Continuing…

Rockwell in 1985 considered the business case of small unmanned launchers of 15,000 pounds payload capability. The goal would be low cost ($100/lb of payload delivered to orbit). It’s not clear, at least from this report, if Rockwell had a design of their own under consideration; the illustration included shows only non-Rockwell commercial designs… the “Dolphin” and “Conestoga II” from Space Services, Inc; the “Phoenix” SSTO from Pacific American Launch Systems; the “Space Van” from Transpace Inc. (though what’s shown is just the standard orbiter atop the 747 SCA); the “Constellation” from Star Struck Inc.; the Delta from Transpace Carriers Inc (which appears to be a standard Delta II); the Atlas from Convair; and the “Excalibur” from Truax Engineering, a reduced-scale version of the Aerojet Sea Dragon of two decades earlier.

Continuing…

The OMV survived for a number of years as a number of generally similar concepts: an unmanned vehicle designed to shove satellites around Earth orbit. Several companies proposed vehicles such as this with varying degrees of capability. Some were designed to stay in space and be refueled; others were designed to go up with the Shuttle and then come back down with it for refurb and refueling. I believe the OMV shown here was of that kind.

Continuing…

Sadly, probably *not* an orbiter with a Phalanx system in the cargo bay. Exactly what would be changed/added is a little vague.

Continue reading »

Continuing…

As part of Rockwells 1985 ponderings of what they could do to dredge up more business, the notion of liquid propellant rocket boosters (LRBs) were floated. The idea of LRB’s has been a part of the Shuttle program since the beginning, and ran not only until the end of the program but beyond it: the Shuttle derived SLS vehicle uses derivatives of the Shuttle solid rocket boosters, and there are those who would like to see them replaced with LRBs.

LRBs would theoretically provide improved performance due to the higher specific impulse that liquid propellants offer. Their recovery, refurbishment and reuse would also theoretically be improved; as SpaceX has shown, the refurbishment of a recovered liquid rocket booster is a far simpler operation than the refurbishment of a solid rocket booster. From Rockwell’s point of view, the LRB had one great advantage over SRBs: Rockwell was not the prime contractor for the SRB. They could be for the LRB.

Note that the illustration below seems to show existing SRB casings repurposed into LRBs. This would of course not happen. The LRBs would be relatively smooth and featureless, without the raised field joints used to bolt the several segments of the casing together (this is likely an existing pen&ink sketch of the standard STS with some changes to the business ends of the boosters). However, the use of four engines per booster and the addition of clamshell waterproof closures to keep the engines dry after splashdown was a common feature of such designs. The use of a wide range of liquid fuels was studied… hydrogen, propane, methane and kerosene being the most commonly studied. Hydrogen was probably the usual favorite due to the high performance and the fact that the launch facilities were already plumbed for hydrogen. But a hydrogen fueled LRB would be very fat compared to the standard SRB; this would put the outboard engines well outside the exhaust pass-thoughts in the launch platform, meaning substantial launch facility modification would be required.

Next up: hammerhead ETs