Various US Reusable Launch Vehicles (RLV) Projects

[Sn1008]

Concerning the ATK facility that detonated that produced all of the aluminum perchlorate produced in our country, it occurred in the late eighties. This is a link to an article about that event. When I think about it, too bad someone could not have videotaped it. ;D

 

[Orionblamblam]

Concerning the ATK facility that detonated that produced all of the aluminum perchlorate produced in our country...

It was not an ATK facility. ATK was simply their biggest customer.

When I think about it, too bad someone could not have videotaped it. ;D

Huh? Someone *did* videotape it.

 

[Triton]

Shuttle Liquid Fly Back Booster Configuration Options by TJ Healy, Boeing Reusable Space Systems, 1998

This paper surveys the basic configuration options available to a Liquid Fly Back Booster (LFBB), integrated with the Space Shuttle system. The background of the development of the LFBB concept is given. The influence of the main booster engine (BME) installations and the Fly Back Engine (FBE) installation on the aerodynamic configurations are also discussed. Limits on the LFBB configuration design space imposed by the existing Shuttle flight and ground elements are also described. The objective of the paper is to put the constrains and design space for an LFBB in perspective. The object of the work is to define LFBB configurations that significantly improve safety, operability, reliability and performance of the Shuttle system and dramatically lower operations costs.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19980231024_1998376505.pdf

 

[Sn1008]

I stand corrected from my original post.

 

[hesham]

Hi,

The Space Shuttle's First Flight: STS-1

 

[hesham]

Shuttle Liquid Fly Back Booster Configuration Options by TJ Healy, Boeing Reusable Space Systems, 1998

This paper surveys the basic configuration options available to a Liquid Fly Back Booster (LFBB), integrated with the Space Shuttle system. The background of the development of the LFBB concept is given. The influence of the main booster engine (BME) installations and the Fly Back Engine (FBE) installation on the aerodynamic configurations are also discussed. Limits on the LFBB configuration design space imposed by the existing Shuttle flight and ground elements are also described. The objective of the paper is to put the constrains and design space for an LFBB in perspective. The object of the work is to define LFBB configurations that significantly improve safety, operability, reliability and performance of the Shuttle system and dramatically lower operations costs.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19980231024_1998376505.pdf

Hi,

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19990007761_1998377046.pdf

 

[Orionblamblam]

North American's Space Shuttle as of 1971, with 4 J-2 engines. Much embiggened version here: http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=4901

 

[OM]

...Scott, can you tweak the contrast just a little on this one? I honestly can't make out 1/10th of what's there because it's so light.

 

[Orionblamblam]

...Scott, can you tweak the contrast just a little on this one? I honestly can't make out 1/10th of what's there because it's so light.

Sigh.

Fine.

Even though my call at the end of the blog post for people to subscribe, donate, mail blocks of gold, whatever, went unanswered, I went ahead and uploaded a clearer grayscale version at the end of the post.

Now, who wants to touch me? I SAID WHO WANTS TO F'ING TOUCH ME???

 

[Byeman]

there were other crazy "Ideas" would likely rupture the ET:

like put SRB segments or a Titan-II stage under the ET as "add-on Booster"
LBM 4 Titan-II tanks with total 159t fuel and 2xAerojet LR87-AJ-11 engine with total 200 ton trust
total weight 180t LBM ignition 5 sec after Shuttle liftoff
+5 tons payload for USAF mission (from Vandenberg AFB?)

It is ridiculous to think it would rupture the ET. It would have been modified to accept the loads from the extra propulsion. Also this was the time of the ET Aft Cargo Carrier.

I have some documents that I can share. Need to find them

 

[Byeman]

Wat i wonder is, had Martin never proposed Transtage for Shuttle upperstage ?
(they had proposed Transtage as ad-on booster under the ET in 1982)

I think they did. There's a congressional hearing report from around 1972 or so that includes presentations from about four different companies proposing "space tugs" for the shuttle. There were several Agena proposals, a Grumman proposal, and I think a Martin proposal using the Transtage. I'll look around for it in my files. From vague memory, I think that the Transtage had some early performance problems, but these were later solved. However, I believe I also heard from some people familiar with it that it was not very popular. The Air Force people who had to work with it did not like it.

I remember that there were at least three Agena proposals--a "large tank" Agena (their preferred design), an Agena with drop tanks, and three separate Agenas with separate payloads.

There also was a modified Delta II second stage

 

[Byeman]

Agena in a shuttle bay = as dangerous as a Centaur ?
(non cryogenic, but highly toxic corrosive... on the other hand Shuttle OMS use storable propellants)

the OMS used fuel is monomethylhydrazine (MMH), which is oxidized with nitrogen tetroxide (N2O4).

Monomethylhydrazine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Dinitrogen tetroxide - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

safe storable propellants

the Agena used fuel is UDMH , which is oxidized with Inhibited white fuming nitric acid

Unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Nitric acid - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

the oxidizer tank need protective metallic fluoride coating !

Being a powerful oxidizing agent, nitric acid reacts violently with many organic materials and the reactions may be explosive

something you don't want in a Shuttle cargobay in case the oxidizer tank, feedline or valve leaks

(they had proposed Transtage as ad-on booster under the ET in 1982)

MMH and N2O4 is not "safe" , they are just as bad as UDMH and IRFNA

N2O4 has nitric acid present.

It wasn't a Transtage, it was a modified Titan 1st stage

 

[Byeman]

Here's a little something on Shuttle-derived concepts I found on my quest for SRB-X.

Was a NASA competitor to the CELV (Complementary ELV). The commercial proposals were the Titan 34D7 (which became the Titan IV) and 16.7' dia Atlas with 5 H-1's on the booster. The SRB-X was two parallel shuttle SRB's, with a 2 segement SRB in the middle, topped by a Titan III second stage and a Centaur G'*.


* Both the Titan 34D7 and 16.7' dia Atlas had Centaur G' upperstages

 

[Byeman]

But if the Shuttle did have to put down somewhere unusual, NASA would have a hell of a time picking it up and putting it on the 747.

Not really. A stiff legged derrick was use at MSFC for the vibration tests. This was then used at White Sands for STS-3. By the time, OV-101 was delivered to Dulles, two rental cranes were used.

 

[Byeman]

Does anyone know if there were any real plans to deliver nuclear weapons from the Space Shuttle cargo bay?

Not really, no. Undoubtedly the USAF noodled the idea around, but orbiting nukes have never been particularly popular.

Interesting. According to Efraim Akin at the Institute of Applied Mathematics (IPM) of the Soviet Academy of Sciences:

When we analyzed the trajectories from Vandenberg we saw that it was possible for any military payload to re-enter from orbit in three and a half minutes to the main centers of the USSR, a much shorter time than (a submarine-launched ballastic missile) could make possible (ten minutes from off the coast.)

The military very sensitive to the variety of possible means of delivering the first strike, suspecting that a first-strike capability might be the Vandenberg Shuttle's objective...

Hendrickx, Bart and Vis, Bert Energiya-Buran: The Soviet Space Shuttle, Springer-Praxis, 2007
p. 54

According to Boris Gubanov, Energiya-Buran chief designer:

The studies showed that the Space Shuttle could carry out a return maneuver from a half or a single orbit... approach Moscow and Leningrad from the south, and then performing a "dive" drop in this region a nuclear charge, and in combination with other means paralyze the military capability of the Soviet Union.

Hendrickx, Bart and Vis, Bert Energiya-Buran: The Soviet Space Shuttle, Springer-Praxis, 2007
p. 54

The soviets thought this because they didn't believe the economic justification, in which they were right.

 

[Michel Van]

welcome to this forum Byeman

Michel Van
(they had proposed Transtage as ad-on booster under the ET in 1982

It wasn't a Transtage, it was a modified Titan 1st stage

i have only vague information about Transtage under a Shuttle ET
its possibly that the authors mix up the Titan Hardware

I have some documents that I can share. Need to find them

we would be pleased, if you post the documents in this forum

 

[Byeman]

Aft Cargo Carrier

 

[Triton]

Proposed General Dynamics-Convair space shuttle design model for auction at the Bonhams Auction House web site.

URL: http://www.bonhams.com/cgi-bin/public.sh/pubweb/publicSite.r?sContinent=USA&screen=lotdetailsNoFlash&iSaleItemNo=4570360&iSaleNo=17778&iSaleSectionNo=1


Description:

Lot No: 1134
PROPOSED GENERAL DYNAMICS-CONVAIR SHUTTLE DESIGN.
Prototype model with three 8-inch long shuttle vehicles attached together in launch configuration with a fourth 8-inch long shuttle displayed in landing configuration. All made from plastic and metal. A plastic 6 by 10 ½ inch base has a metal plaque that reads: "General Dynamics Convair Triamese Concept" along a raised section along the back edge. All shuttles can be removed from the display stand.

This is a model proposed in the early 1970s that would employ two outer vehicles as booster stages to allow the center section vehicle to achieve orbital velocity. All vehicles could land after use with deployable wings and air breathing jet engines. Presented to Dr. Faget during the NASA Shuttle proposal efforts.

Estimate: $4,000 - 6,000

 

[Stargazer]

Cool find! Here's the zoomed in picture from the same site:

 

[Michel Van]

in 1980s were alot illustration of a "passengers Pod" for the STS

was that real project or only wishful thinking by some illustrators ?

 

[blackstar]

in 1980s were alot illustration of a "passengers Pod" for the STS

was that real project or only wishful thinking by some illustrators ?

There was actually a business proposal for that idea. However, I don't think it was serious. Not a real company with money. And a stupid idea.

 

[Archibald]

"Aircraft II, the sequel" maybe ? ;D

 

[Orionblamblam]

There was actually a business proposal for that idea. However, I don't think it was serious. Not a real company with money. And a stupid idea.

I can recall having a brochure or something on that. I *think* it was a Gary Hudson concept... my memory of the brochure has it related to the Phoenix SSTO somehow. But I can't clearly remember seeing that thing in damn near 20 years. What the hell did I do with it???

 

[OM]

I can recall having a brochure or something on that. I *think* it was a Gary Hudson concept...

...Raised on sci.space.shuttle a few years back. I think Jorge mentioned it was a Gary Hudson concept. Nothing ever got past brochure stage, IIRC

 

[Byeman]

It was proposed before the first flight of the shuttle.

Space Future - The Future of Space Tourism

www.spacefuture.com

 

[FutureSpaceTourist]

I can recall having a brochure or something on that. I *think* it was a Gary Hudson concept... my memory of the brochure has it related to the Phoenix SSTO somehow. But I can't clearly remember seeing that thing in damn near 20 years. What the hell did I do with it???

I believe in the mid-80s Society Expeditions talked about offering people a trip on the shuttle (in a passenger cabin to be transported in the cargo bay). A very quick Google search has just thrown up this Popular Mechanics item so far.

Of course the Phoenix SSTO was being developed by Gary Hudson for Society Expeditions too. I'm not sure whether Phoenix came after they flirted with using the shuttle (obviously pre-Challenger), or were two parallel ideas?

 

[Stargazer]

Gary Hudson-related pages on Stargazer:

The Pacific American 'Phoenix M' :
http://stargazer2006.online.fr/space/phoenix-m.htm

The Rotary Rocket Roton ATV:
http://stargazer2006.online.fr/space/roton.htm

 

[FutureSpaceTourist]

More background on Society Expeditions' plans for using the shuttle, including discussions with NASA, is given in http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/space_tourism_a_flight_of_fantasy_or_the_next_major_space_product.shtml. Details were in the following reference:

Society Expeditions Inc., 1985, " One Year Goals for Space Tourism", presentation to NASA dated August 30, 1985.

I don't suppose anyone has a copy?!

 

[ozmosis]

Robert McCall paintings (From his official website)

Several of his paintings showed many of the original shuttle designs

 

[The Artist]

Just to point out that in the selection of images posted by ozmosis, images 114-011 and 115-012 are portions of the same painting. The color has been shifted between the two images and while I can't recall having seen the original, every printed reproduction I've seen had the brown color scheme.

And to ozmosis, a few words of caution in posting Robert McCall paintings here. First. While he painted for NASA, the US Air Force Art Program, The US Navy and many - if not all - of the aerospace companies, he also painted for the entertainment community (2001: A Space Odyssey, Star Trek The Motion Picture, The Black Hole and Tora! Tora! Tora! to name a few) as well as painting for his own amusement. Designs that may look convincing may be fictional.

Second. Posting wholesale from an artist's website may be at odds with the terms of service here. I'm sure he placed a copyright notice on his site. And, even though he's passed away, I'm sure his family has control of the copyrights. Posting an image or two - with proper credit - where appropriate to the discussion might be fine but flooding like this could be asking for trouble.

 

[ozmosis]

Just to point out that in the selection of images posted by ozmosis, images 114-011 and 115-012 are portions of the same painting. The color has been shifted between the two images and while I can't recall having seen the original, every printed reproduction I've seen had the brown color scheme.

"Our world in space" by Isaac Asimov

And to ozmosis, a few words of caution in posting Robert McCall paintings here. First. While he painted for NASA, the US Air Force Art Program, The US Navy and many - if not all - of the aerospace companies, he also painted for the entertainment community (2001: A Space Odyssey, Star Trek The Motion Picture, The Black Hole and Tora! Tora! Tora! to name a few) as well as painting for his own amusement. Designs that may look convincing may be fictional.

All the above designs were done for Aerospace/NASA, you can point to every shuttle in the images and know which design submission for the STS they were based on

Second. Posting wholesale from an artist's website may be at odds with the terms of service here. I'm sure he placed a copyright notice on his site. And, even though he's passed away, I'm sure his family has control of the copyrights. Posting an image or two - with proper credit - where appropriate to the discussion might be fine but flooding like this could be asking for trouble.

All art done for NASA immediately becomes public domain

 

[The Artist]

Just to point out that in the selection of images posted by ozmosis, images 114-011 and 115-012 are portions of the same painting. The color has been shifted between the two images and while I can't recall having seen the original, every printed reproduction I've seen had the brown color scheme.

"Our world in space" by Isaac Asimov

And to ozmosis, a few words of caution in posting Robert McCall paintings here. First. While he painted for NASA, the US Air Force Art Program, The US Navy and many - if not all - of the aerospace companies, he also painted for the entertainment community (2001: A Space Odyssey, Star Trek The Motion Picture, The Black Hole and Tora! Tora! Tora! to name a few) as well as painting for his own amusement. Designs that may look convincing may be fictional.

All the above designs were done for Aerospace/NASA, you can point to every shuttle in the images and know which design submission for the STS they were based on

Second. Posting wholesale from an artist's website may be at odds with the terms of service here. I'm sure he placed a copyright notice on his site. And, even though he's passed away, I'm sure his family has control of the copyrights. Posting an image or two - with proper credit - where appropriate to the discussion might be fine but flooding like this could be asking for trouble.

All art done for NASA immediately becomes public domain

I have that book and the full image has the brown coloring.

My caution about the validity of the designs was meant as a general warning - not about any one image you posted in this group. While you can point out the source of the by-passed shuttle designs in some of his work, his images of the future in space could very well contain informed speculation - derived from concepts he saw but in the end just his "Gee-wiz, wouldn't this be cool if . . ."

While your third comment is mostly true, that does not mean that every image you see in a NASA publication is in the public domain. The writers and editors of those documents may use - with permission - art which is not in the public domain. Two points taken from the NASA web site. http://www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/features/MP_Photo_Guidelines.html

NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted. If copyrighted, permission should be obtained from the copyright owner prior to use. If not copyrighted, NASA material may be reproduced and distributed without further permission from NASA.

Some NASA audiovisual material may incorporate music or footage, which is copyrighted and licensed for the particular NASA work. Any editing or otherwise altering of the work may not be covered under the original license, and therefore would require permission of the copyright owner.


Additionally, as you acknowledged, McCall did work for the aerospace companies as well as for NASA. Work done for an aerospace company does not necessarily fall into the public domain. Normally, freelance work done for a company would come under the control of the company - look up "work for hire." However. Since the sixties McCall had the stature within the industry to be able to set his terms and maintain control (beyond the initial commissioned use) of his images. Then you may have to deal with the current owners of the work as he did sell some of his work. Some of these owners - museums, banks, etc - may have purchased the copyright as well as the physical painting. Even with that kind of sale, Robert may have retained the right to use the image in his portfolio - including his online portfolio. So. Don't go thinking that because it has a shuttle or an Apollo astronaut on the Moon it's automatically a NASA image and in the public domain.

 

[Orionblamblam]

All art done for NASA immediately becomes public domain

While I believe that's technically true, it has become popular to argue "intellectual property." I'm thinking of one major aerospace corporation in particular (Boegins with a "B") that has decided that imagery in any form of any vehicle it has designed is *their* intellectual property. Which means that if you took a photograph of one of their jetliners, fighters, bombers, space capsules or space shuttles that they or one of their aquired companoies designed and/or built and you try to market that photograph, in forms such as a poster, print or calendar, they could very well send attack lawyers to ruin your day. Additionally, this includes not just photos, but drawings or paintings *you* make.

I'm not sure this has been fought out in court yet. Largely because nobody can afford to fight it out with them.

 

[hesham]

Hi,

Popular Science

Popular Science gives our readers the information and tools to improve their technology and their world. The core belief that Popular Science and our readers share: The future is going to be better, and science and technology are the driving forces that will help make it better.

books.google.com.eg

Popular Mechanics

Popular Mechanics inspires, instructs and influences readers to help them master the modern world. Whether it’s practical DIY home-improvement tips, gadgets and digital technology, information on the newest cars or the latest breakthroughs in science -- PM is the ultimate guide to our high-tech...

books.google.com.eg

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

From Tony Buttler:

A contact has just acquired the attached tunnel model from a retired Convair engineer's estate sale. We know nothing about it, but this might be a proposed weapons pod for the B-58 Hustler or a variant of. Have you ever seen it before, or do you have any ideas what it could be? The model is machined aluminium and measures 11 inches in length. My contact would greatly appreciate any help as to its identity.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Shape looks like one of the boosters from the 1968 General Dynamics / Convair FR-4 2-Stage Triamese Shuttle concept.

 

[SOC]

It looks similar enough to the shuttle idea that I'd be very suprised if it was something different. Pretty sure I've never seen anything quite like that among the B-58 weapon options.

 

[OM]

It looks similar enough to the shuttle idea that I'd be very suprised if it was something different. Pretty sure I've never seen anything quite like that among the B-58 weapon options.

...And then there's the fact that it fails the puzzle piece test: ergo, it just don't fit the bottom side of a Hustler even if the tailfins are folded flat. My votes with it being a WTTA for the Triamese.

 

[Orionblamblam]

I'll just add my "me too" to the "it's a triamese shuttle" chorus.

 

[hesham]

Hi,

Space Shuttle

books.google.com.eg