Sep 192016
 

There was a time when American auto manufacturers had important aerospace divisions. Chrysler, for example, was responsible for rockets such as the Redstone, Jupiter and the Saturn I and Ib first stage.

In late 1956, Lovell Lawrence Jr, an assistant chief engineer at the missiles division of Chrysler, publicized a concept for a nuclear-powered “flying saucer.” It seems to have been *partially* a reasonably rational concept for a long duration spacecraft for missions to Mars. It would spin like a frisbee to generate artificial gravity, though the relatively small radius would be likely to produce some harsh Coriolis effects. The saucer would be about 50 feet in diameter and only 6 feet thick.

Where the design goes a bit off the rails is that the performance expected of the craft was insanely impressive. It was a single-stage-to-solar-orbit craft, capable of taking off horizontally from a runway using nuclear-powered jet engines (note: “jet” in this case might mean “rocket.”) The craft would be capable of going from the Earth to Mars in 9 to 12 weeks.

Being that close to an atomic reactor (with a light enough shield to allow the thing to take off) would be a death sentence long before the craft would get to Mars.

After years of trying to research this concept, all I’ve managed to scrape up are three things from Ye Olde internet: two newspaper articles and one cover story from a UFO “fanzine.” I have tried over some years to obtain a copy of the “Saucer News” from August-September 1957 from sites like ebay, but without success. It seems like an original printing, or at least a decent scan, would provide a reasonably good version of the Chrysler saucer art. Anybody has more on this, I’m interested.

saucernews25-1957-aug-sep chrysler-saucer-2 chrysler-saucer-1

 Posted by at 11:29 pm
Sep 122016
 

Jeff Bezos of Blue Origin has described a new rocket his company is working on , the “New Glenn.” It’s kinda big:

new-glenn-large2

The “New Glenn” will be 27 feet in diameter (close to the Shuttle External Tank, it seems), 270 feet tall in a two-stage configuration and 313 feet tall in a three stage configuration. The first stage is recoverable, landing vertically under rocket power. It will have seven BE-4 engines burning natural gas and oxygen, producing 3.85 million pounds of thrust. The second stage uses a single BE-4 engine with an increased expansion ratio. The third stage uses a LOX/LH2 BE-3 engine.

The article says that Bezos has claimed that the rocket will fly “within the decade.” If that means by the end of 2019, that’s pretty ambitious.

 Posted by at 10:00 pm
Sep 112016
 

This was pointed out to me by a blog reader wondering if this might explain recent anomalies at the NASA Technical Report Server… maybe NASA might be thinking of replacing it. To me this new site seems like a much narrower archive than NTRS, but who knows. If there’s anything at NTRS you want, it might be advisable to download it ASAP.

PubSpace

NASA is using PMC to permanently preserve and provide easy public access to the peer-reviewed papers resulting from NASA-funded research. Beginning with research funded in 2016, all NASA-funded authors and co-authors (both civil servant and non-civil servant) will be required to deposit copies of their peer-reviewed scientific publications and associated data into NASA’s publication repository called NASA PubSpace.  This EXCLUDES patents, publications that contain material governed by personal privacy, export control, proprietary restrictions, or national security law or regulations. NASA PubSpace is part of PubMed Central (PMC) which is managed by the NIH. 

You can now search NASA related articles archived in PMC at NASA PubSpace. PubSpace will be fully functional Fall of 2016. 

The PubSpace archive/report server is HERE. A preliminary search on the most basic terms that anyone in their right mind would go looking for – “nuclear rocket,” “hypersonic,” “reusable launch,” “manned Mars” – all came up “no items found.” This means either that the site isn’t fully functional yet, or that it promises to be a barren source of entertainment.

 Posted by at 3:43 pm
Sep 082016
 

This blog has been blathering forth for more than 8 years now, so at some point I probably posted some version of this video of a Saturn V shake test carried out by shoving and pulling on the CSM section. Don’t care. It’s cool even if it’s a repeat.

 

Imagine NASA doing this in a couple years with the SLS. Yeah, no.

 Posted by at 8:44 pm
Sep 062016
 

Soviet science fiction movies

With English subtitles or, in a few cases, English dubbing. I’m currently downloading “Solaris” to watch later; I’ve heard good things about that. One the other hand, the vast majority of these are completely unknown to me. And on the gripping hand… how can you *not* want to watch 1974’s “Teens in the Universe?” Just on the title alone it *screams* “I need the MST3K team on this stat.”

And then there’s the poster. Look at it. Look. Fabulously gay Soviet space scouts and the bell-bottomiest bell bottoms that ever bell bottomed.

 Posted by at 3:06 pm
Sep 052016
 

Produced by Bell Aerospace around 1960 as a promotional item was this “ticket” for a flight from New York City to Melbourne, Australia. The aircraft shown was a two-stage hypersonic passenger transport; the first stage was essentially a supersonic transport equipped with turboramjet engines; it carried on its back a rocket powered passenger spaceplane. At the time it was pushed by the likes of Walter Dornberger, who had previously publicized a two-stage all-rocket powered hypersonic transport. There was some link between this design and the Dyna Soar program, but it is unclear just how involved the engineering was on the HST. Artwork was produced and a good display model, but it’s hard to tell if it went any further than that.

bell hst ticket 2 bell hst ticket 1

I have uploaded high-rez scans (600 dpi) to the 2016-09 APR Extras folder on Dropbox. This is accessible to all APR Patreon patrons at the $4 level and above.

 Posted by at 1:11 am
Sep 012016
 

Well, this ain’t good. During propellant loading operations, an explosion occurred at the Falcon 9 launch pad, destroying the rocket and the Amos 6 communications satellite.

Details are fuzzy, but some reports suggest that it was the hydrazine propellant for the *satellite* that was the cause of the explosion rather than the Falcon 9 itself.

Explosion at SpaceX launch pad destroys rocket, satellite

So far, very little to go on. All the videos I’ve seen start well after the explosion; not too many people were filming the rocket at the time, as nothing was scheduled to happen right about then. I’m sure more will come out later. The engineer in me say “probably just one of them things, sometimes mistakes are made or mechanisms fail,” but the more paranoid part of me wonders about:

  1. It was an Israeli satellite. There are people who don’t like the Israelis.
  2. SpaceX’s recent successes have irritated some big-money competitors, who have had to crank out new designs of their own in order to compete. They won’t be saddened to see SpaceX take a hit.

So, which would be worse? Bog-standard engineering/operations failure… or sabotage?

UPDATE: Video of the explosion itself:

Time between visible explosion and audible is about 12 seconds, so the camera is probably about 2.5 miles away.

Here are some craptacular screenshots from the above video:

spacexexplosion 1  spacexexplosion 2 

Note that the explosion seems to originate from just below the payload fairing…

  spacexexplosion 4spacexexplosion 5

The explosion starts up top, and you can see it march down through the booster, bursting the tanks.

spacexexplosion 6

A few seconds in, you can see the payload fairing drop. By this point the booster itself is long gone; it seem like the fairing was actually being supported by the tower. Note that the top of the tower is now bent over.

Since the explosion originated below the payload shroud, my guess is that the *payload* didn’t initially explode. Looks like either the upper stage or the feed lines leading into the payload. In either event, it’s damned odd to have an explosion at the point in the process. A static discharge event? A hydrazine leak onto something catalytic?

 Posted by at 11:20 am