Various US Reusable Launch Vehicles (RLV) Projects

More searching and look what I found! Still not sure what the reason behind it is. But that's one little mystery solved for me and one more to go.
 

Attachments

  • Booster-2.jpg
    Booster-2.jpg
    46.2 KB · Views: 219
XP67_Moonbat said:
But that's one little mystery solved for me and one more to go.
Click to expand...

can this be a Dynamic Test of SSRB ?
roll them from VAB to Launch pad 39 and there test fire them ? ? ?
 
Michel Van said:
XP67_Moonbat said:
But that's one little mystery solved for me and one more to go.
Click to expand...

can this be a Dynamic Test of SSRB ?
roll them from VAB to Launch pad 39 and there test fire them ? ? ?
Click to expand...

Nothing so pointlessly insane:

http://www.space.com/imageoftheday/image_of_day_031118.html

November 18, 2003

Even though the next shuttle launch remains months away, hardware continues to be moved around at the Kennedy Space Center as workers take time to perform tests on the equipment they use, even as they maintain their proficiency.

With that in mind, on Monday workers drove a crawler transporter under a Mobile Launch Platform (MLP) and carried it out a short ways towards the launch pads and then returned back to the Vehicle Assembly Building. Atop the MLP: a pair of 149-foot-tall solid rocket boosters, sans external tank and orbiter.

With the boosters braced at the top to minimize their swaying as the crawler transporter hit a blazing top speed of 1 mph, sensors strung throughout the MLP were taking vibration measurements. Analysis of the results should help with future maintenance plans and a better understanding of the loads placed on the shuttle while it is being moved.
Click to expand...
 
I've got an idea. We have stealth bombers, fighters, even the transport planes are planning, so now... we finally have the stealthy shuttle! :D

Okay, now on the serious note - testing can be a good explanation. It is not necessary to fire it. Some static and/or vibration (?) tests can be the reason.


Edit: While I was writing my post, Scott posted the answer.
 
Thanks for the SRB-X stuff Moonbat - I've been trying to find stuff on that to confirm that my memory's not shot to hell.

I don't personally recall seeing anything on a single SRB launcher myself - but back in the day my info was limited to Flight International and Spaceflight, so that doesn't mean much.
 
Hi,

from Astronautix site;
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shuttle.htm
 

Attachments

  • sts70rx.jpg
    sts70rx.jpg
    24.6 KB · Views: 2,105
  • sts70lc.jpg
    sts70lc.jpg
    12.7 KB · Views: 2,061
  • snar70.jpg
    snar70.jpg
    15.1 KB · Views: 2,057
  • shutbgru.jpg
    shutbgru.jpg
    13.7 KB · Views: 2,082
  • rock71lv.jpg
    rock71lv.jpg
    8.1 KB · Views: 2,042
  • mcd69orb.jpg
    mcd69orb.jpg
    9.4 KB · Views: 2,028
  • mcd69lv.jpg
    mcd69lv.jpg
    11.5 KB · Views: 2,029
  • bsts70b.jpg
    bsts70b.jpg
    9.8 KB · Views: 2,078
XP67_Moonbat said:
Thank you, Scott! Where would we be without you! ;)
Click to expand...

Doomed. DOOOOOOMED!!!!!

bender-doomed.jpg
 
Hi,

http://dtrs.dfrc.nasa.gov/archive/00000535/01/86798.pdf
 

Attachments

  • untitled.JPG
    untitled.JPG
    81.7 KB · Views: 230
The project shown above is covered here ;):
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5445.0/highlight,hypersonic.html

Now what I have to show you guys is more or less "Shuttle-derived". Not in the sense of NASA's Ares boosters or DIRECT's Jupiter concepts. But since it uses a 2.5 SRB segment as it's first stage, I'd say this falls under the "Shuttle-derived" banner.

Here's the link:
http://www.planetspace.org/lo/osf.htm
 

Attachments

  • Athena III.jpg
    Athena III.jpg
    38.8 KB · Views: 226
XP67_Moonbat said:
Now what I have to show you guys is more or less "Shuttle-derived". Not in the sense of NASA's Ares boosters or DIRECT's Jupiter concepts. But since it uses a 2.5 SRB segment as it's first stage, I'd say this falls under the "Shuttle-derived" banner.

Here's the link:
http://www.planetspace.org/lo/osf.htm
Click to expand...

Ah, that's the team that lost the COTS ISS resupply contract, isn't it?
 
Yeah. IIRC, It was SpaceX and Rocketplane Kistler who took home the contract.

Moonbat
 
Hi,

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1970/1970%20-%201586.html?search=shuttle
 

Attachments

  • untitled.JPG
    untitled.JPG
    61.5 KB · Views: 246
Cool, it looks like NASA had the idea of using a 747 carrier aircraft since the beginning, and it even looks as if they toyed with the idea of modifying a 707 for suborbital launch! :D
 
Was that a shuttle ?.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720011228_1972011228.pdf
 

Attachments

  • 5.JPG
    5.JPG
    23.8 KB · Views: 146
  • 4.JPG
    4.JPG
    19.4 KB · Views: 1,216
  • 3.JPG
    3.JPG
    28.3 KB · Views: 137
  • 2.JPG
    2.JPG
    37.6 KB · Views: 154
  • 1.JPG
    1.JPG
    24.3 KB · Views: 168
Execuse me;

did we speak about the lockheed LS-200-5 before ?;
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710022630_1971022630.pdf
 

Attachments

  • untitled.JPG
    untitled.JPG
    25.6 KB · Views: 192
Hi,

a strange Shuttle project,it had six-engined.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740013410_1974013410.pdf
 

Attachments

  • untitled.JPG
    untitled.JPG
    24.4 KB · Views: 217
Hesham,
I'm pretty sure those engines were a detachable "kit" intended to fly the orbiter between landing, launching and servicing locations (as opposed to the 747 they actually used). If so, they would not have been used on an orbital flight and landing from orbit would still have been dead stick.

Thanks for the picture! I'd wondered how they were going to attach those things.
 
Brickmuppet said:
Hesham,
I'm pretty sure those engines were a detachable "kit" intended to fly the orbiter between landing, launching and servicing locations (as opposed to the 747 they actually used). If so, they would not have been used on an orbital flight and landing from orbit would still have been dead stick.
Click to expand...

Correct. It would arguably have been a superior way to ferry the Shuttle back and forth... all you'd need to get the Shuttle back from, say, the Easter Island landing facility would be a cargo aircraft that could deliver the jet pods and fuel. But if the Shuttle did have to put down somewhere unusual, NASA would have a hell of a time picking it up and putting it on the 747.
 
Orionblamblam said:
Correct. It would arguably have been a superior way to ferry the Shuttle back and forth... all you'd need to get the Shuttle back from, say, the Easter Island landing facility would be a cargo aircraft that could deliver the jet pods and fuel. But if the Shuttle did have to put down somewhere unusual, NASA would have a hell of a time picking it up and putting it on the 747.
Click to expand...

easter island ... ? "shuttle down" by lee correy?
 
Orionblamblam said:
But if the Shuttle did have to put down somewhere unusual, NASA would have a hell of a time picking it up and putting it on the 747.
Click to expand...

Actually, the Jenkins book has a picture of a system for use where the fixed mate/demate facilities aren't available. Looks like it uses regular cranes.
 
A good book on the Space Shuttle, especially the early development and alternative designs is "Space Shuttle: The History of Developing the National Space Transportation System" by Dennis R. Jenkins. Highly recommended.

Regards,

Greg
 
GTX said:
A good book on the Space Shuttle, especially the early development and alternative designs is "Space Shuttle: The History of Developing the National Space Transportation System" by Dennis R. Jenkins. Highly recommended.

Regards,

Greg
Click to expand...

More than a good book this is THE book.
 
archipeppe said:
GTX said:
A good book on the Space Shuttle, especially the early development and alternative designs is "Space Shuttle: The History of Developing the National Space Transportation System" by Dennis R. Jenkins. Highly recommended.

Regards,

Greg
Click to expand...

More than a good book this is THE book.
Click to expand...

There is to be one more edition, after the last Shuttle flight and the program's over. With luck the publishers will agree with the author that the final edition should be the Giant End-All-Be-All Edition.
 
Triton said:
Does anyone know anything about this Space Shuttle "Block II" concept?
Click to expand...

It cames by John Frassanito & Associates a well known architectural firm specialized in supporting NASA to render new projects.
As far I know this only a design concept w/o any link with a real project.
 
Does anyone know if there were any real plans to deliver nuclear weapons from the Space Shuttle cargo bay? Or was this just paranoia on the part of Mstislav Keldysh?
 
Triton said:
Does anyone know if there were any real plans to deliver nuclear weapons from the Space Shuttle cargo bay?
Click to expand...

Not really, no. Undoubtedly the USAF noodled the idea around, but orbiting nukes have never been particularly popular.
 
Orionblamblam said:
Triton said:
Does anyone know if there were any real plans to deliver nuclear weapons from the Space Shuttle cargo bay?
Click to expand...

Not really, no. Undoubtedly the USAF noodled the idea around, but orbiting nukes have never been particularly popular.
Click to expand...

Interesting. According to Efraim Akin at the Institute of Applied Mathematics (IPM) of the Soviet Academy of Sciences:

When we analyzed the trajectories from Vandenberg we saw that it was possible for any military payload to re-enter from orbit in three and a half minutes to the main centers of the USSR, a much shorter time than (a submarine-launched ballastic missile) could make possible (ten minutes from off the coast.)
Click to expand...

The military very sensitive to the variety of possible means of delivering the first strike, suspecting that a first-strike capability might be the Vandenberg Shuttle's objective...
Click to expand...

Hendrickx, Bart and Vis, Bert Energiya-Buran: The Soviet Space Shuttle, Springer-Praxis, 2007
p. 54

According to Boris Gubanov, Energiya-Buran chief designer:

The studies showed that the Space Shuttle could carry out a return maneuver from a half or a single orbit... approach Moscow and Leningrad from the south, and then performing a "dive" drop in this region a nuclear charge, and in combination with other means paralyze the military capability of the Soviet Union.
Click to expand...

Hendrickx, Bart and Vis, Bert Energiya-Buran: The Soviet Space Shuttle, Springer-Praxis, 2007
p. 54
 
Triton said:
According to Efraim Akin at the Institute of Applied Mathematics (IPM) of the Soviet Academy of Sciences:
Click to expand...

It's always prudent to be a little skeptical of the paranoia inheirant to totalitarian states. Yes, the Shuttle *could* lug nukes to orbit. No, it doesn't make any sense for it to do so. But then, it also doesn't make a whole lot of sense to purge your officer ranks or commit acts of genocide on your own people, but the Kremlin was certainly willing to do *those.* And people who do crazy things assume that everybody else is just as equivalently nutty.

Remember, the Soviets spent a lot more work on FOBS than the US did. The US had abandoned the idea of orbital nukes by the mid sixties or so... for the same reason why lunar based nukes were abandoned: Polaris and Minuteman missiles were so damned cheap.

Had the Shuttle ever hauled nukes to orbit, and been caught doing so, every single launch would have been the start of WWIII. And using the Shuttle itself as a "bomber" is just plain silly. Even in the early days, when Shuttle turnarond time would be measured in weeks, not the many months it actually turned out to be, it would still take *days* to prep a Shuttle for launch. A Minuteman? Just turn your key, sir. Not exactly a reasonable first strike weapon.
 
Hi,

a concept from 1947,a modern space shuttle.
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-432/ch4.htm
 

Attachments

  • p33as.jpg
    p33as.jpg
    7.4 KB · Views: 2,172
  • p31b.jpg
    p31b.jpg
    12.6 KB · Views: 2,155
  • p30a.jpg
    p30a.jpg
    49.3 KB · Views: 543
Maybe the first design is something that belongs to end '40s, but the second one for sure not.
It seems to be some NASAish study of early '70s when Shuttle project was still not frozen.
 
Thank you my dear Archipeppa,

and here is a Fully-reusable shuttle concept. North American Rockwell c. 1970.
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/S/Space_Shuttle.html
 

Attachments

  • fully-reusable_shuttle.jpg
    fully-reusable_shuttle.jpg
    15 KB · Views: 456
hesham said:
Thank you my dear Archipeppa,

and here is a Fully-reusable shuttle concept. North American Rockwell c. 1970.
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/S/Space_Shuttle.html
Click to expand...

Interesting post Hesham, because this kind of design almost represents what NASA really did wanted when started STS programme.
TSTO, both stages manned and fully reusable. The second stage winged or, at least, a lifting body with a wide pressurized section and a small Cargo Bay.

All these things before that NASA was forced to have the USAF's "help". Military wanted at least only two things: a wider (as possible) Cargo Bay to host huge KH satellites and the greater cross-range as possibile to launch from Vandemberg AFB and return to Edwards.
Exactly what the the actual Shuttle would be.....
 
Thank you my dear Achipeppe,

and again shuttle concepts.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Space_Shuttle_concepts.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Space_Shuttle_concepts.jpg
    Space_Shuttle_concepts.jpg
    27.9 KB · Views: 494
nice

from Left to right, top to down

Convair - SERV
Lockheed - Starclipper
North American - Phase A shuttle design
Baseline Shuttle with unmanned Cargo stage
McDonnell Douglas Space Shuttle Phase A ?

NASA Baseline version
 
The shuttle concepts,what was this project in the second picture ?.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/postneo/3209064558/
 

Attachments

  • 1.JPG
    1.JPG
    36.7 KB · Views: 459
  • 2.JPG
    2.JPG
    17 KB · Views: 404
The McDonnell Douglas 8 mach two stage (booster-orbiter) shuttle.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720015248_1972015248.pdf
 

Attachments

  • 1.JPG
    1.JPG
    21.8 KB · Views: 370

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom