US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971

[Skybolt]

I'm with you, BTW, the ozone destruction problem by SSTs proved to be overblown. And the chemistry of high-altitude ozone was started AFTER it was given as proved that SSTs would have destroyed ozone... politics, you know.

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

Out of curiousity, (not that I think it would be right, but just out of curiousity) how bad would a fleet of 500 to 1,500 SST's the size of the B-2707-200 have actually caused in terms of ozone depletion rates?


Kendra Lesnick,
BTW: This one's been puzzling me. Wouldn't planes like the B-58, the XB-70, the Blackbird, and such have caused major ozone depletion as (especially the Blackbird and XB-70) flew really high and really fast.

 

[hesham]

Hi,

North American NAC-60.

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1964/1964%20-%200378.html

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

North American really should not have stuck so closely to the XB-70 design. It was great as a bomber, but not a transport plane (the bomb-bay, which on most bombers is in the tubular section of the fuselage, on this design is in between the engine-ducts -- cannot be turned into a passenger cabin leaving just the neck which isn't big enough).


KJ Lesnick

 

[Simon666]

BTW: That LH2 SST seemed pretty damn impressive. Too bad it never got the go-ahead. It might have been completely clean in regards to NOx emissions

Surely you mean carbon emissions. Combustion in air of anything (including hydrogen) at high enough temperature causes NOx formation.

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

Simon666,

So it would still cause ozone depletion?

 

[Skybolt]

The real role of NOx in ozone depletion is debated. It's not the same as chlorine-compounds. At time, it seems that no-one really knows what's happening up there. As for the 2707-200 fleet ozone depletion, no-one has re-run the models with updated knowldedge on the upper atmosphere chemistry. If I have to make a score of the physics-related reasons of the SST program (and successors) failure, I'd put sonic-boom first and fuel consumption (economics) second, with ozone-depletion a distant fourth, after generic noise. Keeping in mind that the sonic-boom problem excluded using the SST on inland routes, and so impinging on the fuel-consumption (long subsonic-leg) and ultimately on the economics. There was then the problem of the government paying for a commercial product no airline was ready to pay for. If you read the economic-political press of the time, the polemics was centered on this more than on everything else. It was the position of &%$£"!)(/?ç Senator Proxmire.

 

[Skybolt]

and the secret alternate configurations study commissioned to Boeing in 1966, looking an arrow wing designs....).

Found it, be damned ! B) Go in DTIC and search for report AD478511 "NASA SCAT 15-F Feasibility Study", actually is from 1965. Lots of drawings and charts, they even scanned in a full size blueprint in A4 chunks, Scott-style. A must have.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Sorry Skybolt, I downloaded that some months ago but didn't post it.

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

The real role of NOx in ozone depletion is debated. It's not the same as chlorine-compounds. At time, it seems that no-one really knows what's happening up there. As for the 2707-200 fleet ozone depletion, no-one has re-run the models with updated knowldedge on the upper atmosphere chemistry.

Are you serious that they've never done any further research? I'm suprized they wouldn't have known the composition of our upper atmosphere..., couldn't you have just flown a U2 up there or something?

When was the ER-2 first used by NASA?


KJ Lesnick

 

[Skybolt]

They did and do a lot of research, but the chemistry up there is very complicated and complex. The models and simulations still are not able to reproduce the actual behaviour of ozone. For example, the famous ozone-hole on the South Pole simply refuses to follow the simulations. Surely there are a lot of interacting factors, and doing research is not so simple: jet engine exhausts of research aircrafts, for example, alters the results. And the reactions must be followed for hours and even days. That's way NASA is looking at high-altitude not-jet powered drones (they even briefly considered nuclear powered airships to do the job, both radioisotope and reactor powered).

 

[flateric]

from what magazine this yummy stuff came from?

 

[Orionblamblam]

from what magazine this yummy stuff came from?

Interavia?

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

I take it they were worrying about long-term reactions in the ozone layer, not just short term?

Because if short-term they could have used an air-scoop located fairly forward on the plane to do the job. The scoop wouldn't be affected by the jet-exhaust as that's in the back of the plane and the scoop's in the front.


KJ

 

[Skybolt]

Yep. The all difficulty is that the reaction chains involved are long and extremely sensitive in their effectiveness to things like solar radiation content, presence of particulate (and size of), presence of catalysts, temperature, mixing by winds, etc. In a word, it is chaotic.

 

[Michel Van]

question
had Douglas ever made SST study or
they made only "Inter Continental Aerospacecraft" study like Hyperion, Pegasus, ICARUS ?
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,4577.0.html

i know sound crazy to use Rocket to send passengers and troops
but to get around world in 45 minute beats every SST ;D

 

[Skybolt]

BTW, it's not Icarus, it's Ithacus..
Yep, they did fairly extended studies at least thrice. First was in response to the SR-169 in 1958. Second, it was in 1962 bidding for the NASA SCAT studies (they lost, the awards went to Boeing and Lockheed, other losers were NAA and GD). Third, it was in the running-up to the formal 1964 competition. This is the best known effort, Model 2229, illustrated here in this thread. In August 1963 Douglas decided anyway to not participate to the competition.

 

[Michel Van]

it's ICARUS (Inter Continental Aerospacecraft - Range Unlimited System)
that later became civilian Pegasus and military Ithacus Sr./Jr. system

In August 1963 Douglas decided anyway to not participate to the competition.

interesting, because ICARUS pop up around 1964, thanks for info Skybolt

picture source Douglas, provided by Flateric (thanks for that )

 

[flateric]

I just can't understand what SSTOs are doing in this thread...

 

[Michel Van]

I just can't understand what SSTOs are doing in this thread...

yes i understand that
but is only to show Wat Douglas had in mind for faster passengers transport, as Competition to SST
(more like "Think Different" approach ;D )
back to Conventional SST Design

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

I take it Douglas's idea wasn't taken seriously?

 

[Skybolt]

Which one ? Ithacus ? No, originally it was (the original idea was earlier, late '50s, Scott has some material on that), but it hit the second-half of '60s starvation of funds regarding manned space projects. By '68 the NASA budget was barely supporting Apollo and a minimal follow-on program. As for the military budget, apart strategic systems (and after the traumas of Dyna Soar and MOL/KH-10), the conventional part of the budget was dominated by contingency (Vietnam). Moreover, the all concept of troop-carrying rockets is the extreme derivative of the "air transportable army" concept developed in second part of '50 by military men like Gavin and Taylor (all former paratroopers, BTW), that gave birth, among other things, to the Pentomic structure for the infantry divisions, but we are now veering seriously OT (and I fear the wrath of gods... ).
As for the Douglas SSTs, the company itself didn't believe in them in first place. The changed their mind in '70s and 80s, but that is another story (and thread).

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

Ithacus was that Single Stage To Orbit idea right?

 

[Orionblamblam]

Ithacus was that Single Stage To Orbit idea right?

No. Ithacus/ICARUS was a sub-orbital trans-continental transport. However, the same basic propulsion module would form the basis of the ROMBUS SSTO.

 

[b2707300sst]

The Boeing pfd is very helpful to obtain more insight to the Boeing concepts. A friend had forwarded the link some time ago. It was a huge help figuring out exactly how the 2707-300 is designed. The landing gear technical sketches especially. The deflector plates are cool touch and were a lot of fun to render.
I've done several Boeing 2707-300 profile prints for my blog. You may have to scroll a bit to view, but they are there. The most recent is a Lufthansa rotating with full afterburners, at the gate, and on a night mission at 75,000 going like a bat out of.....! Enjoy!

http://sstuff4u.blogspot.com/2008/03/posters-by-herb-greenwood.html

 

[Justo Miranda]

From "Mecanica Popular" January 1960 & September 1963
Post-1

 

[Justo Miranda]

From "Mecanica Popular" January 1960 & September 1963
Post-2

 

[Justo Miranda]

From "Mecanica Popular" January 1960 & September 1963
Post-3

 

[hesham]

Hi,

the Boeing Model 733-790 and Langley advanced SST.
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-367/chapt6.htm

 

[flateric]

-

 

[blackkite]

Oh! It's Lockheed L2000-1 offered for PHASE ⅡA study in Nobember 1964. Very precise model!
Please enjoy beautiful NASA SCAT-15F wind tunnel test model.

 

[Orionblamblam]

NASM has two very large (3 foot+) L-2000 models on "display" in a glass case in a non-public area upstairs. Due to the tightly packed nature of the case and the lighting conditions, I had a hell of a time taking photos...

 

[blackkite]

Oh! I want to go to D.C.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Boeing 2707-200 diagrams...

More:
http://www.up-ship.com/drawndoc/drawndocsale.htm

 

[blackkite]

I never saw such a detail general arrangement drawings of B2707-200! It's historically very important. Also L2000-7, please.

 

[Orionblamblam]

I never saw such a detail general arrangement drawings of B2707-200!

Then imagine how much better the full-rez versions are... hint, hint...

Also L2000-7, please.

Same here.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Lockheed L-2000-7. Better versions at you-know-where...

 

[blackkite]

Many thanks again Scott! Very beautiful pictures & drawing. But I believe this 3 side drawing is not represent final configuration of L2000-7A as you already knew. Final configuration had extended engine nozzle which end was go through the wing tailing edge as the picture clearly shows. We never see final 3 side drawings of L200-7Ａ till today. It's very strange for me. Don't you think so?

 

[Barrington Bond]

Just credited as Boeing in From Above and Beyond the Encyclopedia of Aviation and Space Sciences Vol13.

Regards,
Barry

 

[flateric]

2707-200 fuselage nose section full-scale mock-up. Nose section was thought to be built by Northrop
from 'Northrop: An Aeronautical History'