Wind tunnel presentation model from the estate of Dr. Maxime Faget. Bonham's Auction House Sale 17402 - The Space Sale: Celebrating the 40th Anniversary of the First Manned Lunar Landing, New York, 16 Jul 2009.

Description from catalog:
Model of early 1970s Space Shuttle Orbiter, stainless steel 17 inches long. Mounted at angle on wood base. The base bears a plaque reading: "Presented to Max Faget on the occasion of his retirement, December 1981. From the Personnel of the Engineering and Analysis Division. 'Old configurations never die, they just get mounted.'"

This design is virtually identical to that in Faget's 1971 patent application. The model is mounted at an angle to replicate the high angel of attack planned for re-entry by this vehicle.

Catalog of the sale:
http://forms.butterfields.com/pdf/17402_Space_lowres.pdf
 

Attachments

  • FagetWindTunnel.JPG
    FagetWindTunnel.JPG
    18.8 KB · Views: 335
Lockheed Shuttle Prototype model from the estate of Dr. Maxime Faget. Bonham's Auction House Sale 17402 - The Space Sale: Celebrating the 40th Anniversary of the First Manned Lunar Landing, New York, 16 Jul 2009.

Description from catalog:
Lockheed Space Shuttle model designed by Lockheed Missiles and Space Company, 10 inches long, being a delta winged orbiter which slides onto a metal bracket to suspend above a triangular wood base. A plaque on the base reads: "Lockheed Space Shuttle, M.A. Faget"

This model design is associated with NASA's July 1970 Alternative Space Shuttle Concept (ASSC) initiative to determine the feasibility of a non-fully reusable shuttle. Plans for this orbiter were for use with either a V-shaped stage-and-a-half (expendable tanks), a reusable booster, or a combination of both.
 

Attachments

  • LockheedShuttleFaget.JPG
    LockheedShuttleFaget.JPG
    14 KB · Views: 385
Early Space Shuttle Model from the estate of Dr. Maxime Faget. Bonham's Auction House Sale 17402 - The Space Sale New York, 16 Jul 2009.

Description from catalog:
Model of a reusable booster and space orbiter, plastic and metal, 25 inches long. The lower booster vehicle has 8 rocket engines at the rear and a hole to allow placement for a display rod (no longer with the model). Two sets of jet engines on each wing were designed to allow this booster to make a runway landing after returning from orbit. The orbiter is mounted "piggy-back" on top of the booster and held in place by three metal pins. Each vehicle has a large vertical and delta-shaped horizontal stabilizers.

This model is associate with the initial design concepts at the Manned Spacecraft Center led by Dr. Faget. It very closely resembles the drawings submitted by Dr. Faget to the US Patent Office titled "Space Shuttle Vehicle and System." He received a patent for his design in November 1972. The model is constructed in the same manner as models used in NASA wind and shock tunnels.
 

Attachments

  • piggy.JPG
    piggy.JPG
    21.4 KB · Views: 311
North American Rockwell and General Dynamics Space Shuttles Model, from the estate of Dr.Maxime Faget. Bonham's Auction House Sale 17402 - The Space Sale New York, 16 Jul 2009.

Description from catalog:
A large and impressive model set by Rockwell and General Dynamics, composite material, metal, and wood. Features a pair of shuttle orbiters each designed to use a common booster vehicle. The booster, 15 inches tall, is mounted vertically at the center rear of a wood display stand. It has 12 silver rocket engines at the rear, a large V-tail stabilizer, and detailed paint and decal markings. The straight-wing orbiter, 11 inches long,and the delta-wing orbiter, 10 ½ inches long, each have two rear rocket engines. Both have detailed paint and decal markings. The landing gear of each is permanently mounted to the base, though each can alternatively be lifted from metal pegs on the landing gear and mounted to the booster vehicle. A large metal plaque on base reads: “Space Shuttle - North American Rockwell Space Division - General Dynamics Convair Division.” Smaller plaques alongside read: “Limited Cross Range Orbiter,” “Maximum Cross Range Orbiter.”

The designs for these vehicles were released by these contractors during November 1970, in response to NASA’s Phase B Integral Launch and Re-entry Vehicle competition.
 

Attachments

  • NARGDFaget.jpg
    NARGDFaget.jpg
    55.6 KB · Views: 343
Space Shuttle Reusable Engines Prototype model from the estate of Dr. Maxime Faget. Bonham's Auction House Sale 17402 - The Space Sale: Celebrating the 40th Anniversary of the First Manned Lunar Landing, New York, 16 Jul 2009.

Prototype model displaying reusable engines for the Space Shuttle, made by Technical Services Division, MSC, Houston, TX, plastic, metal and decals, comprising a 9 inch wide aft end of an orbiter alongside a 5½ inch diameter external tank, mounted onto a 13 by 9 inch wood base. With original 15 by 9 by 10 inch wood carrying case. There are four modified Apollo J-2 rocket engines attached to the base of the external tank. Hinged arms allow these four engines to be moved and mated to the orbiter section. There is a removable interstage ring attached to the external tank. The inside lid of the carrying case has a series of scale drawings titled: “Orbiter Configuration 040B and External Tanks. MSC-SDD- Oct. 12, 1971.” A side view shows how the orbiter and external tank are located above a booster vehicle. Additional side and aft drawings show the translation of the rocket engines from the external tank to the orbiter. The case lid bears a NASA meatball logo.

A new propulsion concept by Maxime Faget. This design allowed for the engines to be reused after removal from the external tank or to be jettisoned reducing weight during an ascent abort. The design was never implemented for a shuttle flight vehicle, but it was patented in December 1975 by Dr. Faget, W. Petynia, and W. Taub.
 

Attachments

  • FagetEngines.jpg
    FagetEngines.jpg
    21.2 KB · Views: 306
McDonnell Douglas Space Shuttle model from the estate of Dr. Maxime Faget. Bonham's Auction House Sale 17402 - The Space Sale: Celebrating the 40th Anniversary of the First Manned Lunar Landing, New York, 16 Jul 2009.

Model of a concept Space Shuttle designed by McDonnell Douglas, plastic, metal and decals. Comprises a booster, 10 inches long, and a delta-winged orbiter, 6 inches long. The orbiter is separable from the booster section. The two parts slot onto pins above a wooden base with a plaque reading: “McDonnell Douglas Space Shuttle, McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company.”

This particular concept was one of the many industry designs responding to a 1970 NASA Phase B competition for an integrated launch and re-entry vehicle, commonly called a space shuttle. The entire vehicle would be launched vertically with the larger booster section returning to a runway landing for reuse. The orbiter section would continue into earth orbit and perform a gliding re-entry and runway landing once the mission was completed. Presented to Dr. Faget during the early 1970’s.
 

Attachments

  • MDShuttle.jpg
    MDShuttle.jpg
    18.7 KB · Views: 147
McDonnell Douglas Space Shuttle, 1971

Scott "Orionblamblam" Lowther on the The Unwanted Blog writes:
Based on the generic NASA 040 configuration. This was clearly getting close to the final Orbiter configuration as actually built, but differed in several important respects… wingtip RCS units, 4 J-2S engines (rather than 3 SSMEs), a raised cupola over the cockpit, two manipulator arms, a docking adapter in the nose, two turbojets.

http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=3755
 

Attachments

  • 040.gif
    040.gif
    159.3 KB · Views: 211
Hi,

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19900007465_1990007465.pdf
 

Attachments

  • 3.JPG
    3.JPG
    38.1 KB · Views: 118
  • 2.JPG
    2.JPG
    29.7 KB · Views: 95
  • 1.JPG
    1.JPG
    31.4 KB · Views: 96
This is a related NASA report: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19890017507_1989017507.pdf

Martin
 
Hi,

a twin-body space shuttle.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710013659_1971013659.pdf
 

Attachments

  • 1.JPG
    1.JPG
    69.8 KB · Views: 88
  • 2.JPG
    2.JPG
    31.8 KB · Views: 76
  • 3.JPG
    3.JPG
    22.4 KB · Views: 73
  • 4.JPG
    4.JPG
    24.5 KB · Views: 90
hesham said:
Hi,

a twin-body space shuttle.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710013659_1971013659.pdf

looks this a feasibility study by NASA
for Martin Marietta 1969 Proposal "Spacemaster"
part of Shuttle Phase-A Study
 

Attachments

  • sts69sm1.jpg
    sts69sm1.jpg
    32.1 KB · Views: 154
Please see this;
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1979/1979%20-%201198.html
 

Attachments

  • Shuttle.JPG
    Shuttle.JPG
    47.7 KB · Views: 168
hesham said:
Hi,

the Boeing and Lockheed shuttle concepts from many designs
to those companies.
http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1970/1970%20-%200285.html

Hi there,

I know this is my first post here but I am building a resin model of this very concept! Made by Kaiyodo in Japan, I found it at SMW 2008. I will have it on display at Telford this year. This is the first image I've ever seen of this idea!

Nick
 
Hi,

This 1969 artist’s concept illustrates the use of three major elements of NASA’s
Integrated program, as proposed by President Nixon’s Space Task Group.
http://galaxywire.net/tag/space-art/page/2/#
 

Attachments

  • earth-orbit-cargo-transfer-space-art.jpg
    earth-orbit-cargo-transfer-space-art.jpg
    92.4 KB · Views: 186
1969 aah
the good old time of Phase A study
were the Shuttle had to be replacement for Saturn IB

some year later the Shuttle mutated horrible into today STS :p
 
Hi,

here is NASA shuttle with twin tail fin and double-delta wing.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730012163_1973012163.pdf
 

Attachments

  • 1.JPG
    1.JPG
    25.6 KB · Views: 316
  • 2.JPG
    2.JPG
    32.3 KB · Views: 301
hesham said:
Please see this;
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1979/1979%20-%201198.html

this is the configuration thats used in Lee Correy's book "Shuttle Down" .. i always thought it was author's fancy .

servus

markus
 
Hi,

here is the Parallel Burn Concept.
 

Attachments

  • Parallel Burn Concept.JPG
    Parallel Burn Concept.JPG
    33.9 KB · Views: 321
hesham said:
The McDonnell Douglas 8 mach two stage (booster-orbiter) shuttle.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720015248_1972015248.pdf

In this report,NASA spoke about the McDonnell-Douglas Model-255 and
Model-256.
 

Attachments

  • untitled.JPG
    untitled.JPG
    62.3 KB · Views: 290
hesham said:
Hi,

a twin-body space shuttle.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710013659_1971013659.pdf

Also from Astronautix site;
 

Attachments

  • shutbmm1.jpg
    shutbmm1.jpg
    11.1 KB · Views: 1,174
Oh yeah, that's Martin's Spacemaster concept.

The illustration actually originates from the back of Dennis R. Jenkin's SPACE SHUTTLE book, 1996 edition. I recieved my copy courtesy of the discard pile at the library. Some people, I tell you!

Going off-topic for a second, now that Shuttle program will be history soon, I wonder if Dennis Jenkins is plannning the ultimate edition of his book. I'd get it for sure.
 
XP67_Moonbat said:
I wonder if Dennis Jenkins is plannning the ultimate edition of his book.

He *wants* to do so. He's told me that given his druthers, the final edition would re-incorporate all that had been cut out of earlier editions, and it would be truly hugenormous. But a lot of that is up to the publisher.
 
XP67_Moonbat said:
Going off-topic for a second, now that Shuttle program will be history soon, I wonder if Dennis Jenkins is plannning the ultimate edition of his book. I'd get it for sure.
Speaking of the Shuttle and history it seems ATK can't wait to get rid of the workforce working on the boosters. Now that the SRBs and Titan IV motors are out of production I wonder how long before the US loses the capability to build large motors. :(
 
I don't want to start a heated argument, but in my view the ability to build large solid rocket motors may well be as (ir)relevant to future space transportation as the ability to build large piston driven steam locomotives may be to future rail transportation (and yes, given specific circumstances, they might make a comeback, but right now that doesn't look too likely)... ;)

Martin
 
martinbayer said:
I don't want to start a heated argument, but in my view the ability to build large solid rocket motors may well be as (ir)relevant to future space transportation ...

Solid rockets have more applications than space transport. If the capability to reliably build large solids is damaged or lost, the ICBM/SLBM fleet is going to get old and creaky *really* fast.
 
Compared to the Titan and STS boosters, I consider ICBMs as *medium* rather than *large* solids. Also, the choice of sferrin's examples seemed to imply that he was concerned about segmented designs, which pose a whole different set of problems, rather than monolithic motors.

Martin
 
martinbayer said:
Compared to the Titan and STS boosters, I consider ICBMs as *medium* rather than *large* solids. Also, the choice of sferrin's examples seemed to imply that he was concerned about segmented designs, which pose a whole different set of problems, rather than monolithic motors.

Martin

No, just large motors in general. Reinventing the wheel won't be cheap.
 
martinbayer said:
Compared to the Titan and STS boosters, I consider ICBMs as *medium* rather than *large* solids.

Once you get to ICBM first-stage size, there's not much difference. More thana few feet in diameter, and you're ina whole different world as far as production goes. Small tactical motors a few inches in diameter can be a home handicraft, as Hamas/Hezbollah show. But truly large motors like the first stage of the Minuteman requires a whole lot of a lot of things that don't exist in large quantites... very large propellant mixers, large test stands, propellant bunkers with the proper quantity-distance issues, and most importantly the people who know the tricks of the trade.

Small missiles like AAM's are built in large numbers by many companies. Production is essentially nonstop. Large motors like ICBMs are built relatively rarely by a small number of companies, and a small number of experts. Here, the loss of a sinlge person to death, retirement or the internet company down the road can have *dire* consequences. I watched that happen with United Tech/CSD out in California. As things started to go "funny" there, people started leaving or just not caring. The result was that things got worse. And as things got worse, the customers lost faith and started pullign contracts. Which made more people leave. Which made things worse. And so on until facilities started exploding and people started dying.

Last I heard, all the major test facilities, huge massive 1960's constructions of concrete and steel, had been dynamited and bulldozed into oblivion. The records were lost and destroyed, the talent scattered.
 
Question, what would it take to recover that kind of knowledge? Would you need to interview the people who built the rockets to get the "tricks of the trade" and or the original data and blueprints in order to rebuild the industry?
 
Sn1008 said:
Question, what would it take to recover that kind of knowledge? Would you need to interview the people who built the rockets to get the "tricks of the trade" and or the original data and blueprints in order to rebuild the industry?

Depending on how long you've gone since you had the capability, you might well need to start pretty much from scratch. If you aren't in an industry with a lot of "tribal knowledge," you'd be amazed at just how far short of the mark you get even with complete blueprints.

Let's say you have the complete blueprints for, say, the Thunderchild Inter Planetary Ballistic Missile. The USSF built a thousand of them thirty years ago, tested the hell out of 'em, and they worked beautifully. But the last time they were in production was twenty years ago, and the last time they came in for a complete refurb and overhaul was fifteen years ago. Now you need to refub 'em again. Alright, fine. You have the prints and the process instructions.

Step one says to remove the existing solid propellant from the case. Last time, they used a mechanical, robotic "excavator" to scoop out the propellant. But that facility was shut down a decade ago because of environmental complaints from the yuppies who decided to move into the area. "No problem" you say, you simply ship them to your *new* facility that uses high-velocity water jets to wash out the propellant. The water jets cut through the propellant like a hot knife through butter, but doesn't damage the case. Great! That gets rid of the sparking issue everyone was so freaked out about with the metallic cutter heads with the old system. So, you put the first Thunderchild motor into the water washout setup, turn it on and... BLAM!

The instant the water jet touches the propellant from the very first motor, it detonates. Entertainingly, the other fifty Thunderchild motors were stored within the blast radius of the first, and they all sympathetically detonate, turnign your sparklingly new facility into so much confetti. What the hell happened?

Ooops. Turns out that the last time through the system, the propellant used had the normal iron oxide burn rate modifier replaced with ferrocene. Ferrocene has all kinds of nifty advantages. Sadly, ferrocene has the unfortunate habit of migrating over time out of the propellant, and gathering on exposed surfaces. So when the supersonic waterjet hit ther surface, it hit a patch of propellant supersaturated with burn rate modifier... which modified the burn rate to over the speed of sound, turning that patch of propellant into a high explosive. Neato! Too bad that the notification that the propellant had been changed was a minor notation that nobody really noticed, buried fifty-eight pages into the process paperwork that you didn't really read, and couldn't have anyway due to it being a faded fifth-generation photocopy. And of course, the post-it note that said "don't use a supersonic waterjet, makes propellant go FOOM" fell out of the folder during the paperwork handoff. And the guy who wrote it got run over by a giant radioactive rubber Jimmycarterbot in that big foodriot at the UberWalMart three years back....


This may sound a tad flippant, but it's actually based on an actual incident.

There are a lot of bits and pieces of rocket motors that don't neatly fit into the blueprints. A notation that some particular widget is Part Number XYZ from FailCo doesn't really help much since FailCo got bought out by Predatory Lending Practices, Inc, which turned the FailCo division into a toy manufacturing division, and then sold it off for parts. And I've seen more than a few process instructions that called for doing something that was not defined within the process instructions... often this meant using some chemical that was no long approved (generally due to environmental concerns). And I was even involved with the re-creation of a substance that was *physically* *impossible* to manufacture, as described.

If you get out of the IBM business, chances are *really* good that if you want to get back into it, your best bet is to take the ICBMs you actually have out into the desert and blow 'em straight to hell with a few tons of high explosive and napalm. And then start from scratch.
 
At least Aerojet manages to do significant size 40 tonne mass solid Atlas V boosters (UPDATE: Peacekeeper first stage is 54 t in mass so it's close) without having a Shuttle SRB contract... I think it's stretching it to say ICBM:s are relying so much on that.
A single Shuttle SRB weighs more than an unfueled Saturn V. You can lose a lot of expensive infrastructure and dangerous (there have been some close calls) and slow operations if you don't have to stack and move huge solids around at every launch. Never mind designing your abort system for them - they tend to fail catastrophically and also their optimal flight profile is fast at low altitude meaning high abort Q loads - both leading to a huge launch escape motor and thus performance problems (already suffering from the low delta vee given to the second stage by a solid is not helping).
 
If large solids go out of use for space launch, wouldn't the appropriate action be to
  • 1. Have the USAF pay for the upkeep of solid expertise,
  • 2. Have the USAF go back to liquid ICBMs, or
  • 3. Have the USAF subsize the use of solid LVs to the point that solids are more attractive than liquids for space launch.

What seems to be happening now is the reverse of Option 3: the space-launch world subsidizes the USAF's solids, which makes no sense at all.
 
I don't know what this is, or how it got here.

http://clarklink.org/hend_lg.mov
 
mz,

I agree. Even the GEM-60 strap-ons of the Delta IV surpass the first stages of the Minuteman III and Trident D-5 in terms of propellant mass. As long as EELVs keep flying, the risk of ICBMs and SLBMs becoming an endangered species would appear negligible ;D.

Martin
 
quellish said:
I don't know what this is, or how it got here.

http://clarklink.org/hend_lg.mov

Within the last year or so, there was a news report about an incident at ATK's Utah operation where the burning of unneeded solid propellant got a bit out of control. Maybe that's what we're seeing here?
 
Proponent said:
quellish said:
I don't know what this is, or how it got here.

http://clarklink.org/hend_lg.mov

Within the last year or so, there was a news report about an incident at ATK's Utah operation where the burning of unneeded solid propellant got a bit out of control. Maybe that's what we're seeing here?

I'm actually surprised there's anybody here who doesn't know what that is. It was an ammonium perchlorate production facility that blew up back in the late 80s. It accounted for something like HALF of all US annual production of the stuff. It had been going gangbusters and had the stuff stockpiled all over the place. There's an extensive write up somewhere online that describes it. (Read it, don't feel like hunting it down.)
 
Hi,

the MD Model JLP SDD 9-24-71 spaceshuttle.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730003175_1973003175.pdf
 

Attachments

  • MD 1.JPG
    MD 1.JPG
    42.6 KB · Views: 713
  • MD 2.JPG
    MD 2.JPG
    25.8 KB · Views: 624
  • MD 3.JPG
    MD 3.JPG
    23 KB · Views: 568
  • MD 4.JPG
    MD 4.JPG
    20.6 KB · Views: 531
  • MD 5.JPG
    MD 5.JPG
    21.6 KB · Views: 497
  • MD 6.JPG
    MD 6.JPG
    20.8 KB · Views: 91

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom