AMSCI/ALSV - Air-launched mini shuttles from early 1980s

Thank you Moonbat, however I've already been there (perhaps I should have added the link to chapter 5 to my own post?), and it still doesn't answer my question about the relationship between these three programs, actually I think it just muddles the issue.

As to the contarctors, I've got:
ALSV
Boeing
Rockwell

AMSCI
General Dynamics
Rockwell

TAV
Boeing
General Dynamics
Lockheed
McDonnell-Douglas
Rockwell

Anything to add?
 
Rockwell Trans-Atmospheric Vehicle (TAV)

Text by Marcus Lindroos from the late Space pages. Since Marcus doesn't seem to be creating a new web site for the pages, I thought that I would add this information.

Two Rockwell Trans-Atmospheric Vehicle (TAV) concepts from 1980. The TAV would have the capability to routinely cruise and maneuver into and out of the atmosphere -- either to gain rapid responsiveness for military low Earth orbit missions or to attain very rapid intercontinental transport services from conventional military airports. The USAF Flight Dynamics Laboratory contracted with Rockwell and General Dynamics in the “Advanced Military Spaceflight Capability Technology Identification” program which investigated critical technologies in various ground- or air-launched systems.
Click to expand...
http://web.archive.org/web/20020227215312/www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceLVs/Slides/sld054.htm
 

Attachments

  • tav_r80a.jpg
    tav_r80a.jpg
    46 KB · Views: 290
  • tav_r80b.jpg
    tav_r80b.jpg
    33.2 KB · Views: 253

Attachments

  • tavri79b.jpg
    tavri79b.jpg
    39.8 KB · Views: 225
  • tavri79h.jpg
    tavri79h.jpg
    20.6 KB · Views: 219
  • tavri79s.jpg
    tavri79s.jpg
    18.2 KB · Views: 112
McDonnell-Douglas VTHL TSTO Trans Atmospheric Vehicle (1984)

Text by Marcus Lindroos from the late Space pages.
As usual, few details were given but this concept would “be capable of flight in and out of the atmosphere at speeds up to Mach 25. It could routinely travel to any point on the Earth in under two hours.” Reconnaisance was one possible mission, and there were rumors the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird spyplane would eventually be replaced in strategic reconnaisance missions.
Click to expand...
http://web.archive.org/web/20020223105342/www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceLVs/Slides/sld057.htm
 

Attachments

  • tavmcd84.jpg
    tavmcd84.jpg
    26.9 KB · Views: 131
General Dynamics HTHL & VTHL single-stage-to-orbit TAV concepts (1982)

Text by Marcus Lindroos from the late Space pages.

The vehicle at left would take off horizontally from a rocket-powered launch sled. The concept at right would be launched vertically.
Click to expand...

http://web.archive.org/web/20020223110525/www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceLVs/Slides/sld055.htm
 

Attachments

  • tav82gdh.gif
    tav82gdh.gif
    10.3 KB · Views: 132

Attachments

  • tav_l84.jpg
    tav_l84.jpg
    68.7 KB · Views: 288
Boeing ALSV (1979-1984)

Text by Marcus Lindroos from the late Space pages.
In 1979, Boeing and the US Air Force Rocket Propulsion Laboratory proposed a small unmanned "Air-Launched Sortie Vehicle", ALSV consisting of a reusable spaceplane and a huge expendable propellant tank. The vehicle could overfly any point on Earth within 90 minutes of the launch order and also perform other military missions such as satellite inspection. It then returns to a military airbase and lands horizontally like the Space Shuttle.

The ALSV stack would be carried piggy-back to an altitude of 11.3km by a modified Boeing 747 carrier aircraft, where it separates and fires its engines to head for Earth orbit. The tank would be drained of fuel and jettisoned at 108.8km altitude. The concept would have required no new technologies, although the Boeing 747 carrier aircraft would have required many modifications including LOX,LH2 propellant tanks in the fuselage (the ALSV drop tank has little insulation to save weight so the propellant must be transferred only shortly before launch) and an SSME installed in the tail to allow a rapid 60 degree climb while carrying a fully fueled ALSV. The vehicle would have been ready for a first launch in 1988, but USAF decided not to pursue the project further due to its limited payload carrying capability.

Specifications:

Liftoff Thrust: 1381.725kN. Total Mass: 390,100kg. (Boeing 747+ALSV).

Payload capability: 1,590kg to 185km sunsynchronous orbit.

Payload bay size: 1.52 x 2.74m

Stage 1 : 9 x RL-10. Liftoff thrust: : 1381.725kN. Isp: Gross Mass: 124,738kg. Empty Mass: 9,070kg + 5,900kg drop tank. Length: 15.85m. Span: 9.14m. Drop tank length: 24.4m. Drop tank maximum diameter: 4.3m. Propellants: LOX/LH2.

Bibliography:

”Air-launched Shuttle Concepts” -- Peebles, JBIS 1983/p.153

”Military Mini-Shuttle Could Fly by 1988” -- Space World 1982/October/p.41
Click to expand...
http://web.archive.org/web/20050227025644/www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceLVs/Slides/sld053.htm
 
It seems that the ALSV was really more of a study at a sub-component level of the Air Force, rather than a program that the Air Force leadership required.
 
I looked at some old issues of Spaceflight in regards to this list:

"P.S. Literature list that may contain stuff needed

1. Interavia Aerospace Review, 1982, v.37, II, N 2, p.117.
5. Plight International, 1984, v.125, 14/1, N 3897, p.72.
8. Air Force Magazine, 1984, v.67, N 4, p.25-26.
10.Aerospace America, 1985, v.23, II, N 2, p.50-53.
11. Journal of Spacecraft, 1986, v.23, XI-XII, N 6, p.612-619.
12. International Defense Review, 1982, v.15, N 8, p.1113.
13. Popular Mechanics, 1982, XII, p.120.
14. Space World, 1983, N T-1-229, p.33.
15. Plight International, 1982, v.122, 4/XII, N 3839, p.1637.
18. Smith B.A. Study shows space sortie concept viable by 1990. Aviation Week and Space Technology, 1982, v.117, 1/XI, N 18, p.69-70.
19. Aviation Week and Space Technology, 1982, v.117, 20/XII, N 25, p.63.
20. Aviation Week and Space Technology, 1982, v.116, 14/VI, N 24, p.28.
22. Aviation Week and Space Technology, 1982, v.117, 9/III, N 6, p.49.
23. Air Force Magazine, 1983, v.66, N 11, p.111.
30. Spaceflight, 1984, v.26, III, К 3, p.123-128.
32. Spaceflight, 1985, v.27, I, N 1, p.3.
33. Spaceflight, 1987, v.29, III, N 3, p.90-91.
34. Interavia Air Letter, 1986, 20/V, N 11001, p.6.
35. Air et Cosmos, 1986, 6/IX, N 1107, p.46.
36. Plight International, 1986, v.130, 30/VIII, N 4026, p.60.
37. Plight International Show Daily, 1986, 2/IX, N 3, p.36.
38. Air et Cosmos, 1986, 20/XII, N 1122, p.31-32."


--30. Spaceflight, 1984, v.26, III, К 3, p.123-128.

Not a relevant article.


--32. Spaceflight, 1985, v.27, I, N 1, p.3.

"Spacecab II: A Small Shuttle," by David Ashford (2 pages; small air-launched shuttle concept)

Unfortunately, it is not on the ALSV.


--Spaceflight, 1987, v.29, III, N 3, p.90-91

"HOTOL: Jumbo Jet Launch Proposal," featured item of correspondence by Bernard Carr

Unfortunately, it is also not on the ALSV.

The best overall article appears to be one of the Aviation Week articles. Everything else is either not relevant or just a retread. There's less available on this than I thought.
 
Artist's conception by Rockwell International for the Air launch Sortie Vehicle program circa 1983. A larger version of the artwork and additional information can be found at "Air Launch Sortie Vehicle artwork: 1" on The Unwanted Blog web site by Orionblamblam.
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=442
 

Attachments

  • RockwellALSV.jpg
    RockwellALSV.jpg
    237.3 KB · Views: 1,884
Meteorit said:
Thank you Moonbat, however I've already been there (perhaps I should have added the link to chapter 5 to my own post?), and it still doesn't answer my question about the relationship between these three programs, actually I think it just muddles the issue.

As to the contarctors, I've got:
ALSV
Boeing
Rockwell

AMSCI
General Dynamics
Rockwell

TAV
Boeing
General Dynamics
Lockheed
McDonnell-Douglas
Rockwell

Anything to add?
Click to expand...

Some additional context:
Boeing RASV 1976-1982 (unsolicited?)

USAF/DARPA SCIENCE DAWN 1982-1984
Boeing
Lockheed
McDD
3 concepts explored, design studies.

SCIENCE REALM 1983-1985
Boeing
McDD
Structural test articles: tankage, hot structures

HAVE REGION 1985-1988
3 sets of structural test articles, 1 of which was almost a full flight vehicle
Advanced H2 tank constructed
Boeing hot structure concept validated by testing, Boeing design was nearly complete.
Lockheed design validated advanced H2 tank and liner
McDD article was evolved from ISINGLASS work using honeycomb structures


These were all ground launched rocket powered spaceplane technology programs that had direct and indirect influence on ASLV, TAV, and NASP.
 
quellish said:
These were all ground launched rocket powered spaceplane technology programs that had direct and indirect influence on ASLV, TAV, and NASP.
Click to expand...

Thats why they're included in my updated summary of 1980s USAF spaceplane related programs that I'm hoping to publish in my homepage soon. B)
 
A little something courtesy of one of our own: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1569/1

Enjoy!

Moonbat
 
This was a fishing expedition, and has resulted in some tugs on the line. May result in a nice catch...
 
XP67_Moonbat said:
Well it's good job so far and i can't wait to see the rest.
Click to expand...

Thank you, that is most kind. I've put a number of ALSV related documents on the NASASpaceflight.com website and may put more there, depending upon what I turn up.
 
Has anyone noticed on the second picture down, there is a rocket thruster on the tail of the 747?
jc
 
Kane said:
Has anyone noticed on the second picture down, there is a rocket thruster on the tail of the 747?
jc
Click to expand...

The concept went through three stages:

-JT-8 turbofans equipped with hydrogen-burning afterburners
-a single SSME in the tail
-ten RL-10 rocket engines in the tail

(This refers to the Boeing study. There were other contractor studies, but I don't believe they were as extensive as the Boeing study--that could be an erroneous conclusion on my part.)

Boeing determined that the SSME was a better solution than the afterburners in part because the 747 fuselage was very strong under pressurization, so the SSME pushing on the rear was structurally sound. A few early illustrations of the concept show a single SSME in the tail. However, the SSME ended up a poor fit, apparently because it could not be throttled down. Ten RL-10s offered a much greater power range. The RL-10, in particular, can be "deep throttled," meaning that it can be reduced down to a very low percentage of its full thrust. I seem to remember reading that the RL-10 could be throttled down to something like 10% of its total power, although I think this capability was not tested until the 1990s or later. Anyway, it provides a much greater power range for the engine than was possible with the SSME.

Although I don't know for sure, I also assume that having both an ALSV and a 747 that used the same rocket engines would be easier to service and cheaper.

Details in a future article on the ALSV.
 
Thanks for the explanation in engine choices. The picture of ALSV (at least from the Boeing perspective) is a lot more clear now. Another point about the seven RL-10 cluster is that individual engines could be shut down completely to achieved the desired thrust level, akin to the use of XLR-11 chambers in the X-1 program. Was that ever in the cards for the Boeing studies?
 
I don't know about shut down. Probably not necessary. They would not necessarily have wanted to reduce thrust, but have the option of starting at lower thrust and then increase it. Also, more engines provides a possible engine-out capability: lose an engine and you could simply provide more power to the other engines.
 
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1580/1

Dwayne's follow-up. A special shout out to Archipeppe. Good job to both you guys.

Moonbat
 
Dan Delong at Teledyne Brown, now at XCOR, worked on a rocket boosted 747 for air launch. (It took long to remember enough info to find this, I just knew it was some newspace guy.)

http://selenianboondocks.com/2008/01/orbital-access-methodologies-part-i-air-launched-ssto/

http://www.xcor.com/products/vehicles/frequent_flyer_and_teledyne_brown_spaceplane.html
 
That's interesting. I was not aware of that one. Thank you.

William Ketchum, mentioned in the article, is still around, as is someone who worked on Rocketdyne's proposal. Right now these articles are intended to be drafts, working up to a more detailed article with more info.
 
I'm a bit surprised that the ALSV studies claimed they could pull off the mission with mature, existing technologies. The similar MAKS effort in Russia claimed that new TPS materials would be required for the leading edges of the wings. Reinforced Carbon-Carbon was sufficient for the shuttle, but the thinner leading edges with narrower leading edge radii on an air-launched spaceplane would get too hot for RCC. Maybe the Russians got it wrong on this one, or their version of RCC wasn't as robust as the one developed for the US shuttle.
 
Our very own Blackstar continues to shed some light on this project.

Here ya go!
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1591/1
 

Attachments

  • ALSV-Boeing.jpg
    ALSV-Boeing.jpg
    31.3 KB · Views: 312
I am waiting for the part where the author discusses the XB70 like vehicle with the mini black shuttle on the back that several witnesses have reported.

Is that why your screen name is Blackstar??? :)
 
sublight said:
I am waiting for the part where the author discusses the XB70 like vehicle with the mini black shuttle on the back that several witnesses have reported.
Click to expand...

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/576/1
 
blackstar said:
sublight said:
I am waiting for the part where the author discusses the XB70 like vehicle with the mini black shuttle on the back that several witnesses have reported.
Click to expand...

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/576/1
Click to expand...

@#%$@$ I feel "punked" now..... :(

Somebody should get an entry for "William Scott" put in Snopes!!!!!
 
I think there is a tentative lesson to be learned from the ALSV: In the early 1980s several companies (General Dynamics-Convair, Rockwell, and Boeing) looked into the possibility of building an air-launched spacecraft. They determined that it was possible. But at least their initial assessments done at GD-Convair and Rockwell (possibly Boeing too, but I'm sure about the first two) indicated that this required: a) a large launch vehicle in the 747 class; b) a drop tank, and c) relatively small payload capability (such as 1 human, or a few thousand pounds cargo, but not both). Both GD-Convair and Rockwell determined that in order to get rid of the drop tank, they would have to go to more exotic, and dangerous propellants such as fluorine. This also would have resulted in a bigger spacecraft.

So, if you accept the Blackstar story that was published in 2005 in Aviation Week, at some point somebody--a contractor such as GD-Convair, Rockwell, Boeing, or Lockheed--determined that it was possible to build a vehicle that could be air-launched and make it into orbit. The AWST article does not indicate that this spacecraft had a drop tank. And it indicates that it was launched from an aircraft that would have had less lifting capability than a 747. If this is true, how did they do it? What was their solution that was so new and innovative that it overcame the limitations identified in the ALSV studies?

I personally think that the AWST story was very badly-sourced. It is based upon hearsay (never a direct quote of even an anonymous source claiming first-hand knowledge), and not solid facts that can be checked. My primary point in writing about that article many years ago was not to say that "Blackstar" did not exist, but to point out that if you read the AWST article carefully, you could see that the article did not prove that it existed.
 
It can be done without drop tank using deeply cooled rocket. That is a given if a company has the balls to embrace it and push the envelope just a tad. Its out there tantalizingly close but still so far. Only Rutan has embraced this concept full-on and his design though similar is still off the mark.

http://thespacereview.com/article/1591/1
 
airrocket said:
It can be done without drop tank using deeply cooled rocket. That is a given if a company has the balls to embrace it and push the envelope just a tad. Its out there tantalizingly close but still so far. Only Rutan has embraced this concept full-on and his design though similar is still off the mark.
Click to expand...

What do you mean "deeply cooled rocket"? Do you mean liquid slush hydrogen? One problem I can see with that (other than difficulty of the technology) is that it does not seem like something that would be quick. So such a craft would not be quick use, and the goal of this kind of spacecraft is that it can be quick response.

It is at least theoretically possible to do a single stage vehicle off the back of a 747 using fluorine, either FLOX or a tripropellant. But fluorine is a difficult propellant.
 
Deeply cooled rocket is an air breathing rocket utilizing LH2 (not slush or triple point) to cool the incoming air. The air enters the propulsion system through a simple inward retractable inlet passes through an upstream heat exchanger filled with LH2. The heat exchanger cools the incoming air to near saturation point. The super cooled air is then further compressed by a turbo compressor (rocket driven) and or driven by the heated LH2 to required injection pressure. Very much like the Skylon Sabre motor. This process is good up to M5.5 at which point the inlet is closed and the motor transitions to pure rocket mode to orbit. Somewhat similar to LACE.

Now if one wants to use slush there is a technique developed during the NASP program using an initial charge of LH2 to quickly super cool the tank structure followed by the loading of the slush the LH2 also serves to somewhat pressurize the tank. A rather large tank of slush or triple point can be loaded in around 15 minutes with this technique. I have this technique well documented for a previous LH2 based quick response CONUS proposal.
 
So that's all essentially theoretical technology. The difference with the ALSV is that the basic ALSV concepts are not exotic. They require no new technology, simply assembly of existing technologies. I think some of these would present challenges, such as pumping H2 and LOX from the 747 into the vehicle during flight. But they are extrapolations of things done regularly on the ground.
 
Well beyond the theory stage developed and lab tested in the US, Italy in the 60's and 70's and later perfected in Japan, Russia, India. I think China is playing around with it some now to. I believe in the 80's this tech was still under wraps for the most part. Even today the old timers will discuss the basics wanting to go beyond that requires investment.
 
I have seen some TSTO sizing studies that used something similar. Rockwell called this "LOX-collect", using LH2 and exchangers to condense LOX from air in flight for the 2nd stage. They were able to use this (on paper) to significantly decrease the TOGW of the whole thing, and of the carrier aircraft in particular.
The rate of collection seemed pretty....optimistic in these studies.
 
blackstar,

assuming a Blackstar mothership as postulated by AWST were possible, the reason why an orbiter could conceivably be feasible without exotic propellants or drop tanks and still be launched by a carrier with lower lift capacity than a 747 is the very different staging velocity. A system like Blackstar would (at least theoretically) allow high supersonic or perhaps, like for example the Saenger II design, even hypersonic staging for the orbiter as opposed to a subsonic launch from a 747, thus notably reducing the delta v required to be achieved by the orbiter using its own propulsion and thereby also reducing its size. How realistic such a system is for example from the perspective of high speed airbreathing propulsion or separation aerodynamics is however admittedly questionable.

Martin
 
martinbayer said:
How realistic such a system is for example from the perspective of high speed airbreathing propulsion or separation aerodynamics is however admittedly questionable.
Click to expand...

Putting it mildly. If I had a magic carpet, I could fly. If I had a magic carpet...
 
Thank you for these articles, blackstar. So far I think they have helped to clear the ALSV/AMSCI/TAV programs somewhat. Thus it seems the Rockwell C-5 launched vehicle (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,722.msg35682.html#msg35682) was a late 1970s proposal predating these programs (the linked post also has another image of the Rockwell AMSC concept). As to the participants (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2913.msg60622.html#msg60622) an updated list so far would be:

ALSV
Boeing
General Dynamics
Rockwell

AMSCI
Boeing
General Dynamics
Lockheed
McDonnell-Douglas
Rockwell

TAV
Boeing
General Dynamics
Lockheed
McDonnell-Douglas
Rockwell

One thing I wonder is were the Rockwell MRCC and McDonnell-Douglas Toss-Back booster with scramjet concepts part of the TAV studies or separate proposals.

How about AMSCI and TAV articles next? ;)
 
I agree that it is confusing to try and sort these various projects out. One of the people I contacted for my third ALSV article worked on these studies and I think he has helped fill in the chronology a bit. It seems like the AMSC study (at least for Rockwell) went from roughly 1979-1983. The ALSV study was apparently around 1981-1982. According to a former Boeing engineer, the ALSV study for them only lasted about nine months. I don't have information on the TAV work, other than it started after the AMSC study. It would be worthwhile to produce a timeline for those companies and studies, showing how they overlapped. But I don't have the software to do that.

Unfortunately, what is still missing are the actual reports produced by these companies. I've got ancillary data (like some initial documents as well as emails from people involved), but not the final results of their work. For example, how did the Rockwell spaceplane concept change over time? When did they complete each phase?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom