A North Korean propaganda video:
[youtube HKWJSKYBDXE]
Where we get:
1) Muzak version of “We Are The World”
2) A dream sequence of a Nork soldier going into space…
3) On a “space shuttle” rendered on, apparently, mid-1980’s computer rendering technology
4) Images of a unified Korea
5) A nuclear strike on New York City
UPDATE: Trying again with a different source for the video…
I’m looking for, as the title suggests, 2D CAD drawings of the International Space Station to use as scale references in drawings for the Nuclear Pulse Propulsion book. Anybody know of such? NASA released PDF files of CAD three-views of the *components* of the station, but not, so far as I’m aware, any overall views. I also have some Shuttle/ISS On-Orbit configuration PDFs, but they don’t go as far as station completion. If anyone knows of an ISS CAD drawing, or a PDF with an embedded CAD drawing, or a final configuration “Shuttle/ISS” PDF, I’d be grateful if you could point me towards it.
Looking for something akin to this, just as a vector file:
The status of SLS configurations, circa April, 2012. Note the combination of manned and unmanned variants, Shuttle-derived solid rocket boosters and all-new liquid rocket boosters.
It’s good that NASA is going to sell this stuff (Shuttle launch pads, orbiter processing facilities, hangars, runways, etc.) rather than tear it down or let it rot, but it’s kinda sad that NASA *has* to sell this still.
A chart from a NASA briefing from May of this year giving a quick look at three planned configurations of the Space Launch System which some/many in NASA hope to get built and flown in the coming years.
When transitioning from the Block 1 to Block 1A configurations, the plan is to replace the Shuttle-derived five segment solid rocket boosters with all-new advanced boosters, either liquid or solid. But history has shown that if what you’ve got *now* more or less works, replacing it with an expensive new rocket is a somewhat politically dubious prospect.
On eBay:
A very large model of Energia-Buran, apparently actually made by Energia, with a Buy It Now price of only twenty-five grand.
Assuming it actually does come from the Energia Rocket Corporation museum, I’m of two minds:
1) It’s sad that Energia is selling this off, for whatever reason
2) I’m sad that the Russians are better capitalists than American aerospace companies, who not only wouldn’t bother with museums but who instead would either have models like this stuff in some wooden crate in a storage facility, never to be seen again, or simply dumped in the trash or intentionally destroyed.
Another brochure illustration showing the ACC in use supporting the development of external tank based space stations. This time, SpaceLab components are shown attached to the outside of ET space stations. This would have meant that the ETs would have had to have had fittings welded onto them, either on the ground before launch or while in orbit, or otherwise holes drilled or punched into them on orbit for bolts or some other mechanical fasteners. Poking holes in the tanks would of course ruin them as pressure vessels; in this case they’d be good only as structural attachments.
Another issue would be the insulating foam. Over time, environmental conditions (extremes of hold and cold over 90-minutes orbits) would cause the foam to degrade and flake off, surrounding the station with a comet-tail of debris.
More on the ACC – the complete 22-page brochure – is available HERE.
The Martin Marietta Aft Cargo Carrier would have allowed the Space Shuttle to transport payloads of larger diameter by carrying them on the aft end of the External Tank, rather than in the Orbiters cargo bay. This would of course have necessitated that the ET be carried all the way to orbit; consequently, the ET would be on-hand and available for use.The illustration below shows how a fairly small number of Shuttle launches could have resulted in a truly vast space station.
More on the ACC – the complete 22-page brochure – is available HERE.
Shuttle Endeavor being hauled through LA. While an impressive feat in its way, in essence it is dragging one of the fastest vehicles ever flown by man through streets at two miles per hour on its way to its grave.
[youtube XIRfTAq21ek]
The SRB-X is one of the most derided launch vehicles ever seriously considered. Initiated by NASA in the early 1980’s, the idea was to use Shuttle hardware – specifically Reusable Solid Rocket Motor components – to provide Shuttle-class payload capability. Theoretically the SRB-X, a stack of large solid rocket motors, would provide a low-cost semi-reusable launcher that would be rugged, reliable and could continue to fly if the shuttle itself was laid up for some reason. In reality, it would very likely have been every bit as expensive as we’ve come to expect from the Shuttle program.
In 1983 Boeing analyzed the SRB-X system for NASA, studying detailed designs as well as a range of alternates. The basic SRB-X booster used a core vehicle composed of RSRM segments, using RSRMs as boosters. In order to use stock Shuttle launch facilities, the boosters were mounted well outboard of the core… with the same separation distance as between the RSRMs on a standard Shuttle stack. This added considerably to structural weight. Alternates studied included versions that were just linear stacks of RSRM-derived stages (leading to very long boosters) and versions that used Titan hardware including the UA-1205 boosters and the Titan III first stage as the second stage of the vehicle.
