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

US 80s TNMTS/AMLS studies aka Shuttle II

robunos

You're Mad, You Are.....
Senior Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
1,917
Reaction score
260
the Advanced Manned Launch System, from NTRS,

http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19920025000

cheers,
Robin.
 

Attachments

  • AMLS.jpg
    AMLS.jpg
    27.7 KB · Views: 247
  • AMLS-STS comparo.jpg
    AMLS-STS comparo.jpg
    30.1 KB · Views: 236

archipeppe

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
1,710
Reaction score
357
That's my contribution to the topic, considering that this project was (at that times) also known as "Shuttle II".
 

Attachments

  • Shuttle II.jpg
    Shuttle II.jpg
    460.3 KB · Views: 455

Archibald

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
4,429
Reaction score
1,934
There was a pic of this thing at Marcus Lindroos website - now gone, but I'd downloaded part of it- ;)

Btw i love this concept!

More details here
http://www.aerospaceguide.net/ShuttleII.html
 

robunos

You're Mad, You Are.....
Senior Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
1,917
Reaction score
260
archipeppe, archibald, thanks for the image and link, good stuff, guys, there's not a lot of info available, it seems, i tried googling, that was all i got, there are some more papers at NTRS, but they're not available as PDFs, sadly.
don't you think the orbiter looks a bit odd, with the crew compartment and payload bay perched on top of the fuel tanks?
marcus lindroo's site available again here:-

http://web.archive.org/web/20070404132502/www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceLVs/Slides/index.htm

cheers,
Robin.
 

archipeppe

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
1,710
Reaction score
357
There's some additional info, I've found out in Internet (in the past years) and I used as reference for my drawing, I know is not so much but it's all I have and I share with you....
 

Attachments

  • shuttle II pad.jpg
    shuttle II pad.jpg
    38.1 KB · Views: 107
  • shuttle II eject.jpg
    shuttle II eject.jpg
    17.5 KB · Views: 115
  • sts2_88pm.jpg
    sts2_88pm.jpg
    11.4 KB · Views: 129
  • shuttle II architecture.jpg
    shuttle II architecture.jpg
    30 KB · Views: 224
  • lrcsts2b.gif
    lrcsts2b.gif
    11.8 KB · Views: 250

CFE

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 1, 2007
Messages
259
Reaction score
3
How far along did Shuttle II get before NASA killed the effort? The design looks like it was directly inspired as a reaction the the loss of Challenger, especially the crew escape module.

While the design looks feasible, it would cost a lot of money to develop. Assuming that LC-39 would be converted for use on Shuttle-II, a lot of facilities would need to be razed and replaced. Development of two separate vehicles and methane-burning SSME would probably cost more than the original Shuttle development cost. The use of modified SSME's on the orbiter would probably have a serious impact on turnaround times, too.

The Mach 3 staging velocity would allow for booster glide back to the launch site, but it places higher delta-V demands on the orbiter. And how will the orbiter be ferried after the mission?

I'd like to know more about the metallic TPS, but I assume it's feasible due to the "fluffy" nature of the orbiter when it re-enters with empty tanks.
 

archipeppe

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
1,710
Reaction score
357
Today it's difficult to give, at least by my side, a full answer to CFE's questions.

I know that the project was started some times before the Challenger's accident, I suppose in 1985 or so on (I think that only Scott could give a full answer to that), and it still difficult to give a full figure for cost extimation.

For sure it imply a lot of new technologies but not so much than required by the contemporary X30 NASP, or by the following X33/Venturestar, of course it required some edges technologies but nothing that wouldn't be achievable, even in the '90s.

By configurative point of view the project seems to recover the initial TSTO concept done for Shuttle in the early '70s, perhaps because (at least after 5 years of real Shuttle operations) NASA become aware of the limits and the mistaken of the original STS.

Personally I think that Shuttle II is a truly "lost occasion" to achieve a real TSTO system and, perhaps, to avoid the Columbia accident. It is not possible (and even not correct) to do the history with "if", but if this system would be developed at that time, now we can have Shuttle fully replaced by it at the very turn of the century, with ISS programme on schedule and no problem for Shuttle replacement as we face today (sorry but I don't consider Orion a replacement of the Shuttle, despite NASA official statements.....).
 

robunos

You're Mad, You Are.....
Senior Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
1,917
Reaction score
260
thanks again, archipeppe, will keep digging,

cheers,
Robin.
 

CFE

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 1, 2007
Messages
259
Reaction score
3
archipeppe said:
Today it's difficult to give, at least by my side, a full answer to CFE's questions.

For sure it imply a lot of new technologies but not so much than required by the contemporary X30 NASP, or by the following X33/Venturestar, of course it required some edges technologies but nothing that wouldn't be achievable, even in the '90s.

It does have a lot of X-33 similarities. External payload fairing (seen in later VentureStar renderings,) metallic TPS, and multi-lobed tanks. The difference is that Shuttle II's engineers were realistic about the feasibility of SSTO, and weren't as optimistic about aerospikes and composite multi-lobed tanks.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
4,429
Reaction score
1,934
First, thank you 1.0000000 times for the link on Lindroos website.

By configurative point of view the project seems to recover the initial TSTO concept done for Shuttle in the early '70s

... Correcting two big difficulties found in the 1970 TSTO concept = it is not manned, and the flyback is shorter thanks to lower stagging velocity.

Are big, empty tanks a drawback or a benefit for reentry ?
 

archipeppe

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
1,710
Reaction score
357
Archibald said:
Are big, empty tanks a drawback or a benefit for reentry ?

By my side I think that are not a real benefit, because even empty they still mantain their volume and this volume you have to protect in any case (filled or not) with appropriate TPS, which are "dead" weight until re-entry.

Is more like a due you must to pay to ensure a full TSTO....
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,084
Reaction score
976
Following are illustrations from various AMLS-related papers showing various configurations studied. Year in filename makes a mark of publication date.
 

Attachments

  • 1990-amls-10.jpg
    1990-amls-10.jpg
    73.5 KB · Views: 68
  • 1990-amls-9.jpg
    1990-amls-9.jpg
    55.6 KB · Views: 67
  • 1990-amls-2.jpg
    1990-amls-2.jpg
    92.1 KB · Views: 88
  • 1990-amls-1.jpg
    1990-amls-1.jpg
    44.5 KB · Views: 88
  • 1989-amls-1.jpg
    1989-amls-1.jpg
    56.7 KB · Views: 89
  • 1986-amls-1.jpg
    1986-amls-1.jpg
    60.4 KB · Views: 83
  • 1984-amls-1.jpg
    1984-amls-1.jpg
    28.3 KB · Views: 75

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,084
Reaction score
976
More..
 

Attachments

  • 1993-amls-1.jpg
    1993-amls-1.jpg
    114.5 KB · Views: 59
  • 1991-amls-2.jpg
    1991-amls-2.jpg
    114.9 KB · Views: 55
  • 1991-amls-1.jpg
    1991-amls-1.jpg
    65.7 KB · Views: 59
  • 1986-amls-6.jpg
    1986-amls-6.jpg
    67.8 KB · Views: 50
  • 1986-amls-4.jpg
    1986-amls-4.jpg
    23.8 KB · Views: 50
  • 1986-amls-3.jpg
    1986-amls-3.jpg
    50.7 KB · Views: 65
  • 1986-amls-2.jpg
    1986-amls-2.jpg
    62.3 KB · Views: 67
  • 1984-amls-3.jpg
    1984-amls-3.jpg
    74.8 KB · Views: 55

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,084
Reaction score
976
Operations schematics...
 

Attachments

  • 1991-amls-5.jpg
    1991-amls-5.jpg
    54.7 KB · Views: 70
  • 1991-amls-4.jpg
    1991-amls-4.jpg
    62.4 KB · Views: 52
  • 1991-amls-3.jpg
    1991-amls-3.jpg
    61.2 KB · Views: 46
  • 1984-amls-2.jpg
    1984-amls-2.jpg
    49.8 KB · Views: 58

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,084
Reaction score
976
Zoo of AMLS concepts - in more details.
 

Attachments

  • 1990-amls-8.jpg
    1990-amls-8.jpg
    54.2 KB · Views: 63
  • 1990-amls-7.jpg
    1990-amls-7.jpg
    68 KB · Views: 53
  • 1990-amls-6.jpg
    1990-amls-6.jpg
    69.2 KB · Views: 65
  • 1990-amls-5.jpg
    1990-amls-5.jpg
    63.3 KB · Views: 62
  • 1990-amls-4.jpg
    1990-amls-4.jpg
    67.3 KB · Views: 61
  • 1990-amls-3.jpg
    1990-amls-3.jpg
    57.9 KB · Views: 61

robunos

You're Mad, You Are.....
Senior Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
1,917
Reaction score
260
thanks flateric, didn't realise the configurations studied were so far ranging, like the 'HOTOl-a-like'.
isn't the 'conical accelerator' AMLS, similar to some of the images posted in the NASP thread?,
were the AMLS studies in-house to NASA, or was the aerospace industry involved, if so, do we have any ideas as to which contractors?

cheers,
Robin.
 

archipeppe

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
1,710
Reaction score
357
Many, many thanks Flateric for this incredibly detalied material.

For sure I will make a good use of these new references...... ;)
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,084
Reaction score
976
robunos said:
thanks flateric, didn't realise the configurations studied were so far ranging, like the 'HOTOl-a-like'.
isn't the 'conical accelerator' AMLS, similar to some of the images posted in the NASP thread?,
were the AMLS studies in-house to NASA, or was the aerospace industry involved, if so, do we have any ideas as to which contractors?

cheers,
Robin.

'Conical accelerator' is a palliative for Boeing NASP, at least I was always thinking so. There are another paper where three early NASP designs including this are pictured together - with others being duPont 'government baseline' and the other with podded scramjets - presumably Lockheed design.

I will check for contractors references regarding involvment, I presume Rockwell as a must. There are more designs offered for AMLS by NASA in cooperation with universities. Will post more soon.
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,084
Reaction score
976
Early 90s AMLS SSV (Single-stage Vehicle) concept from NASA Langley/Virginia Polytechnic Institute/Old Dominion University
 

Attachments

  • 1993-ssto-amls-1.gif
    1993-ssto-amls-1.gif
    41.8 KB · Views: 136
  • 1993-ssto-amls-2.gif
    1993-ssto-amls-2.gif
    43.5 KB · Views: 124
  • 1993-ssto-amls-3.gif
    1993-ssto-amls-3.gif
    53.6 KB · Views: 119

Antonio

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,511
Reaction score
244
Found this pic on a Spanish "popular tech" magazine from the 80's. It is labeled as Shuttle II project. Any idea about its true identity?
 

Attachments

  • Shuttle II.jpg
    Shuttle II.jpg
    118.8 KB · Views: 468

shaba

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
124
Reaction score
1
shutle II concept by john frassinito and associates souce the dream machines by ron miller. i gues it is an outside consuting firm for nasa other cocepts in the book also give same company name most look prety outlandish.
 

Antonio

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,511
Reaction score
244
Thanks a lot.

Just another question, that four attached bodies are boosters?
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,084
Reaction score
976
John Frassinito and Associates - aren't they guys that made many artworks for NASA, including SLI/OSP concepts and later X-43 family ones?
 

starviking

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,074
Reaction score
167
pometablava said:
Thanks a lot.

Just another question, that four attached bodies are boosters?

Just look like tanks to me. Given that they've gone to all the trouble to detail the rocket engines on the Shuttle, it'd be odd not to show 'em on attached boosters.
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
27,039
Reaction score
3,732
Hi,

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930013369_1993013369.pdf
 

Attachments

  • AMLS.JPG
    AMLS.JPG
    30.7 KB · Views: 100

Michel Van

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,745
Reaction score
825
pometablava said:
Found this pic on a Spanish "popular tech" magazine from the 80's. It is labeled as Shuttle II project. Any idea about its true identity?

here more Information on this proposal
http://beyondapollo.blogspot.com/2011/04/jscs-shuttle-ii-1988.html

President Ronald Reagan had signed a Directive in 1985 ordering that NASA begin work to replace the Shuttle.
The NASA Headquarters Office of Space Transportation directed the 1988-1989 Shuttle II effort,
with the lion's-share of design work taking place in Hampton, Virginia, at NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC)
Not all Shuttle II work took place at LaRC, however. The Advanced Programs Office at NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Houston, Texas


Design for payload of 10 tons or 11 Astronauts to a US Space Station
it burn liquid hydrogen fuel, liquid hydrocarbon (kerosene or propane) fuel with liquid oxygen
the oxygene is stored inside wing tanks, the fuel in four external Tanks. (in red)
launch mass is 550 tons, with empty mass of 50 to 75 tons

powerd by second generation SSME
one STME with extend telescoping exhaust nozzle
two STBE with high thrust buring hydrocarbon, who dropt with there Tanks
for orbit are twin OMS engines, who are derivative of the RL-10 engine

the cargobay has a unique way to open no doors like STS
but hinge the tail section downward.

for safety JSC Shuttle II has a full Escape system
the cockpit can seperate from rest
be a Spaceship in orbit and would land like Dynasoar
 

Attachments

  • Shuttle II.jpg
    Shuttle II.jpg
    118.8 KB · Views: 11

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
557
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Model of Johnson Space Center (JSC) Space Shuttle II design circa 1988.

Source:
http://beyondapollo.blogspot.com/2011/04/jscs-shuttle-ii-1988.html
 

Attachments

  • shuttleIIh.jpg
    shuttleIIh.jpg
    154.7 KB · Views: 32
  • shuttleIIg.jpg
    shuttleIIg.jpg
    171 KB · Views: 34
  • shuttleIIj.jpg
    shuttleIIj.jpg
    167.3 KB · Views: 35
  • shuttleIIf.jpg
    shuttleIIf.jpg
    197.6 KB · Views: 37
  • shuttleIIe.jpg
    shuttleIIe.jpg
    42.6 KB · Views: 42
  • ShuttleIId.jpg
    ShuttleIId.jpg
    37.5 KB · Views: 41
  • shuttleIIa.jpg
    shuttleIIa.jpg
    415.9 KB · Views: 42
  • shuttleIIc.jpg
    shuttleIIc.jpg
    41.9 KB · Views: 43

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
557
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Space Shuttle II design concepts illustrated by Mark Dowman of John Frassanito & Associates.

According to an e-mail message that Mark Dowman sent me:

I worked with Frassanito, from '89 to '92. He already had the contract with NASA's advance programs office, when I came onboard. During that time, our team did hundreds (thousands?) of designs for advanced shuttles.

We focused on alternate propulsion options, more robust cargo capabilities, and enhanced safety for the crew. Some were "Shuttle C" style, the unmanned cargo shuttle, others had detachable flyback crew cabins, still others were inline multi-booster cargo configurations, more like an Energia.

Since none of them got further then the drawing board, we didn't get to see if they would replace or supplement, the existing fleet.


Source:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=6348.msg105942#msg105942
 

Attachments

  • l_davis-ashuttle.jpg
    l_davis-ashuttle.jpg
    86.9 KB · Views: 92
  • l_ashuttle-02.jpg
    l_ashuttle-02.jpg
    79.9 KB · Views: 104
  • l_advancedshuttle.jpg
    l_advancedshuttle.jpg
    58.1 KB · Views: 50

ozmosis

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 21, 2010
Messages
82
Reaction score
17
This definitely has to be the concept that influenced the X-71 from the movie "Armageddon"
 

Attachments

  • x-71.jpg
    x-71.jpg
    19.6 KB · Views: 32
  • X-71FrontAngle.jpg
    X-71FrontAngle.jpg
    39 KB · Views: 26
  • X-71Main.jpg
    X-71Main.jpg
    64.9 KB · Views: 32
  • X-71Port.jpg
    X-71Port.jpg
    45 KB · Views: 27
  • X-71Rear.jpg
    X-71Rear.jpg
    46.2 KB · Views: 25
  • X-71Top.jpg
    X-71Top.jpg
    51.3 KB · Views: 24

Archibald

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
4,429
Reaction score
1,934
I'm not sure Armageddon (Armoire a guidon ?) qualifies as a movie.
 

Michel Van

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,745
Reaction score
825
Orionblamblam said:
Archibald said:
I'm not sure Armageddon (Armoire a guidon ?) qualifies as a movie.

Hey, if "An Inconvenient Truth" qualifies as a Nobel prize winning documentary, then "Armageddon" is the pinnacle of high literature.

this deep analyse show: "Armageddon" is not a movie... ;D

back to Shuttle II studies


Why those alternative JSC study to the other Study ?
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
557
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
ozmosis said:
This definitely has to be the concept that influenced the X-71 from the movie "Armageddon"

I just don't see any influence of the Space Shuttle II design concepts on the fictional X-71. The X-71 design looks like the Space Shuttle orbiter design with the addition of a rather silly looking tailplane, winglets, and top-mounted solid rocket boosters. If it had, the X-71 would also have had an ejectable crew compartment/cockpit. The wing-mounted liquid fuel tanks on the JSC concept don't even have rocket motors on them. Looks like pure fantasy to me by a production designer.

Orionblamblam said:
Archibald said:
I'm not sure Armageddon (Armoire a guidon ?) qualifies as a movie.

Hey, if "An Inconvenient Truth" qualifies as a Nobel prize winning documentary, then "Armageddon" is the pinnacle of high literature.

Your climate change political beliefs are irrelevant to this discussion. Please limit them to The Bar.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,887
Reaction score
2,034
A Wired.com article (Beyond Apollo blog) on JSC's 1988 Shuttle II proposal. Also mentions JSC's earlier Evolved Shuttle (see image below) and the better known Shuttle II proposal from Langley Research Center.​



[IMAGE CREDIT: NASA/Wired.com]​

Engineers in Houston envisioned that their Shuttle II might develop from an Evolved Space Shuttle. In the Evolved Shuttle, Liquid Replacement Boosters would have stood in for the Space Shuttle’s Solid Rocket Boosters, though the Evolved Shuttle would have retained the Space Shuttle’s expendable External Tank and, with minor modifications, the Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs). Winglets on the tips of the Evolved Shuttle’s modified delta wings would have replaced the Space Shuttle’s single vertical tail fin. Redesigned Orbital Maneuvering System (OMS) engines based on the venerable RL-10 engine would have drawn liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen propellants from tanks in the wings.

The most dramatic change, however, was reserved for the crew compartment. It would have been completely redesigned so that it could separate from the rest of the Evolved Shuttle in the event of a catastrophic failure and operate as an independent small piloted spacecraft. This feature, along with the wing configuration, would carry over to JSC’s Shuttle II design.

NASA JSC engineers gave no indication of when they expected the transition from Space Shuttle to Evolved Shuttle would occur. If one assumes, however, that JSC’s Shuttle II would have become operational in the first years of the 21st century – like LaRC’s Shuttle II – then the Evolved Shuttle would probably have flown during the 1990s.


For convenience, here's a crosslink to the old Shuttle II thread.​
 

Similar threads

Top