The McDonnell Douglas Model 176 developments

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
28,638
Reaction score
6,496
Hi,

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740077882_1974077882.pdf
 

Attachments

  • MD 1.JPG
    MD 1.JPG
    19.3 KB · Views: 266
  • MD 8.JPG
    MD 8.JPG
    24.7 KB · Views: 83
  • MD 7.JPG
    MD 7.JPG
    29.9 KB · Views: 130
  • MD 6.JPG
    MD 6.JPG
    32.3 KB · Views: 68
  • MD 5.JPG
    MD 5.JPG
    23.4 KB · Views: 158
  • MD 4.JPG
    MD 4.JPG
    19.3 KB · Views: 158
  • MD 3.JPG
    MD 3.JPG
    23.4 KB · Views: 165
  • MD 2.JPG
    MD 2.JPG
    22.7 KB · Views: 176

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
28,638
Reaction score
6,496
And;
 

Attachments

  • MD 16.JPG
    MD 16.JPG
    23.8 KB · Views: 76
  • MD 15.JPG
    MD 15.JPG
    36.8 KB · Views: 70
  • MD 14.JPG
    MD 14.JPG
    31.2 KB · Views: 73
  • MD 13.JPG
    MD 13.JPG
    18.5 KB · Views: 82
  • MD 12.JPG
    MD 12.JPG
    19.9 KB · Views: 455
  • MD 11.JPG
    MD 11.JPG
    22.1 KB · Views: 452
  • MD 10.JPG
    MD 10.JPG
    20.2 KB · Views: 72
  • MD 9.JPG
    MD 9.JPG
    23.4 KB · Views: 69

Michel Van

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
5,570
Reaction score
2,981
nice find Hesham

that was preferred Shuttle for "Cislunar Application of the Space Shuttle Orbiter"
the Idea: refuel the Orbiter in space, launch it to Moon Orbit. in cargobay a Lunar lander.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,4011.0.html
 

dannydale

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 13, 2007
Messages
547
Reaction score
380
That's a nice little spaceship, but what hit me was the thing looks like a big flying rocket propelled Sabot shoe with wings and fins, LOL :D Awesome!
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,627
Reaction score
6,823
That date is surprising... seems a bit early, no ? I would have thought later in the 1960's... I thought such a sophisticated shape and concept had taken years of refinements; and in 1961 the space race and lifting body research had barely started; if not at all.

Fantastic stuff and a truly amazing rocketplane.
 

Dew

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
126
Reaction score
428
That date is surprising... seems a bit early, no ? I would have thought later in the 1960's...

The stamp isn't the clearest ever but the '1' can't be a 7 nor 9, possibly a 4? It could be stamped incorrectly of course ! Here it is monochromed and adjusted for contrast:

stamp.jpg
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,627
Reaction score
6,823
That date is surprising... seems a bit early, no ? I would have thought later in the 1960's...

The stamp isn't the clearest ever but the '1' can't be a 7 nor 9, possibly a 4? It could be stamped incorrectly of course ! Here it is monochromed and adjusted for contrast:

View attachment 670423
Thank you. Well to me it reads like 1951, which makes even less sense... ! Zooming on the number it really looks like a "5". So I am at lost.
 

Dew

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
126
Reaction score
428
That date is surprising... seems a bit early, no ? I would have thought later in the 1960's...

The stamp isn't the clearest ever but the '1' can't be a 7 nor 9, possibly a 4? It could be stamped incorrectly of course ! Here it is monochromed and adjusted for contrast:

View attachment 670423
Thank you. Well to me it reads like 1951, which makes even less sense... ! Zooming on the number it really looks like a "5". So I am at lost.
I must admit when I first saw it I read '51 but had dismissed it and presumed it was a '61 with a dry-ink '6'

Could it possibly be not even a date but a reference number? I have seen many McDonnell prints with the D4C (catalogue?) refrerences on them (although this is clearly not D4C).


scratch that - the date is correct !

table header.jpg table entry.jpg
 
Last edited:

Fluff

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
827
Reaction score
725
So this really is a space fighter? very cool, any ideas on the mission requiring 12 men and 5000lbs of equipment?
 

TomS

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
5,089
Reaction score
2,806
So this really is a space fighter? very cool, any ideas on the mission requiring 12 men and 5000lbs of equipment?

Presumably, crew exchange for a manned space station. There were so many concepts around this time it's probably impossible to associate this vehicle with any one station design.
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
9,243
Reaction score
4,012
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
So this really is a space fighter? very cool, any ideas on the mission requiring 12 men and 5000lbs of equipment?

Presumably, crew exchange for a manned space station. There were so many concepts around this time it's probably impossible to associate this vehicle with any one station design.
Note that the diagram includes "Weapons." It looks like a long-ish duration manned satellite inspector/interceptor. There were a number of such designs around that time, though again 1961 does seem a bit early.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
5,089
Reaction score
2,806
So this really is a space fighter? very cool, any ideas on the mission requiring 12 men and 5000lbs of equipment?

Presumably, crew exchange for a manned space station. There were so many concepts around this time it's probably impossible to associate this vehicle with any one station design.
Note that the diagram includes "Weapons." It looks like a long-ish duration manned satellite inspector/interceptor. There were a number of such designs around that time, though again 1961 does seem a bit early.

True. But the armed satellite inspection/interceptor and passenger versions appear to be separate.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,627
Reaction score
6,823
That date is surprising... seems a bit early, no ? I would have thought later in the 1960's...

The stamp isn't the clearest ever but the '1' can't be a 7 nor 9, possibly a 4? It could be stamped incorrectly of course ! Here it is monochromed and adjusted for contrast:

View attachment 670423
Thank you. Well to me it reads like 1951, which makes even less sense... ! Zooming on the number it really looks like a "5". So I am at lost.
I must admit when I first saw it I read '51 but had dismissed it and presumed it was a '61 with a dry-ink '6'

Could it possibly be not even a date but a reference number? I have seen many McDonnell prints with the D4C (catalogue?) refrerences on them (although this is clearly not D4C).


scratch that - the date is correct !

View attachment 670425View attachment 670426

April 17, 1961. WOW. Five days after Gagarine - and that thing surely is a bit more sophisticated than, say, a Vostok or a Mercury capsule.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,627
Reaction score
6,823
I just realized that ISINGLASS / RHEINBERRY was the same Douglas, but Model 192 - and it all started in 1963 when Convair brought back FISH / KINGFISH to try and screw Lockheed in revenge for their 1959 defeat related to the A-12 OXCART. We have a (stupendous) thread for this: Convair went airbreathing / rocket mix up to Mach 9 and 130 000 feet; Douglas then came out of nowhere and beat them into a pulp with Model 192, all-rocket to Mach 22 and 200 000 feet.

So if Model 192 was started circa 1963, it is rather logical that Model 176 was a bit earlier, and thus 1961 makes sense.

Now what's really amazing is such an advanced aerodynamic shape at a time when Dryden lifting bodies hadn't even started yet (M2-F1 glider towed by a cadillac) started in 1962

For some unknown reason (perhaps related to Lockheed StarClipper, L-301, FDL-5 / FDL-7 and others) I assumed Douglas own advanced studies happened in the second half of the 1960's.

(I thought about Alpha Draco, but that was McDonnell, not yet merged with Douglas...)
 
Last edited:

Dew

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
126
Reaction score
428
I just realized that ISINGLASS / RHEINBERRY was the same Douglas, but Model 192 - and it all started in 1963 when Convair brought back FISH / KINGFISH to try and screw Lockheed in revenge for their 1959 defeat related to the A-12 OXCART. We have a (stupendous) thread for this: Convair went airbreathing / rocket mix up to Mach 9 and 130 000 feet; Douglas then came out of nowhere and beat them into a pulp with Model 192, all-rocket to Mach 22 and 200 000 feet.

So if Model 192 was started circa 1963, it is rather logical that Model 176 was a bit earlier, and thus 1961 makes sense.

(I thought about Alpha Draco, but that was McDonnell, not yet merged with Douglas...)
Weren't the 122, 176 & 192 all McDonnell?
Remember that the unmanned boost glide vehicle related to ISINGLASS was the (Y variant?) Model 122, which spanned from 1957 through to mid-sixties (and a little beyond?) edit: late-sixties, including the Alpha-Draco (B) & BGRV (E).
Model No. 192 was assigned in 1964 according to the 1974 project numbers list which is floating around.
 
Last edited:

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,627
Reaction score
6,823
McDonnell and Douglas how I hate you and your merge up... @Dew's right of course. Born in the 80's when they were already one and the same... to me they are like Tom&Jerry: unseparable. Before 1967 they were not...
D'oh !
 

publiusr

The Anti-Proxmire
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
603
Reaction score
312

Similar threads

Top