in conical aeroshells in case they had to be jettisoned) -0 the red blisters on the contractor's model.
More images of the contractor's model here
View attachment 630009View attachment 630010View attachment 630011
Talking of minimum diameter, anyone know what diameter 2001's Discovery habitat section was.Of all the space station concepts I think the spokes-without-a-rim idea is the most practical. To avoid health problems, the things have to spin for artificial gravity, with a minimum radius of perhaps 10 m (30 ft) or more. Anything smaller and imagine how it would be for your head and arms to double in weight when you stand up and start walking across the room but your legs to stay the same, or to turn and bend over a table to put something down and both it and you lose weight as you go; your body would interpret the weight changes as acceleration.... But a big 20 m diameter wheel has 63 m of rim, which takes some building, so why not just build a couple of lollipops on sticks and stop there? The difficult engineering bit would have been to keep the central hub stationary for docking, but modern technologies can do that easily enough. I made one co-star of an SF novella, not so long ago.
That would approx 15% gravity variation head-to-toe. I'd guess OK for selected astronauts, not for unfit travellers. I wonder if there are stats on it somewhere?The novel says the ball was 40-feet (12.2-m)in diameter; Kubrick's film set was a 38-ft (11.6m) diameter "hamster wheel." Probably too small for comfortable pseudo-gravity.
Discovery III looks like it could give a better gravity.The novel says the ball was 40-feet (12.2-m)in diameter; Kubrick's film set was a 38-ft (11.6m) diameter "hamster wheel." Probably too small for comfortable pseudo-gravity.
The Leonov was quite a bit shorter than Discovery, it's possible there could be enough clearance if she was clamped far enough aft. But the mass distribution issues would probably be even worse. Knowing Clarke's writing, though, there would probably be a system to jettison the ring in an emergency. Since Chandra was the only one on Discovery during the burn, no reason to keep the habitat around if you can discard that mass before the burn.Discovery III looks like it could give a better gravity.The novel says the ball was 40-feet (12.2-m)in diameter; Kubrick's film set was a 38-ft (11.6m) diameter "hamster wheel." Probably too small for comfortable pseudo-gravity.
Would the Leonov have still been able to clamp onto Discovery in 2010 with this design?
View attachment 633251
In fairness to Kubrick and the rest of the crew, they likely knew that but had to go with too small. I'm sure one of the limiting factors on the design of that set was the height of the soundstage ceiling/roof.