Note that it is probably upside-down. It looks like a “future fighter” configuration, though probably a somewhat generic one rather than a specific design.
The video: pic.twitter.com/Unhq9lsHwE
— Ruben Hofs (@rubenhofs) September 22, 2021
it would be nice if the US is actually int he testing phase of a next-gen stealthy air supremacy fighter… but in an era when SLS is what it is, I’m not holding my breath.
An animation of one of the Lunar Escape System concepts. The idea was that if the lunar module ran into some sort of trouble and couldn’t launch back into orbit, the ascent stage could be torn apart and jerry-rigged into a minimalist launch system… essentially a couple of lawn chairs stuck to a few propellant tanks and a rocket. Could it have worked? Sure. Would it have worked? Ehhhhhh….
If it’s “do this crazy thing or give up and die,” I can see the Apollo astronauts getting straight to work.
An exploded view of the Lockheed L-2000 SST project from the 1960’s. This was the second-place finisher in the contest to develop a US supersonic transport, losing to the Boeing 2707. The 2707 won in part because it had variable-sweep wings, giving it better low speed performance… but after the contest was won, Boeing’s design shed the overly-heavy variable geometry for fixed wings not unlike those of the Lockheed design. In the end that couldn’t save the 2707 from the chopping block. Many have wondered over the last half-century what might have happened had Lockheed won the contract instead. Perhaps the sky would be filled with SSTs. Perhaps the L-2000 would have been a failure of historic proportions, with prototypes crashing or exploding in flight. Or perhaps it would have turned out just like the 2707… once detailed development began costs would have ballooned, performance suffered and Congress simply walked away.
The full article this came from has been scanned at 300 DPI (the image above was scanned at an additional, higher rez) and provided to all above-$10 subscribers and Patrons. If you would like to help fund the acquisition and preservation of such things, along with getting high quality scans for yourself, please consider signing on either for the APR Patreon or the APR Monthly Historical Documents Program.
0
A 1942 US Army Air Force artists concept of a “battleglider” depicts a troop transport glider with an unusual means for propulsion. Rather than being towed into the air, this aircraft relied on the powerplants of two bell P-39’s attached to substantial under-wing pylons. The pylons encompassed the cockpits of the fighters, necessitating large windows in the pylons for the pilots to see through.
I am *made* of questions when I look at this. During powered flight… who’s the pilot? I would assume the pilot of the glider, somehow having access to the controls of the fighters… at least the fighters engines. Do the pylons drop off after the fighter separate? Does landing gear deploy down through the pylons? You’re certainly not going to land safely with those pylons hanging down there. Who does the fighter-jettison? Again, presumably the glider pilot has control, but do the fighters have independent control? Are their aerosurfaces locked during attached flight? Can the fighter pilots force the glider to maneuver? The glider fuselage actually looks a little small; what’s the troop/cargo complement? Do the fighters promptly return to base after releasing the glider, or do they continue to provide cover and perhaps serve in the ground attack role?
The 1970’s saw a lot of airlines and airline manufacturers going to great lengths to economize, thanks in no small part to the spike in fuel prices and general economic downturn caused by the OPEC oil embargo. Some of this economizing came in the form of new “air bus” concepts to jam as many people as possible into mid-sized jetliners. Wide-bodied configurations were popular for that. McDonnell-Douglas proposed a new airliner in the mid-70’s that was derived from their long-range high capacity DC-10. The fuselage was cut short and stubby; the third turbofan at the base of the vertical tail was deleted. The wings and tail surfaces were all-new. This made it slightly more economical on a passenger-mile basis than the trijet, but also made it inappropriate for trans-oceanic flight since airlines were not yet ready to accept twin-jets for such routes. Intercontinental flight in twinjets would have to wait for the 777. McDonnell-Douglas figured that up to 278 passengers could be wedged into the available space… and that even more seats could be installed in the below-deck cargo bay.
The full rez scan of the two-page article about this design has been made available at 300 DPI to all $4/month patrons/subscribers in the 2021-09 APR Extras folder at Dropbox. If you would like to help fund the acquisition and preservation of such things, along with getting high quality scans for yourself, please consider signing on either for the APR Patreon or the APR Monthly Historical Documents Program.
I have fifteen five three zero remaining copies from the original fifty. They are all signed and dated and numbered, and come with two 18X24 poster-sized prints. Yours for a flat $25, shipped via Media Mail within the US. If you are non-US, the price is sadly rather a lot higher… an extra $20, even if you are just a few feet across the Canadian border because the price of international postage really is that high these days.
When they’re gone, they’re gone.
Update: they’re gone.
This is of course still available on Amazon. Currently nine reviews, all five-star!
Because why not: my SR-71 book currently has seven reviews on Amazon, all of which are five-star. So… huzzah! Now… to sell a million copies. For starters. If people will buy books about sparkly mopey vampires, why shouldn’t books about the evolution of the SR-71 sell like hotcakes? Anyway, Christmas is coming up. Make sure to stock up on copies of the book before the forthcoming collapse in the world transportation infrastructure leaves you flatfooted. “Sorry, little Timmy, but the PlayBoxStation 12 is still stuck in China. But here’s the best book ever written!”
Also: if you click on the Amazon link below (or use the Amazon search box up and to the right) and then continue on to search for and buy other stuff, I get a pittance. Woo.
If you’ve purchased a copy through Amazon, feel free to leave a review for the book there. The more reviews, the more it’ll likely be seen, and the more it’ll likely sell… and the greater likelihood of more books like this down the line. Maybe even a greatly expanded second edition.
Remember when Boeing was a company of engineers, a company that could get the job done?
Sigh.
We've determined #Starliner will return to our factory for deeper-level troubleshooting of four propulsion system valves. With @NASA, we've decided to stand down for this launch window to make way for other national priority missions.
More: https://t.co/oycWeRz156 pic.twitter.com/UzCZN66451
— Boeing Space (@BoeingSpace) August 13, 2021
As should be well known hereabouts, I have great hopes for SpaceX. That’s both for their ability to get craft such as Starship working, *and* to make spaceflight far cheaper. But in order for them to truly succeed at the latter goal, they will need to be challenged by a realistic competitor. I would rather by far that SpaceX’s greatest competitor be another American company. Boeing, historically *should* have been one of those competitors.
They are not.
A 1963 USAF report describes work on an emergency “space suit.” It’s meant to be something that can be worn as a normal outfit and then zipped up at a moments notice in the event of a pressure drop. This includes a flexible helmet with a flexible “faceplate.” the end result looks like something out of a bad 1970’s pre-Star Wars disco-era sci-fi flick. Note, though that the actual test item is substantially less Giant Polyester Leisure Suit Lapels and more Cheap Plastic Poncho.
Forwards:
SpaceX stacked Starship onto Super Heavy:
Ship 20 and Booster B4 have been stacked!! 🤩🚀🔥@NASASpaceflight pic.twitter.com/Vm8Uqa1N1C
— Mary (@BocaChicaGal) August 6, 2021
Backwards: anything Boeing.
Forward: smaller private space enterprises:
