Continuing…
This kinda made sense while the Shuttle was being developed, but by 1985 the idea of a reusable flyback external Tank seemed kinda silly. The only way it could have made financial sense to recover the ET would be if the Shuttle were to fly *far* more often than it actually did.
Continuing…
In 1985 Rockwell pondered the business case for a brand-new Saturn V-class expendable booster specifically for the Strategic Defense Initiative (“Star Wars”) program. The heavy payload capability coupled with large diameter payloads would allow the launch of sizable space-based lasers and similar systems. In order for the booster to warrant the high development cost, there would have had to have been a need for the capability, and obviously the USAF hasn’t filed the sky with orbital laser systems.
The launcher illustrated is not one I’ve seen elsewhere. It has three Shuttle boosters, a core seemingly larger in diameter than the Shuttle ET, and a propulsion module (presumably recoverable) with five or six engines, presumably SSMEs.
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.
Well, those were a few hours of my life I’ll never get back.
I found myself near a theater showing “Ad Astra” today, so, what the heck, I saw it. It’s profoundly awful.
Firstly, and most damningly, it’s utterly *boring.* I didn’t fall asleep, but I did check the time, sighed, closed my eyes and daydreamed. Stuff happens, but you Just Don’t Give A Rats Ass.
Secondly, it doesn’t make a lick of sense. The plot, the tech, the characters and the lack-of-science conspire to create story that comes off as gibberish.
Thirdly: the science is laughable. Just in case anyone cares about spoilers, the full rant is behind the break.
Continuing…
Moving away from the Space Shuttle, Rockwell looked towards the next generation of manned space vehicle. In this case, a small vehicle with about 10% the payload of the Space Shuttle. The general configuration was used by Rockwell for several small space launch vehicles at about this time, mostly military vehicles. While the payload was nowhere near the STS’s, it would- if it worked as advertised – potentially wreck the business model for the STS program by providing a far cheaper means of getting crew into space.
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…
In 1985 Rockwell considered the business case for a small unmanned research vehicle to be released from the Orbiter payload bay. It would be *something* akin to the X-37, though of an utterly different lifting body configuration.
Also note: this vehicle re-appears later in the report, including a nice three-view of an “operational” version.
CNN might have taken the top spot, but when their paid talking head started shrieking that Trump should resign, be impeached, arrested and imprisoned, I was busy not pointing my face at the TV and only heard it. So the below video where the narrator lists all the ways that SpaceX is going to destroy the planet with rocket launches – including dumping carbon black (?), chlorine (?!?) and aluminum oxide (?!!??!) into the upper atmosphere – takes the prize for today.
As part of the argument, the video includes a graphic showing that a single Falcon 9 flight consumes 147 metric tons of kerosene, meaning it dumps 150 times as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as a single transatlantic flight. But… does it? The range of such a flight is about 4,800 km. Modern jetliners consume around 3 liters of jet fuel – essentially kerosene – per 100 km per seat, or about 144 liters per seat per flight. 144 liters is about 115 kilograms. The 777 can carry about 350 passengers, so 350*115kg = 40.25 metric tons of fuel. Without running the terribly complex calculations, it seems to me that 147 metric tons is not 150 times greater than 40 metric tons. Granted, not doing the math on that means I fall into the Other Ways Of Knowing category of addlepated imbecile who thinks that math is a tool of the cisheteronormative whiteness patriarchy, but it’s late and I’m tired, and my spirit animal assures me that the planets are aligned just right in the zodiac so that I can make a guess about which number is bigger so long as I avoid integer shaming.
This dismal piece of gormless chickenshittery terminates with a plea to end space exploration and, in the words of three generations of absolutely genetically defective morons, focus our attention instead on the Earth.
Continuing…
Sadly, probably *not* an orbiter with a Phalanx system in the cargo bay. Exactly what would be changed/added is a little vague.
Continuing…
A “Block II” orbiter would not be an entirely new design, but would incorporate a bunch of improvements to the existing design… better systems, newer computers, higher thrust engines, lighter materials, etc. Also would likely use liquid or otherwise improved boosters. Given that Rockwell was the prime contractor for the Orbiter, it’s unsurprising that they would be interested in a new production run of the Orbiter. if the Orbiter was put into another production run, almost certainly Rockwell would get paid to do it. But if the Shuttle was replaced with an all-new “Shuttle II,” then Rockwell could potentially lose to Boeing or Lockheed or McDonnell-Douglas or Grumman or Northrop.
