Interesting, I hadn't realised there was a NASA equivalent of Truax's Sea Dragon (even though i've seen that site a few times) admitedley with multiple engines as opposed to the single big engine of Sea Dragon.Archibald said:To complete this website, here's another which narrate full story of early shuttle years (1969-1973). http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceLVs/Slides/index.htm
This image depict, obviously, some FDL concept (as a sort of "deformed FDL-5") clearly recognizable are the vertical launch assembly, the two jettisonable tanks (as X 15ish style) and the folded wings extracted just prior landing.hesham said:Hi,
a flight impression of NASA space shuttle.
These are 20+ lectures, each 1:30+ long. It was quite remarkable to hear them.http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Aeronautics-and-Astronautics/16-885JFall-2005/CourseHome/index.htm?r=iTunes
the OMS used fuel is monomethylhydrazine (MMH), which is oxidized with nitrogen tetroxide (N2O4).Agena in a shuttle bay = as dangerous as a Centaur ?
(non cryogenic, but highly toxic corrosive... on the other hand Shuttle OMS use storable propellants)
something you don't want in a Shuttle cargobay in case the oxidizer tank, feedline or valve leaksBeing a powerful oxidizing agent, nitric acid reacts violently with many organic materials and the reactions may be explosive
I think they did. There's a congressional hearing report from around 1972 or so that includes presentations from about four different companies proposing "space tugs" for the shuttle. There were several Agena proposals, a Grumman proposal, and I think a Martin proposal using the Transtage. I'll look around for it in my files. From vague memory, I think that the Transtage had some early performance problems, but these were later solved. However, I believe I also heard from some people familiar with it that it was not very popular. The Air Force people who had to work with it did not like it.Michel Van said:Wat i wonder is, had Martin never proposed Transtage for Shuttle upperstage ?
(they had proposed Transtage as ad-on booster under the ET in 1982)
That first picture with a reference length of 1486 inches - so were they thinking of adding 20 inches to the orbiter? I've a reference to Endeavor being 1466 inches long - but perhaps the measurements aren't directly comparable...flateric said:1990s Rockwell thoughts of Space Shuttle evolution
there were other crazy "Ideas" would likely rupture the ET:CFE said:At the same time, I recall reading John Young's ideas for an "advanced orbiter." He wanted features like thrust termination on the SRB's and canards on the orbiter for better control on approach & landing. The former idea is idiotic, as thrust termination (blowing the nose caps) would likely rupture the ET and kill the crew. Canards aren't such a bad idea, but it's not easy to see how you could stow them for re-entry without adding a lot of mass.
in most LRB study have 4xSSME for 2 reasionCFE said:What kind of engines are specified for the liquid-fueled boosters on the shuttle-derived vehicle?
Mark Wade's site has a drawing of the shuttle with similar LRB's (four engines per booster and shutters to protect the engines during splashdown.) But his drawing is from a later study that utilizes STME's.