Dec 222018
 

There are a vast number of heavy lift launch vehicles that have been designed over the years, but I think I’ve captured a pretty good selection here. Two of them, the Douglas ROOST and the Martin RENova, are depicted with their recovered configurations, but if models were made these options would likely not be included. They were done for future diagramming purposes. All of the models here are pretty basic, missing a whole lot of detail; I put these together quickly to check out scale and judge interest.

 Posted by at 1:57 am
Dec 182018
 

For some years I have been operating the “Aerospace Projects Review Patreon” which provides monthly rewards in the form of high resolution scans of vintage aerospace diagrams, art and documents. This has worked pretty well, but it seems that perhaps some people might prefer to sign on more directly. Fortunately, PayPal provides the option not only for one-time purchases but also monthly subscriptions. By subscribing using the drop-down menu below, you will receive the same benefits as APR Patrons, but without going through Patreon itself.




Details below.

Continue reading »

 Posted by at 6:10 pm
Dec 172018
 

Below are some renders of a number of 3D CAD models of launch vehicles. Most are currently extremely basic… accurate to size and shape, but lacking details. The intent on most of them is to use them for diagramming purposes… but the possibility exists of using them as the basis for 1/288 scale display models. To that end they would probably be designed for simplicity and low parts count rather than complexity and the ability to display them with stages separate.

As can be seen, a lot of them make the Saturn V seem fairly puny. From left to right: the Boeing MLLV in its most capable form, fully stretched with a dozen 260-inch solid rocket boosters; Aerojet Sea Dragon; Rockwell Star Raker; Boeing “Big Onion” SPS launcher; Martin T10RR-3C Nova/Post-Saturn booster; early Nova “Saturn C-8;” Saturn V; Soviet N-1; Block 1 SLS; Block 1b SLS; New Glenn (scale estimated because the dimensions given for lengths and diameters don’t match up with renderings of the New Glenn).

Keep in mind, *all* of these were or are seriously considered by aerospace engineers based on the requirements of the launch market as they were then understood. Today, the markets to support these, with the possible exception of the New Glenn, simply don’t exist. But back when the Apollo program was still growing, the rocket designers of the time were seemingly convinced that the market for stuff being put into space was only going to grow exponentially.

If you might be interested in any of these as a model kit, let me know.

 Posted by at 3:03 am
Dec 122018
 

The Shuttle-C of the late 80’s/early 90’s would have carried a whole lot more to orbit than the Shuttle Orbiter, but would not have been quite as capable of precise maneuvering as the Orbiter. Consequently, it might get close to a space station, but it would be unlikely to dock with it unless it was moved into position with secondary orbital maneuvering vehicles or grabbed with manipulator arms. This artwork depicts a Shuttle-C standing off some distance from a space station, with the cargo being shuttled over with an OMV.

The Shuttle-C was described and illustrated in US Launch Vehicle Projects #4.

 

 Posted by at 11:20 pm
Dec 072018
 

A NASA model circa 1959 illustrating the general configuration of a nuclear-electric spacecraft for the exploration of Mars. While apparently not meant to represent a serious design proposal, the general configuration is much the same as those created decades later. It features a nuclear reactor at the nose, a long boom with a pair of radiators to get rid of the heat produced by the reactor, and payload at the tail. Payload includes crew areas and an indistinct lander. The ring at the rear is the “propellant accelerator,” which is not described; presumably it is a structural ring holding a bank of ion engines or the like.

Note that the radiators are tapered. This is common in such designs: the gamma ray and neutron shields behind the reactor only block a relatively small portion of the emitted radiation. The radiators fit within that shadowed cone; if the radiators projected out into the unshielded volume, not only could the radiation do some damage to the structural materials it would also heat them up… defeating the whole point of radiators.

This basic layout would still be applicable today, with the main difference being that the engines might well be located elsewhere, firing in a different direction. The reactor could well be at the tail; leaving the engines where they are would turn the long boom into a structure in tension, meaning that the reactor would be “hanging” down. This would be structurally more efficient… after all, the reactor could certainly hang from a string, but a ship could hardly push on a string. Or the engines could be located near the ships center of gravity, firing “sideways.” This would be trickier for the boom, but if the engines are indeed low-thrust ion engines, the forces involved would be almost negligible. Or with a similar arrangement the ship could be made to tumble end over end; with the engines at the CG they could continue to fire “sideways” while the crew enjoyed at least some measure of artificial gravity.

 Posted by at 10:55 am
Dec 042018
 

As previously mentioned, I’m tapping away at a CAD model of the Star Raker for the primary purpose of diagrams & art for the next issue of US Launch Vehicle Projects, and the secondary goal of a model kit. The plan at this time is to produce the Star Raker as a 1/288 scale model. That’s a slightly unusual scale; most launch vehicle models are in 1/144 or even 1/72 scale. But the Star Raker… she was huge. It was a horizontal takeoff airbreathing single stage spaceplane designed not to resupply a  space station or any such trivial task, but to deliver to low Earth orbit the raw materials with which to build solar power satellites. it’s payload would have been small by the reckoning of most SPS launchers, which tended to have megapound-class payload capacities, but it still would have rivaled the Saturn V. To do that with a winged vehicle meant that its wings were vast, spanning 375 feet.

Here is a basic render of the model as it currently stand. the overlaid grid shows how big the 1/288 kit will be: each grid is one inch. You would not feel ashamed to have this sit on your desk or bookshelf.

My goal with this model is to have a relative *few* bits of extra details. Cockpit and landing gear would be tiny and pretty much infeasible at this scale, and there were no underslung weapons or gun turret or any such thing. Consequently the part count should be low. The model is being designed for the best simplicity possible in order to keep the price as low as feasible. A model kit is as yet not a sure thing. So if you know anyone who might be interested, let them know.

Something I think might look good, once the USLP project is done, is to continue with the diagramming and go into some detail and produce a large-format print of some kind, either cyanotype or mylar…

 Posted by at 8:16 pm
Dec 042018
 

In the late 1960’s H.H. Koelle of the Technische University Institut Fuer Raumfahrttechnik in Berlin devoted considerable effort to studying a reusable heavy lift launch vehicle. A good, well-illustrated report was put out in 1968 covering the design:

Entwurfskriterien fur groBe wiederverwendbare Tragersysteme (Design Criteria for Large Reusable Space Transportation Systems)

Note that the Neptun was *gigantic.* It was a two-stage ballistically recovered design, unusual in that rather than being circular in cross-section it was hexagonal. The individual propellant tanks were each the size of or bigger than the S-IC first stage of the Saturn V.

 

 

 

A number of payloads were proposed. One was a sub-orbital intercontinental passenger transport, The passenger “capsule” would land separate from the Neptun itself.

One of the more interesting payloads contemplated was a large Orion nuclear pulse vehicle, transported in two pieces (propulsion module in one launch and payload/pulse units in the other). Presumably this would be a NASA Orion hitching a ride on a West German booster; I suspect politics would have negated the likelihood of the West Germans developing a mass production line for nuclear explosives.

 

This fusion-powered interplanetary spacecraft is also a NASA design, dating from the early 1960’s.

Support the APR Patreon to help bring more of this sort of thing to light!

 

patreon-200

 Posted by at 6:29 pm
Dec 032018
 

A magazine ad from 1963 showing the S-IV stage and the X-20 Dyna Soar. The Dyna Soar is shown without its adapter section and Transtage, indicating that it is approaching re-entry (note that it is shown with the canopy heat shield still in place). The Saturn S-IV stage, used on a few Saturn I launches, was smaller than the S-IVB that was used on later Saturn Ib and Saturn V launches, and used six RL-10 rocket engines instead of the S-IVB’s single J-2. Also note the three prominent “ullage rockets” sticking out from the base of the stage. These were small solid rocket motors that would impart a slight forward acceleration to the stage prior to the ignition of the RL-10’s. The acceleration would be high enough and last long enough to settle the propellants into the rears of the tanks. Otherwise the liquid propellants would float around in microgravity and might very well not feed properly into the plumbing system; if a turbopump swallowed a large bubble of gas rather than liquid, it could be destroyed.

The Saturn I/S-IV never launched an actual Apollo CSM, but only boilerplate test articles. Interestingly, the BP-16 test article, launched May 25, 1965, stayed in orbit until July 8, 1989.

 Posted by at 12:43 am
Nov 292018
 

A design circa 1970 for a Lockheed lifting body space shuttle concept. This design was derived from the earlier STAR Clipper stage-and-a-half design from the late 1960s… the whole story of the STAR Clipper and its many derivatives is given in Aerospace Projects Review issue V3N2, available HERE.

Note that this vehicle is equipped with sizable internal propellant tanks. As a result the cockpit is separated from the payload bay; in order to access the payload, the crew would need to pass through a long, narrow tunnel not unlike that within the B-36 bomber.

 Posted by at 11:56 pm