In June, 1959, Boeing presented to the Air Force a concept for an orbital bombardment system based on work then being done on the Dyna Soar program. The bomber itself was a Dyna Soar derivative, with bombs that were each contained in lifting re-entry vehicles also based on Dyna Soar work. The bomber would carry one of the winged bombs under each of the bombers wings, and six more around the conical adapter behind the bomber.
The bombs would have a crossrange capability of up to 3000 miles. Coupled with a 30-degree inclination orbit, this would put essentially the entire Soviet Union within range of the system.
The Orbital Bomber would remain in a 125-nautical mile circular orbit with its three-man crew for up to two weeks. At the end of that time, assuming the Soviets hadn’t earned a dose of nuclear whoopass, the bomber would release its bombs. The bombs and the bomber would re-enter separately, gliding to a runway landing for refurbishment and relaunch.
<> Sixty-three bombers would be needed to wipe out 300 selected targets. An impressive 1683 launches would be required every year (five and a quarter per day). In order to cost effectively launch this force, a two-stage booster with a winged, turbojet-equipped flyback first stage would be used.
Five launches of a reusable manned launch vehicle per day. NASA has a hard time pulling off that many launches per year.
3 Responses to “Orbital Bomber”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Yes, a sort of manned MOBS. The concept, unmanned this time, resurfaced in early 1961 uner the blanket of SR-199A, positively activated missile system, also known as “recallable ICBM”. I did a lot of research n this, but I only found a couple of articles in AW&ST describing the general operational concept (it involved both MOBS and FOBS modes), and a mention in a Desmond Ball book (Politics and Force evels) on the account that Boeing proposed an “uprated Minuteman” to the concept in spirng 1961.
“NASA has a hard time pulling off that many launches per year” Why is that? Who is responsible for cutting the legs out from under NASA at every turn?
NASA wanted to do multiple shuttle launches per month, and between the environazis and the Ralph Nader asshole brigade that was brought to a screeching halt.
Manned orbital bombers, at first glance, seem like a real good idea. Problem is the massive expenditure of resources to put them up over and over. A permanent orbital facility would have been the real wetdream, changing out crews every few months and leaving the ordinance onstation, instead of hauling them up and down repeatedly. The changes from vacuum to preasure alone would have played hell with systems, not to mention the stresses induced at launch, over and over.
NASA *COULDN’T* do lot’s of launches per year. That was one of the things that came out in the Challanger Investigation while they were looking at the trade-offs that NASA went through while designing the Shuttle. One one hand, they held up the study that said that it would be a good economical investment because within ~500 flights, they would be saving big bucks. On the other hand, they buried the realities of what it would take to do the ~500 fights. On the Gripping Hand, OBM knew both and went along with it. Short version, longterm NASA screwed itself but shortterm those in power from the Apollo Program kept their jobs and made their Mortgage and College Tuition Payments.