And they said I was crazy

 AARRRGH, awesomeness, blather, Hmm..., projects, rockets, spacecraft, youtube, ಠ_ಠ  12 Responses »
Aug 252014
 

Years ago when I worked at ATK on the Ares I and Ares V booster programs, I put forward an idea. It was a simple and, I thought, fairly obvious notion, based on a few facts:

1) Weight growth is generally to be avoided in space launch. However, if the weight gained is on a booster stage rather than an upper stage, the performance penalty is much reduced.

2) Not every flight would make full use of a launch vehicles potential. Given that propellant is essentially free, compared to the rest of the costs involved, it makes sense where possible to carry extra payloads if you can.

3) A secondary payload on the booster stage is, these days, of minimal interest, but would also be minimally payload-impacting

So here was my idea: on launches of the Ares V booster that did not make full use of the launch vehicles potential, carry “parasite” payloads on the solid rocket boosters. The payloads I had in mine? Paying passengers. The idea would be to put a capsule, or perhaps something akin to Space Ship One (fat fuselage with just enough wing to fly and land), on the nose of the booster. Just after booster separation, the capsules would themselves separate from the boosters.

Since they would be very distinctly sub-orbital, heating issues would be relatively trivial. Since the flight duration would be only a few minutes, onboard life support would also be minimal. As a result, the capsules could be spacious, relatively lightweight, and equipped with *big* windows.

If each booster carried a capsule, and each capsule seated ten passengers, and each passenger paid, say, $100,000, then each flight would generate an extra $2 million. Not much considering the probably $1Billion price tag of each launch, but hey… why not? Some launches could charge more, such as historically important flights to the Moon or Mars or such. How much would *you* have paid to hitch a ride alongside Apollo 11, for example?

And what would the passengers have seen? Lessee:

[youtube 2aCOyOvOw5c]

Needless to say, they didn’t think much of my idea. Grrr.

(Is this post a repeat? Maybe. Seems like I’ve yammered about this before. oh well.)

 Posted by at 12:24 pm

Hypersonic Art

 aircraft, art, history, projects  2 Responses »
Aug 192014
 

A 1986 NASA artists impression of a hypersonic aircraft, showing heating along the leading edges. This *appears* to be a hypersonic transport (as opposed to a military or research vehicle). Likely part of the “Orient Express” concept for an HST derivative of X-30 NASP technologies.

C-1986-3888 HST

 

 Posted by at 9:45 pm

One-Man Lunar Rocket

 art, projects, rockets, spacecraft  3 Responses »
Aug 172014
 

Found on ebay, an artists impression of a Hamilton Standard concept for a one-man rocket propulsion system for use by lunar explorers. Dating from 1964, this is a “rocket belt” similar to that built and flown by Bell. The lack of atmosphere would give the rocket nozzles better performance than in Earths atmosphere, and the lower lunar gravity would mean that lower thrust would be needed. Still, performance would likely have been rather disappointing… at best a few minutes of thrust.

ebay 2014-07-19 3 ebay 2014-07-19 2

 Posted by at 11:45 pm

Extended Lunar Operations

 art, projects, rockets, spacecraft  10 Responses »
Aug 132014
 

Found on ebay, a bit of NASA promo art depicting a 1966 Apollo Applications Program concept for a LEM Shelter. This would have been a more or less stock descent module with an ascent module without the ability to ascend. It would thus have been capable of transporting more cargo to the surface, including a habitat better capable of supporting a crew for a week or more. Transport back up to lunar orbit would have been accomplished via another LEM.

apollo app 1

 Posted by at 10:23 am

Garret Shuttle Ad

 aircraft, art, history, projects, rockets, spacecraft  4 Responses »
Aug 122014
 

From 1973, a magazine ad for the Garrett Corporation (avionics manufacturer) showing Robert McCall paintings of the Space Shuttle system as then envisioned. At that point, the basics of the Space Transportation System were worked out, but the details were up in the air…

1973 garrett shuttle ad

As shown here – which appears to represent a Rockwell design – the Orbiter features a “ridge” down the centerline of the cargo bay doors. This was originally where the manipulator arm (or “arms” as shown here) was supposed to go. The cargo bay was a cylindrical volume, and when filled with a cylindrical payload there would obviously be no room for an arm. So the arm had to fit *outside* that cylindrical volume.

Additional details: it was originally thought that exposed RCS thrusters on the sides of the nose would get roasted on re-entry, so they were hidden behind doors in earlier designs. The proboscis at the front o the ET was a solid rocket motor, used to de-orbit the tank. As originally envisioned, the tank would make it to orbit, or nearly so; it would need to be propulsively de-orbited so that it would come down over the ocean and cause no damage. In the end, the role of the orbital maneuvering system was bumped up so that staging off the ET was carried out just a bit below stable orbit; as a result the ET would naturally re-enter over the Indian Ocean without further effort.

And a lot of early art depicted the Shuttle with lots and lots of paint. Not only on the External Tank, but on the *underside* of the orbiter. I assume that this is just artistic license rather than anyone actually believing that white paint would survive re-entry.

 Posted by at 9:26 am

Patreon: August rewards released

 aircraft, art, drawings, history, news, nukes, Patreon, projects, rockets, spacecraft  7 Responses »
Aug 102014
 

The rewards for my Patreon patrons have now been released. This months selections include:

Diagram: a very large, very nice layout of the Avro Arrow. This was voted on by the top-level patrons.

Document: a report on the Vought Regulus II cruise missile which includes some very nice layout and inboard diagrams of both the operational and test missiles. This was voted for by the top-level patrons.

Document: “Introduction to Kistler Aerospace Corporation,” a full-color brochure from 1995 describing the K-0 sorta-SSTO launch vehicle (which would use an “launch platform”).

Additionally, for the higher-level patrons ($5 and up) there are three all-new CAD diagrams:

1) The Boeing “Big Onion” SSTO from the 1970s, meant to launch Solar Power Satellite components

2) The Space Shuttle Main Engine

3) The Northrop Tacit Blue stealth testbed. This is, so far as I’m aware, the first time that a clear and accurate three-view of this aircraft has been released publicly.

I’ve changed things a little bit from last month. At each patronage level, there are different levels of rewards. Each level has its own message under the “Creations” tab just above the APR logo at my Patreon page. And in the upper righthand corner of each message is a little gray rectangle with “Zip” in it. This is the link to the ZIP archive containing the files for that specific patronage level. If you are a higher-level patron, this may not include all the files you are entitled to. You should be able to download everything from the lower-level patron messages.

patreon-200

2014-06 regulus 2014-08 CAD 2014-08 arrow 2014-08 kistler

 

 

 Posted by at 1:48 am

One-stop lunar base

 art, nukes, projects, rockets, spacecraft  4 Responses »
Aug 092014
 

A 1963 Douglas concept for a simple lunar base: a small pressurized hab that carries with it a robotic “snowblower” that, under control from Earth, spews lunar dirt atop the hab. This is done to provide radiation/thermal/meteoroid shielding. If the hab is actually a “wet lab,” i.e. the actual upper stage, formerly filled with propellants, then this could be a reasonably cost effective approach. The robot is nuclear powered, but it appears that the reactor is not mounted permanently on the robot. instead, the first thing it would seem to do is haul the reactors some distance away, dig a hole, and then burying it (or at least place the reactor in the hole). Extensive power cabling would be needed.

lunar base 63

 Posted by at 11:46 pm
 Older Entries  Newer Entries