Various US Reusable Launch Vehicles (RLV) Projects

[RAP]

AWST pic for Boeing-Lockheed design. Similar drawing appears throughout these pages but I did not see the info from AWST. If duplicative please feel free to delete.

 

[RAP]

Another AWST article.

 

[RAP]

General Dynamics ad

 

[GeorgeA]

Another AWST article.

I've never been able to find anything of substance regarding the GE concept at lower right in the pic. Multiple winged boosters for heavy lift reappeared in the 1974 Boeing heavy-lift study (S-IC derivatives in that case).

 

[Orionblamblam]

Lockheed Shuttle ad

Funny way to spell "General Dynamics."

 

[RAP]

:-[ Noted and changed.

 

[RAP]

Convair space ferry

 

[danwild6]

I was wondering if anyone had any pics or artist rendering of the concept described here with 3 parallel booster with the ET and orbiter mounted atop the core booosters

http://www.astronautix.com/s/shuttlelrb1972.html

 

[Byeman]

I was wondering if anyone had any pics or artist rendering of the concept described here with 3 parallel booster with the ET and orbiter mounted atop the core booosters

http://www.astronautix.com/s/shuttlelrb1972.html

 

[Archibald]

What, Jim posting a link to astronautix ? has hell frozen over ? ;D ;D

 

[Michel Van]

What, Jim posting a link to astronautix ? has hell frozen over ? ;D ;D

As you mention it, Arichibald
its quite cold in Belgium for moment... :

I was wondering if anyone had any pics or artist rendering of the concept described here with 3 parallel booster with the ET and orbiter mounted atop the core booosters

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720011228_1972011228.pdf

 

[Archibald]

I never quite understood how would that orbiter drop its tanks without shooting itself down. I'm quite intrigued by that intermediate orbiter design with internal LOX tankage and the overwing LH2 drop tanks.

This one

By the way, the NASM had one stunning collection of Space Shuttle models.

 

[Michel Van]

I never quite understood how would that orbiter drop its tanks without shooting itself down. I'm quite intrigued by that intermediate orbiter design with internal LOX tankage and the overwing LH2 drop tanks.

By the way, the NASM had one stunning collection of Space Shuttle models.

There were several reason

The Biggest reason was to get entire stack true VAB Doors
Therefore Orbiter was mounted on side of Booster.

Another was reductions of Problems
Like complex maintenance by taking the orbiter apart to get to internal Hydrogen tanks
or issue Orbiter Frame has with internal Hydrogen tanks during launch and reentry (the booster had lesser problems on that)
( early MUSTARD design had dangerous errors in internal integral Hydrogen-Oxygen Tank concept )

So transform the internal Hydrogen tanks to drop tanks reduce size of Orbiter
what makes it better to move true VAB Door and reduce size of Heat-shield

 

[Archibald]

13 SSMEs on the booster, what could possibly go wrong ? maintenance maybe ? turbopump explosion ? Boeing had the right booster with their flyback S-IC even more if upgraded with the 1.8 million pound thrust F-1A...

After reading about shuttle pre-history for the last 15 years, my gut feeling is that the best shuttle might have been the orbiter above (internal LOX, drop tank LH2) with Boeing flyback S-IC, the later manned for early flight tests (think Enterprise ALT) and later unmanned, could have been done with 1978 technology (autoland and the coming GPS)

 

[GeorgeA]

13 SSMEs on the booster, what could possibly go wrong ? maintenance maybe ? turbopump explosion ? Boeing had the right booster with their flyback S-IC even more if upgraded with the 1.8 million pound thrust F-1A...

While I share your admiration for the Flyback S-IC, the SSME had a near-flawless flight record, over one million seconds worth, in fact. To be fair, this was after an extremely difficult development period that blew up a lot of test stands, delayed the first Shuttle flight by two years, and drove a grueling post-flight maintenance regimen.

 

[_Del_]

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19710029199


Some wind tunnel pics of the Grumman orbiter with drop tanks and a couple Boeing S-IC configurations. Mostly data graphs of stability, but has some pictures and model/full-size dimensions in front.

 

[Michel Van]

13 SSMEs on the booster, what could possibly go wrong ? maintenance maybe ? turbopump explosion ? Boeing had the right booster with their flyback S-IC even more if upgraded with the 1.8 million pound thrust F-1A...

The RS-25 dit there job and lifting the Space Shuttle into orbit
46 RS-25 engines were used in 135 Shuttle missions, for a total of 405 individual engine-missions
of those 405 were only 7 with problems, 5 of them were detected during countdown and launch canceled
only two let to in flight shutdown, one to faulty temperature sensors, the other electrical short disabled one primary and one secondary controller.
also hat that flight mechanical issue with one engine (source Wiki)

After reading about shuttle pre-history for the last 15 years, my gut feeling is that the best shuttle might have been the orbiter above (internal LOX, drop tank LH2) with Boeing flyback S-IC, the later manned for early flight tests (think Enterprise ALT) and later unmanned, could have been done with 1978 technology (autoland and the coming GPS)

Flyback S-IC would have be Ideal for it job, also they look to proposal to use the Saturn V S-IC as Booster until a real booster is build. (thanks for link _Del_)
But Capitol Hill decide reduce Shuttle budget and that was Game Over for use of Saturn V hardware in Shuttle.

 

[TomcatViP]

IMOHO, It was more related to the technolgy of the engine. The fuel turbopump was not able to deliver the fuel pressure needed (LH2 turbine - this was the tech deb'd by Rocketdyne (Ex- North-Am) since the inception (G-26 engine)).
With high pressure fuel being the tech required by NASA all subsequent adaptation of the Saturn engine went moot. PW was supposed to be the initial contractor (from my mem) but couldn't master the tech and Rocketdyne got the final word by adapting itself to that tech.
Today, US industry hasn't been able to reach a level of safety equal to that inhereted by Russia from the ex-USSR. This is why, there was lately a controversy with the use of the Russian engine. It all comes down to that decision.

 

[GeorgeA]

PW was supposed to be the initial contractor (from my mem) but couldn't master the tech and Rocketdyne got the final word by adapting itself to that tech.

Quite the contrary -- P&W successfully proved out the LH2 staged combustion cycle on the RL20/XLR-129, but did not get the SSME contract. Rocketdyne struggled with the high-pressure engine throughout the 1970s until NASA asked P&W to evaluate the issues and recommend fixes in time for the first Shuttle flight in 1981.

Today, US industry hasn't been able to reach a level of safety equal to that inherited by Russia from the ex-USSR. This is why, there was lately a controversy with the use of the Russian engine. It all comes down to that decision.

Can you amplify that a bit? Recent history suggests the overall US launch safety record is better than Russia's. Not perfect, but better.

 

[Michel Van]

Next to that Rocketdyne needed a patent form German Company MBB
They had for ELDO developed and build a successful hydrolox High Pressure Engine called "HDTW"
allot of design on HDTW, you find now inside RS-25 engine

 

[TomcatViP]

@ George: Only this kind of engines. It is as much a cost wise appreciation than based on safety... And history.
Rocketdyne's historian that I have read are clear on the PW failure to reach the requested level of safety for a manned launch on time. But obviously, they were primarly Rdyn employee

@Michel: Can't remember reading about that patent. Would be delighted to have a look at that.

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Good Day All -

From the Parks Air College archives, a photo of what appears to be a McDonnell Douglas Shuttle taken in the mid-80s. Looks to be an iteration of what Hesham posted back in #159. The cockpit and spine are a bit different. The tunnel looks to be one at St. Louis University-Parks and the model may be a hand me down to the school for its aerospace program. I plan on asking what models they may have in their collection.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[danwild6]

What, Jim posting a link to astronautix ? has hell frozen over ? ;D ;D

As you mention it, Arichibald
its quite cold in Belgium for moment... :

I was wondering if anyone had any pics or artist rendering of the concept described here with 3 parallel booster with the ET and orbiter mounted atop the core booosters

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720011228_1972011228.pdf

Thanks for the reply but that doesn't look like the concept mentioned. The boosters were to be 9.93 meters in diameter that's larger than the shuttle external tank. It seems to me that the ET was to be mounted on the central booster like the Saturn Shuttle concept.

 

[hesham]

From;

https://www.grummanretireeclub.org/wp-content/pdf/grumman-plane-news-1970-01-16-vol-29-number-1.pdf

 

[hesham]

From ; Space Shuttle Launch System 1972-2004

 

[hesham]

Hi,

Aviation Week | Search results for: hiller

Search the complete Aviation Week archive. Explore every issue we have ever published: find every article, photo, story, interview, pictorial, advertisement, and more.

archive.aviationweek.com

 

[danwild6]

I'm not sure if this is the right thread but I'm looking for pics of the Shuttle ET with what looks like wings and a shuttle based heat shield

 

[starviking]

I'm not sure if this is the right thread but I'm looking for pics of the Shuttle ET with what looks like wings and a shuttle based heat shield

Hi Dan,

Could you provide more details? Where you saw/heard of it, wing type and position, possession or absence of tails/engines/etc.

 

[danwild6]

Well it was on this site basically it looked like an ET that had been mounted on what looks like a reusable heat shield similar to the bottom of the space shuttle and from what I can remember a similar wing to the shuttle. Basically it looked like a cross between an ET and a Shuttle Orbiter. I don't remember a tail or engines basically a ET that is reusable.

 

[Orionblamblam]

I've seen crude diagrams of such an arrangement. Nothing, SFAICR, that indicated serious engineering.

 

[sienar]

North American phase B

 

[hesham]

From L + K 16/1970.

 

[edwest4]

Post #387. The image in the lower right reminds me of the Sänger space plane.

 

[hesham]

From L+K 23/1970 & 5/1973

 

[hesham]

From L+K 6/1973.

 

[RAP]

June 1971 AWST article.

 

[Archibald]

June 1971 AWST article.

By june 1971 the shuttle as shown here was still fully reusable (and sexy as hell)
It is amazing how fast did it morphed into the familiar one by september-october of the SAME year. The orbiter first froze around the E.T, by late August. The booster(s) was far trickier and took until March 1972 and SRBs.
Neither design was optimal in fact there was probably no viable design to be picked up - it was a losing game, with 100% 2019 hindsight of course.

 

[phil gollin]

.

No, at the time, all the real space nuts (and scientists) were saying that not making the shuttle fully reusable was a huge mistake. Of course, even at this time there was too much optimism over such things as tile costs and reliability

.

 

[hesham]

From L+K 21/1973.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Rockwell: “Possibilities for New Business Growth,” 1985 – The Unwanted Blog

Possibilities of New Business growth: Orbiter recertification & improvements – The Unwanted Blog