Just about done modeling the LockMart Mars lander…
Jan 212018
Jan 192018
There are those in NASA who have had the crazy idea that maybe, just maybe, NASA should live up to its mandate and actually move outwards into the cosmos. In order to do that, you need power, and until magic comes along, nuclear power is best power. Yesterday there was a media event in support of the “Kilopower” initiative to develop one-to-ten kilowatt nuclear power reactors. Given that the SP-100 project to develop 100 kilowatt reactors began on the order of 40 years ago, one kilowatt seems kinda unaggressive…but given that right now the United States has *no* kilowatt reactors under development for space power… I’ll take it.
Jan 152018
A 1966 Aerojet concept for a space probe with a nuclear reactor and ion engines. Note the largish thermal radiator “wings;” such things are usually left off spacecraft in science fiction, but they are a vital part of any nuclear spacecraft. Nukes, after all, are simply heat sources; in order to get useful electrical power out of them, the heat must be used to boil a working fluid which runs a turbogenerator; and the hot gas then needs to be condensed back to a liquid by radiating the heat way to space. And thermal radiation is a terribly slow and weak process, necessitating large radiators. Electricity can also be created with thermionic systems, which generate electricity across a thermal differential… hot on one side, cold on the other. But unless the cold side it attached to some radiators, the cold side will soon be just as hot as the hot side, and then… no thermal differential, no power generation.
Note also that even with a substantial powerplant and the sizable bank of ion engines, acceleration is going to be creakingly slow. Thus you can get away with spindly structures. The reactor itself is the tiny little tin can-looking thing, top and centerline; the U-shaped structure around it is a radiation shield protecting the electronics, structure and radiators from the radiation spat out by the reactor.
Jan 052018
A Rocketdyne concept for a space station from the late 1950’s. This was a sphere some 60 feet in diameter, with at least three counter-rotating internal centrifuges (think “2001’s” Discovery) to provide between 0.2 and 0.8 of an Earth-normal gravity. This station was to be parked in geosynchronous orbit, 22,400 miles up, and would weigh 250,000 pounds. The crew was to be a rather surprising 50 men. There are enough questions about the design that it can be safely assumed to either not be an entirely serious design, or to have been artistically greatly altered from the engineering concept. It *appears* to be equipped with:
- Possibly a small nuclear power source with attached rectangular radiators, held at some distance.
- Some sort of small rocket vehicle… possibly a proble launcher, or, since this was the 1950’s, possibly a nuclear weapon launcher
- A parabolic reflector, probably a solar mirror for concentrating sunlight and generating power
- An optical telescope
- A radar or communications dish that is pointed nowhere near towards Earth
Jan 022018
This piece of art depicts the McDonnell-Douglas “Drawbridge” orbiter in orbit delivering a satellite. Note that the wing are deployed, even though they would be folded up during entry. The geometry of the craft was such that in order to get the cargo bay door open and payloads safely in and out, the wing needed to fold down out of the way.
This points out one of the reasons why you don’t often see a whole lot of “cool” stuff in aerospace… everything has tradeoffs. And needing the wings to constantly go up and down is a bit of a headache. When it comes to spacecraft, mass is a primary priority; the mechanisms needed to deploy the wings weight a lot… never mind the mechanisms needed to retract the wing again. As an example, the real space shuttle orbiter had no landing gear retraction system. And why should it? The landing gear is hardly something the Orbiter would ever need to retract. That could be done by the ground crew without adding weight and complexity to the craft itself.
Note that the Orbiter and the payload here seem to have not NASA markings, but Red Cross markings. I suspect that a number of variants of this piece of art would have been produced with several different markings (NASA and Pan Am being the obvious ones), but why exactly Red Cross? Dunno.
Also note that this might not be an actual “Drawbridge” design, as no extension mechanism for the wing s in evidence. This might be an oversight on the part of the artist; it might be that this was a fixed-wing design. Given the RCS thrusters on the wingtips, this is most likely *not* a Drawbridge.
I’ve uploaded the high-rez version of this artwork (11.2 megabyte 6271×4763 pixel JPG) to the APR Extras Dropbox folder for 2018-01, available to all APR Patrons at the $4 level and above. If you are interested in accessing this and other aerospace historical goodies, consider signing up for the APR Patreon.
Dec 312017
While poking around one of my old computers I found the partially finished 3D CAD model of the Martin “Aldebaran” I made some years ago for my NPP book. I’ll use the model to create diagrams for the book, in hopes that someday I’ll finish the damn thing, but I’m curious if there might be interest in physical models of the thing. Let me know. I might take a stab at this with Shapeways or some such.
Dec 302017
The rewards for APR Patrons have been issued. This month:
CAD Diagram: Marquardt hypersonic burning ramjet booster
Diagram: Convair Class VP Airplane High Performance Flying Boat
Document 1: Apollo Exploration Shelter System
Document 2: Chrysler Work Station Capsule (“work pod” for astronauts)
Document 3: Sikorsky S-97 “Raider” brochure
If you are interested in helping to preserve (and get copies of) this sort of thing, consider signing up for the APR Patreon.
Dec 262017
This piece of art depicts the McDonnell-Douglas “Drawbridge” orbiter staging off the manned flyback booster, showing the wings still folded against the sides of the fuselage. The wings served no purpose during ascent; they would only be used after-re-entry. Of course, in the event of a mission abort shortly after launch, the wings would need to deploy fairly quickly. There are no doubt numerous abort scenarios where the orbiter would be left intact after separation from a presumably stricken booster (or after a main engine failure on the orbiter stage), but would nevertheless still be doomed due to inability to get the wings deployed in time.
I’ve uploaded the high-rez version of this artwork (5 megabyte 3951×2121 pixel JPG) to the APR Extras Dropbox folder for 2017-12, available to all APR Patrons at the $4 level and above. If you are interested in accessing this and other aerospace historical goodies, consider signing up for the APR Patreon.
Dec 262017
Another project under development…
Dec 232017
For about three weeks the world has been uncertain whether Elon Musk was serious or not with his claim that the first launch of the SpaceX Falcon 9 Heavy would send a Tesla Roadser to Mars (well, onto a solar orbit that would zip past Mars). Turns out he wasn’t kidding:
Elon Musk Reveals Photos of Tesla Roadster Launching on Falcon Heavy Rocket
This… makes sense. It is standard for a new launch vehicle to not launch a paying payload, because the first launch of a new vehicle stands a fair chance of not working right. So they launch inert mass simulators. So… why not launch a car? It’s attention-getting, it builds on corporate branding, it’s newsworthy. But mostly…
Sure, it would be better to send a practical payload… space probes and the like. But the fact is that there isn’t a Space probes R Us superstore; these things are extremely rare and extremely expensive. You lose one of those things, and there’ll be a whole lot of financial trouble. But Tesla Roadsters? Bunch of ’em.