A magazine ad from 1963 depicting an S-IV stage (with six RL-10 rocket engines, as separate from the later, larger S-IVb stage with a single J-2 engine) staging from a Saturn I first stage. It should be noted that the RL-10 is *still* a top-of-the-line rocket engine, more than fifty years later.
Sure, computer generated art might be more accurate and clear, but good ol’ fashioned paint has a life to it.
NASA has posted some new photos of the Antares launch vehicle explosion to their Flickr account. Some of them are *really* impressive.
Gentlemen… BEHOLD:
Be sure to check out the remarkably high-rez versions at the link.
Now available… a new additions to the US Aerospace Projects series.
USBP #17 includes:
M.C.D. 392: A wartime design for a global-range bomber
Martin Model 194: A strategic bomber somewhat larger than the B-29
Lockheed CL-285-815: A supersonic nuclear powered concept with five engines
Consolidated Model 36: An early design for the B-36 with twin tails
Boeing Model 701-290: A supersonic bomber on the road to the B-59
Thiokol 260-inch ICBM: An unreasonably large ICBM concept
AFRL ESAV: A recent concept for a stealthy supersonic bomber
Convair GEBO II: An ancestor of the B-58, carried aloft under a B-60
USBP#17 can be purchased for downloading for the low, low price of $4.
—
Here’s an ad from the Feb 9, 1959 issue of “Missiles & Rockets.” It is for the “Astromatic Panel” concept, a missile launch display and control board system. Sure, it was probably little more than a metal panel with some lightbulbs, colors glass bits and an old-school mechanical numerical counter. But dayam, it sure looks like it’d fit in on a Star Trek: The Next Generation instrument panel, or on a modern tablet.
A General Dynamics magazine (“Missiles & Rockets,” to be exact) ad for the Atlas missile, from 1959. This sort of thing can really only be assumed to be public relations… you’re certainly not going to sell an ICBM to Joe Schmoe, and anyone in a position to actually procure an ICBM is certainly already aware of the Atlas.
However: the idea wasn’t to actually directly convince people to buy the Atlas, but instead to just keep a positive image of the Atlas in the eye of the public. In this case, the “public” would be the kind of people who would read M&R magazine… aerospace workers and military men.
Two McDonnell Douglas illustrations showing versions of their “Big Gemini” logistics spacecraft, and a similar concept for an Apollo-derived 9-man logistics spacecraft (not, seemingly, named “Big Apollo,” though that would have been appropriate). Both featured enlarged capsules to transport crew up and down, with an attached propulsion/cargo module which would be jettisoned to burn up.
All through the 1960’s – or at least up until the last few years, when “Great Society” spending ate into NASA’s budget – the assumption was that NASA would soon have numerous space stations in orbit and some preliminary lunar bases, with Mars missions soon to follow. In order to support those, NASA would have to have a cost effective means to launch sizable crews into orbit. A number of approaches were proposed, including Big Gemini and, in the end, the Space Shuttle. One approach that probably would have been quite workable was to simply scale up the Apollo capsule into something capable of holding more than three; a slight scaleup seats six, a further scaleup seats twelve. These would have been launched atop the Saturn Ib and/or Saturn V boosters, and would come with their own basic orbital maneuvering systems, and could carry up some amount of cargo in the conical transition/propulsion sections. At the end of the mission, the capsule would return to Earth for recovery, refurbishment and reuse; the propulsion module would be allowed to burn up.
Of course, none of these were ever built.
The full resolution versions of these artworks have been posted into the 2015-10 folder in the APR Extras Dropbox. Please check out the APR Patreon!
Coming soon…
If you find yourself near Ashland, Nebraska, you could do far, far worse than giving this museum a visit.
It’s a shame that New York City got a Space Shuttle but this museum – or the USAF museum in Dayton – did not. Heck, Hill Aerospace Museum or Wings Over the Rockies would have been good locations. Why not locate such things closer to the *middle* of the country, on well traveled paths? New York City hardly needs new attractions, nor is it an important waypoint on the road from one side of the country to the other (while it might be between, say, Washington D.C. and Boston, I suspect few sane people are going to go *through*Manhattan to get from D. C. to Boston).
Not strictly Project Orion, since it seems to date from the 1980’s, but it certainly represents an Orion-style vehicle. But was it attached to an actual program?
