Lenticular Reentry Manned Bombardment Vehicle

[RAP]

From DTIC report AD0333266 Environmental Control Systems Selection for Manned Space Vehicles USAF 1962.

 

[publiusr]

Very nice.

 

[TMA1]

This the flying pumpkin seed rumors? I know there isnt much to them but I was always fascinated by the idea of a craft going so fast that they have fuel injectors on the outside body rear of the craft and the fuel ignites by the shockwaves of the flying aircraft. Such a neat idea.

 

[GTX]

See here: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...ation-space-bomber-project.35713/#post-420273

 

[GTX]

This the flying pumpkin seed rumors?

No

 

[Justo Miranda]

- Though the Valkyrie was cancelled, Convair used the aerodynamic and ablative heat shield lessons learned from Pye Wacket to design several lenticular re-entry spaceships. The ultimate derivative of the Pye Wacket project was the Convair Saint II, a Manned Anti-Satellite System (MASS) proposed to the USAF on October 17, 1963.

Lenticular shapes were one of three early contenders for manned spacecraft in the Apollo space program.

On January 12, 1961 four lenticular configurations with 3.95 m, 4.9 m, 3.7 m, and 3.3 m of diameter were proposed by NASA-Langley, Convair, Glenn L. Martin and General Electric.

On April 13, 1962, the NASA-Langley engineer Alan B. Kehlet proposed a lenticular vehicle, with foldable aerodynamic flaps, capable to performing orbital missions while possessing atmospheric maneuverability for glide landings.

Lenticular configuration had a lift-to-drag ratio of 2 compared with the 1.0 of the dart configurations, however lenticular concepts were not considered during the Shuttle design studies.

In 1962 North American Aviation proposed their Study 1963, a lenticular space bomber with 12 m diameter, a crew of four and armed with four thermonuclear weapons.

American Flying Saucers Bibliography

​

Development of Airborne Armament 1919-1961, AFSC Historical Publication Series 61-52-1 (61WW-12808), October 1961.

‘Pye Wacket-Lenticular Rocket Feasibility Study’, Air Proving Ground Center-Eglin AFB, APGC-TR-60-25, ASTIA Document, May 1960.

‘Valkyrie: North American’s Mach 3 Superbomber’ by Dennis R. Jenkins, Specialty Press, 2004.

NACA report ‘Full-scale wind tunnel tests of the Vought-Sikorsky V-173, April 28, 1942’.

‘Environmental Control Systems Selection for manned Space Vehicles’, by R.J. Oberto, Los Angeles Division, North American Aviation Inc. Technical Report Nº. ASD-TR-61-240, PT. II. Vol II, October 1962.

‘Primary Vehicle Global Surveillance System’, by R.J. Oberto, Los Angeles Division, North American Aviation Inc. Technical Report Nº. ASD-TR-61-20, Vol III, May 1961.

Static Longitudinal Stability and Control Characteristics at a Mach Number of 1.99 of a Lenticular-shaped Reentry Vehicle, C.M. Jackson Jr, R.V. Harris, Jr. NASA Technical Note D-514, NASA Langley Research Center, Oct 1960.

Subsonic Longitudinal Aerodynamic Characteristics of Disks with Elliptic Cross Sections and Thickness-Diameter Ratios from 0.225 to 0.425., F.A. Demele and J.J. Brownson, NASA Ames Research Center, NASA TN-D-778, Apr 1961.

Landing Characteristics of a Lenticular-Shaped Reentry Vehicle: Ulysse J. Blanchard, NASA Langley Research Center, NASA TN-D-940, Sep. 1961.

Experimental Investigation of a Disk-Shaped Reentry Configuration at Transonic and Low Supersonic Speeds: Lazzeroni, F. A. NASA Ames Research Center, NASA TM-X-652, May 1962.

Investigation of the Low-Subsonic aerodynamic Characteristics of a Model of a Modified Lenticular Reentry Configuration: G. M. Ware, NASA Langley Research Center, NASA TM-X-756, Dec 1962.

Large-Scale Wind-Tunnel Tests of a Circular Plan-Form Aircraft with a Peripheral Jet for Lift, Thrust, and Control. R.K. Greif, William H. Tolhurst, Jr., NASA Ames Research Center, NASA TN-D-1432, Feb 1963.

Supersonic Aerodynamic Characteristics of Some Reentry concepts For Angles of Attack up to 90 deg: M. L. Spearman, NASA Langley Research Center, AIAA Paper 85-1795, Jan 1985.

Supersonic Aerodynamic Characteristics of Some Reentry concepts For Angles of Attack up to 90 deg: M. L. Spearman, NASA Langley Research Center, NASA-TM-87645, Nov 1985.

The Discus Body and its application to V/STOL Aircraft and Space Vehicles, by Martin Gerloff, Aero/Space Engineering, Jan 1960.

Disk Shaped Vehicles Are Studied for Potential As Orbital Aircraft, AVIATION WEEK, 15 Jun 1960.

Landable Disk Re-Entry Vehicles: P A Giragosian & W D Hoffman, Fairchild Stratos Corp, Hagerstown, Md, in Dynamics of Manned Lifting Planetary Entry, Symposium, 3rd, Proceedings, (Philadelphia, Oct 1962), JOHN WILEY & SONS, New York, NY.

Apollo Final report: Configuration, NASA Space Task Group, Contract NAS 5-303, Exhibit A Item 1.2, June 1961.

“Manned Anti-Satellite System”, E.E. Honeywell; Transactions of the Eighth Symposium on Ballistic Missile and Space Technology (Vol. II); Defense Documentation Center, Alexandria, Virginia; 1963.

‘America’s Nuclear Flying Saucer’ by Jim Wilson, Popular Mechanics, November 2000.

http://www.avia-it.com/act/biblioteca/periodici/PDF%20Riviste/Ala/L'Ala%201950%2004.pdf

PYE WACKET Feasibility Test Vehicle Study (Summary) Volume 1
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=AD0325216

PYE WACKET. Feasibility Test Vehicle Study (Configuration and Autopilot/Control)
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=AD0325217

PYE WACKET Feasibility Test Vehicle Study (Aerodynamics) Volume 2
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=AD0325237

 

[publiusr]

Perhaps this concept can yet find new life.

 

[Dilandu]

Perhaps this concept can yet find new life.

Hardly. Why would you need a manned orbital bomber to do the job of unmanned missile? Such concepts seems attractive in 50s - when manned bomber could provide better accuracy than relatively crude ICBM's control systems. But now? The accuracy of modern warheads does not need manned input.

 

[publiusr]

The lenticular vehicle concept as a whole that is, not the load-out.

 

[Orionblamblam]

The lenticular vehicle concept as a whole that is, not the load-out.

The lenticular vehicle provides no advantage, numerous disadvantages. Why go backwards? Why not design things that are actually *good?*

 

[publiusr]

I imagine a wider heat shield is good.

 

[Orionblamblam]

I imagine a wider heat shield is good.

Nope. Back when heat shielding was somewhat mysterious and difficult to produce... sure. But modern materials shrug off these problems, and so you get designs like the X-37 with dinky little *lightweight* lifting surfaces and, importantly, far gentler re-entry decelerations than you'd get out of a flying air brake like a lenticular design.

So by doing a *proper* design, your vehicle is lighter (easier to launch, more on-orbit delta V), cheaper to design, cheaper to build, far cheaper to maintain. More capability can be devoted to actual payload, which is the whole point of the exercise.

 

[publiusr]

LEO is one thing-BEO another. Besides, a wider craft could allow cheaper TPS.

 

[Orionblamblam]

LEO is one thing-BEO another. Besides, a wider craft could allow cheaper TPS.

Look what you just wrote: you call for a fast beyond Earth orbit entry vehicle that's lenticular and high drag so the aerobraking deceleration would be absolutely *crushing,* with cheap TPS. And this sounds sensible to you?

 

[publiusr]

Use the cheap wide for LEO. Capsules are lenticular. Not everything has to be X-37.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Use the cheap wide for LEO. Capsules are lenticular. Not everything has to be X-37.

Capsules are hardly the wave of the future. Things akin to Starship are much more likely going forward.