Search Results : shuttle

Dec 222017
 

The early development of the Space Shuttle was filled with bizarre designs, attempts to jam capabilities into existing technologies. One such unconventional concept came from McDonnell-Douglas: a low-cross-range orbiter atop a flyback booster. The orbiter, unlike the Shuttle Orbiter actually built, contained considerable internal propellant; the booster would get it up to high altitude and velocity, but the bulk of the actual delta V would come from the Orbiters own propulsion. The vehicle had small, straight wings that would fold up against the side of the fuselage for launch and for re-entry… but they would have to deploy on-orbit to allow the payload bay doors to open, and they’d deploy again once the craft had entered the atmosphere.

I’ve uploaded the high-rez version of this artwork (8 megabyte 5598×4529 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.

 

 

patreon-200

 

 

 

 Posted by at 12:24 pm
Dec 222017
 

Basically all that’s left is the shuttlebay and surroundings.

So who here would be interested in a set of plans once it’s all done? Going from a 3D model to 2D diagrams is, from one point of view, as simple as typing in one command. But making a *good* set of plans from that is a bucket of work, since a lot of lines vanish and a lot of excess lines are thrown in, so I’d be interested in the level of interest.

 

 Posted by at 2:23 am
Dec 192017
 

If you haven’t already bought a copy of Dennis Jenkins’ “Space Shuttle: Developing an Icon 1972-2013,” you really should. It’s pricey, but it’s also massive (18 pounds/1584 pages)… and the last word on the subject. It is also the last edition of Jenkins’ Shuttle history that he’s planning on producing, and once it’s gone, it’s gone. The Amazon reviews are enlightening: 95% of them are five-star, 5% are 4 star… and precisely none of them are three star or less. That almost never happens.

 

 Posted by at 1:32 pm
Dec 182017
 

A lot of time went into the “spine,” largely because the contours are complex and the details are a bit difficult to suss out. I’ve finally declared victory on that part and have started in on detailing the rim and underside. Barring the unforseen, the underside should be done in the net day or three, with the aft fuselage/shuttlebay being the last section to tackle. And then… well, a bit of a wait until the book comes out in mid January. Until then, after the ship is modeled I’ll start working on a set of diagrams for some general plans.

 Posted by at 6:53 pm
Dec 142017
 

Apart from some “panel lines” and a few greeblies the details on the upper/forward hull are in place. I’ve re-sculpted the aft end of the “spine” and added the whatchamacallits to the forward ends of the lower engine nacelles. I need to detail the underside (there are fewer details there) and the at fuselage. Last thing I’ll do is flesh out the shuttlebay and at that point do another round of scale-guesstimation based on scenes showing people standing in the shuttlebay.

 Posted by at 11:00 pm
Dec 032017
 

An updated version of a post from a few years ago with obsolete formatting, with added editorial bloviation!

Point of note: 1963 is 54 years ago. With all the advances in the last half century, America still relies on the Minuteman. Since the Minuteman was developed, we also developed the Midgetman and Peacekeeper ICBMs… and got rid of them.

Note as well that the five year development time for the original Minuteman is  year and a half longer than the time since I originally posted another version of this old Minuteman video. And in that three and a half years, the United States does not seem to have developed a new ICBM, while in that time the North Koreans and Iranians *have.* The Russians have tested updated versions of the “Satan” ICBM (the RS-28 Sarmat), which carries 10+ warheads; the Minuteman III currently mouldering in American silos were designed for a whopping 3 warheads, but now carry a grand total of *one* warhead due to treaty restrictions.

 

Also of historic note: when the Minuteman was developed, a lot of components that, were they to be developed today, would be digital were then analog. The safe-and-arm for the solid rocket motors was essentially a heavy chunk of clockwork. The S&A simply served the purpose of making sure than an accidental electrical or mechanical discharge somewhere, if it inadvertently set off the ordnance lines leading to the motor igniter, would not actually get to the igniter. They are simple mechanical blocks that prevent the signal from getting through unless they are properly activated.

The Minuteman S&A’s worked well enough. So, when Thiokol was developing the solid rocket boosters for the Shuttle, they used the Minuteman S&As. And since once something is designed and fielded at NASA it almost never changes, the 1963-vintage S&As stayed with the RSRMs throughout the lifespan of the Shuttle. Last I knew, they were also in use on the five-segment boosters to be used on the “next generation” Space Launch System.” So *if* the SLS gets built (doubtful) and flies for decades (doubtful), the relatively ancient Minuteman S&As will probably fly with them throughout the SLS’s lifespan. If SLS flies in 2020 and lasts 20 years, the Minuteman S&A will have an 80 year operational life. Of course, by the time the SLS is retired, the Minuteman ICBM itself might still be in service.

 Posted by at 3:45 pm
Nov 162017
 

The top and middle engine loops are basically done and detailed. The bottom engine loop has been resculpted, but needs detailing. Once that’s done I’ll head back to the hull to start working on more details. The shuttlebay will almost certainly be modeled closed as at 1/1400 scale it’s really, really small. However, I’ll probably still work out the basics of it… because I want to get a 1/350 version milled out.

 Posted by at 6:49 pm
Nov 152017
 

There’s a spaceship on the screen. It is therefore a nerd-priority to determine *everything* about it, starting with “just how big is it?” Of course this exercise could be quickly negated by a simple mention of length on screen or off. But lacking that, we can logic ourselves into a rough estimate.

First up, the internet provides two photos that show canon illustrations of the ship, diagrams that appear on display screen on the bridge of the Orville:

The first shows an inboard profile of the main hull with the engine loops; the second shows a top view of the whole ship with a closer view of the cross-section of the main hull. For scaling purposes, that cross section is what we’re after. however, it must be noted right up front that the cross section, canon and used repeatedly on-screen as it is… is WRONG. it must be an earlier iteration of the designs, since there are some meaningful detail differences. The bridge, for starters, is shown further aft that it actually is. And there are lounge “bumps” fore and aft that do not appear on the final design. So it *may* turn out that the interior arrangement could be equally erroneous. However, at this time this is what we got.

Also note that the full side-view marries the 2D-drafted interior profile with what looks like 3D rendered engine loops… loops that are shown not square side-on. So, that’s also less than entirely helpful. but again… it’s what there is to work with.

OK, so how to use these images to determine scale? “The Orville” clearly hearkens back to TNG-era Trek for much of the styling. But the Orville is not a major capital ship like the Enterprise was, but a smaller vessel… like Treks Voyager. Fortunately Voyager has been well defined. There are a large number of “master systems display” inboard profile diagrams of the Voyager to pick from, including this one:

The Voyager MSD clearly shows the decks. The Orville “MSD” also shows its decks:

It’s by no means certain that the Orville uses the same spacing between decks that Voyager did… but again, it’s the best assumption that can be made at this time. So, the thing to do is to take the decks of the known-quantity-Voyager and scale the decks of the Orville to line up, like this:

Once you’ve scaled the Orville diagrams to match the deck-scale of the Voyager diagram, everything lines up looking like this:

And what this results in is the Orville being *really* close in length to the Voyager… 337 meters  for the Orville, 345 meters for Voyager. I don’t know if this was intentional on the part of the shows producers, but it wouldn’t surprise me if there’s an in-joke here that the Orville is supposed to be exactly the same length as Voyager.

So for now, and until I see something better, I’m going with a length of 337 meters for Orville. Given the lack of a “secondary hull” the Orville thus seems to have substantially less internal volume than Voyager, so probably a  smaller crew. But interestingly the Orville is *much* faster than Voyager. In the episode “Pria” it is claimed that Orville can fly at 10 light years per hour. If it was suddenly dumped 70,000 light years from home as Voyager was, it could fly home in 7,000 hours… 291 days. “The Orville” could thus copy the “ST:V” model by having the ship tossed to the other side of the galaxy – say, a season finale – and could wrap things up entirely within the next season. When the Orville gets back to Earth, rather than being met with celebrations, it’s met with “where the hell have you been? You’re late.”

Sanity check – a comparisons of the lounges and shuttlecraft between the two ships:

Looks about right.

 Posted by at 11:46 pm
Nov 092017
 

In all the stories, the robots rise up and try to wipe out mankind because they’ve been treated poorly. So you’d think that mankind would learn from a century of literature, movies an TV on the subject. But NOOOOOOO.

So a self-driving shuttle bus service starts up in Las Vegas, and what happens? Within a day a human driver plows into the thing.

And so it begins.

Human at fault in accident with Las Vegas driverless shuttle

 Posted by at 9:16 am