Search Results : shuttle

Aug 072011
 

As mentioned previously, I’m still plugging away on my Nuclear Pulse Propulsion book I’ve got the Daedalus diagrams mostly done… most of the actual drafting is probably done, but there’s some line formatting and layering to work on yet. Shown below is the full British Interplanetary Society Daedalus starship design in all its two-stages of glory on the left, with the stages separate on the right, the vehicle as a unit. Wedged in between ’em are the Saturn V and the Space Shuttle, looking small and inoffensive.

The Daedalus is at a scale where the Shuttle is just not doing the job as a scale reference. Does anyone know where I could get an *accurate* side view (either a CAD drawing or a detailed GIF/JPG) of the Empire State Building?

 Posted by at 8:57 pm
Jul 252011
 

In 1978, Boeing cranked out a whole lot of information – reports, presentations, artwork, etc. – on the Solar power Satellite concept. The idea was that giant satellites covered on photovoltaic arrays would be built in low Earth orbit, then moved up to geosynchronous, where the power generated would be converted to microwaves, beamed to Earth, captured and  converted back into electricity. The idea was grand, it was bold, it was forward thinking and it was doomed. In the early 1980’s the price of oil collapsed from its OPEC Oil Embargo days, and the support for such vastly expensive schemes as SPS vanished.

It was not inevitable, of course. A few minor tweaks to the timeline, and the Arab oil producing states might have kept the cost high: either through simply controlling the price, or by the simple expedient of warfare blasting the crap out of the oil fields. Had oil stayed high, who knows… SPS might’ve become the growth industry of the 1990’s.

Boeing was one of the major companies looking at the SPS concept. Each SPS would be roughly the size of Manhattan, and would produce around ten gigawatts. Hundreds of launches would be required to transport the raw materials to orbital construction bases… and hundreds of workers would be needed in both low Earth orbit and geosynchronous to oversee construction.  Boeing mapped out the probable timeline of populations on-orbit. The assumption was that two SPS’s would be built per year; this constant rate of construction is reflected in fairly constant numbers for the construction bases in LEO and GEO; the constantly increasing number of satellites explains the increasing number of maintenance crew. 20 SPS’s would require 1000 crew; 40 would need 1400 and 60 would need 1800.

A whole lot of the assumptions regarding SPS seem sadly laughable from the vantage point of the post-Shuttle years. For example space transport was seen as needing to be incredibly  cheap, with blisteringly fast turnaround times and a launch of a heavy lift booster (such as the Space Freighter) every 21 hours or so, for decades on end. Even had those succeeded, the crew numbers are almost certainly far too low. Not only would construction and maintenance have turned out to be a lot harder than hoped… there would be a lot of people not considered in these simple analyses. If you have a construction base that lasts for years… you are going to have families. And people who provide goods and services not only to the crew, but to their families. And the tourists. And the scientists, engineers, bureaucrats and everything else. Without setting out to do so, the SPS concept could easily and necessarily have led to populations in Earth orbit measurable in the thousands to tens of thousands.

Had work begun on SPS in earnest in 1980, the first flights might have started in 1990 or so. By which point we’d be two decades into the project. Assuming they kept on schedule (ha!), we’d now have at least 40 SPS satellites, each providing 2.5 gigawatts of net electrical power. That’s 100 gigawatts; over a year, 876,000 gigawatt-hours. Energy usage in the US today is about 29 petawatt-hours = 29,000,000 gigawatt-hours. Thus… a whopping 3% of todays American energy needs could be filled by twenty years worth of solar power satellite construction. Meh. One could always assume that twenty years of technological advancement might’ve improved the efficiency of the solar cells and the transmission systems, bumping up the net power produced by a satellite; still, it’d take a whole lot of satellites to make a real dent in Americas energy needs.

 Posted by at 11:29 pm
Jul 212011
 

The Shuttle Atlantis landed this morning, bringing to an end the second era of American manned spaceflight. Also brought to an end is much real chance of a third era of American manned spaceflight based on the NASA model. Before Apollo ended, the Space Shuttle was on the horizon. Today, NASA has not a single vehicle on the horizon to launch American astronauts into space.

However, there is one hopeful difference: on the horizon are *other* American manned space vehicles… just not *NASA* vehicles. Companies like SpaceX, Sierra Nevada, Blue Origin, Scaled Composites, Xcor and others are all working as diligently as their finances will allow to produce the next generation of American manned space launch systems. I’d expect SpaceX, with their already-flown Dragon capsule atop their Falcon 9 launcher to be the first commercial manned spacecraft, and hopefully within the next few years.

The libertarian in me will rejoice when American private companies are selling flights into space. The cynic in me realizes that the US FedGuv will probably do what it always does… use the power of regulation and taxation to make this as difficult as possible. The space nut in me knows that while the commercial sector is by far the preferred way to go to develop new launchers, NASA still should have played a role. Not to design them, not to pick and choose winners before the fact, but to point to a destination and say “We don’t care who or how, but whatever can get us and our stuff to this destination on that schedule, we’ll buy.” Sadly, NASA is quickly being converted into an empty shell.

While private enterprise is the best way to procure launchers, NASA programs are the best way to inspire. This, of course, means NASA programs that point Out There, that push the envelope, whose reach exceeds its grasp, all those old cliches. By not having such, spaceflight changes from inspirational to a depressing reminder of things that once were but are no more.

Yes, it’ll be great when we can point to Dragon capsules and say “Americans have these.” But without a meaningful NASA, there just seems like there’ll be something missing. Kinda like being proud of all those jetliners produced by Boeing private enterprise, but wondering if maybe we aughtta have a government “Air Force” as well.

You really want to know what I want? You really want to know the truth, yes? I want my people to reclaim their rightful place in the galaxy. I want to see the Americans stretch forth their hand again, and command the stars. I want a rebirth of glory, a renaissance of power. I want us to be what we used to be! I want…I want it all back the way that it was!

 Posted by at 10:13 am
Jun 152011
 

Recently, the “DIRECT Launcher Group” of launch vehicle designers presented their concept for (among other things) “Leviathan,” a sea launched heavy lift two stage launch vehicle. Leviathan is a hydrogen/oxygen vehicle using annular aerospike engines for both stages for altitude compensation. With a gross liftoff weight of 8,861,460 pounds/4,019,491 kg, payload delivered to a 160 nautical mile circular orbit at 29 degrees inclination is 129,287 kg/285,030 pounds. The claimed cost? $60 million per launch, or $429 per kilogram (compared with $34,836/kg for the Shuttle). Eight launchers per year are foreseen.

The Leviathan would be floated out into the ocean, filled with propellant, righted and launched directly from the water; both stages would be recoverable.

http://www.directlauncher.com/

See the two PDF files for more info & graphics.

http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/DirectP2/Information/Product_Sheet_-_Leviathan_Heavy_Lift_Launch_Vehicle_RC.pdf

http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/DirectP2/Information/Baseball_Card_-_Leviathan_H2008.pdf

I will bypass the merits of the concept of a super heavy lifter in the current launch market or of this specific design (see discussion HERE), and simply point out the historical precedent. Leviathan follows in the footsteps of the Aerojet “Sea Dragon” design from 1963. Sea Dragon also launched from the surface of the ocean and was a two-stage “tube” launch vehicle. However, that’s about the end of the similarity. Sea Dragon was intended to be rock-simple, made out of inches-thick aluminum by the same techniques and laborers who built ships. It was a pressure-fed design, which meant relatively low performance but also design simplicity. But most importantly, Sea Dragon was intended to capture the launch market that NASA foresaw for the 1970’s and 1980’s, from the vantage point of 1962-63. A market filled with space stations, Moon bases, Mars bases, missions to Venus, the asteroids, Jupiter and beyond. To service this market, Sea Dragon had a payload of 550,000 kilograms. Coupling the high payload weight to the modest performance and relativley crude structural design led to a truly huge rocket design. In comparison, Leviathan, which is far larger than any launch vehicles currently  seriously contemplated (assuming of course that Ares V is well and truly dead), is a pipsqueak.

The 1960’s dreamed bigger than we do.

Note to self: the Sea Dragon diagram shown at the Wikipedia page, as well as elsewhere online, is the one that I patched together and cleaned up *years* ago for Aerospace Projects Review. I *really* should have tagged it with my web address or something…

 Posted by at 12:47 pm
Jun 012011
 

For every technology developed since World War II, there is at least one claim that it was actually designed by the Germans during the war. One claim that almoststands up is for the satellite launching space rocket.

What is known is that the Germans developed and fielded the first sizable ballistic missile, the A-4 (a.k.a. the V-2). This liquid propellant missile was capable of hurling a one-ton warhead several hundred miles… enough to target London from France, but not enough to reach across the Atlantic. So early in WWII, design efforts were undertaken to develop the A-9/A-10 combination. The A-9 was to be a winged version of the A-4; the A-10 was a similar, but larger, vehicle that would serve as a booster for the A-9. While the A-10 was intended to splash down in the Atlantic with the aid of steel-mesh parachutes after a launch from French bases, the A-9 would glide to an impact somewhere in the vicinity of New York City… again with a one-ton warhead. This would have been a weapon of dubious reliability and even more dubious utility: an entire ICBM launched with only a one ton chemical explosive warhead, and with a circular error probability very likely measured in dozens of miles. And the first stage splashdown and recovery? Even if made practicable, the splashdown area would soon become infested with US Navy submarines, standing ready to sink and German vessels that attempt to approach. Soon, the A-10 boosters would be in US hands. Not unsurprisingly, the A-9/A-10 project was abandoned early on.

In the years after the war, stories came out that the Germans had gone beyond the A-10, to designs such as the A-11 and A-12. Thed A-11 was reported to be still another big stage, this time under the A-9/A-10 stack. The result would here be that the A-9 would now be put into orbit, with its one ton payload. The A-12 was a further larger stage under the A-11; the A-9 disappeared, and the A-10 was turned – somehow – into a manned, winged, recoverable “shuttle.”

The documentary evidence for the wartime development of the A-11 and A-12 designs has always been lean to the point of nonexistence. Simply put, it all depends on taking Werner von Braun at his word that such designs were indeed produced. But immediately after the war, he (and his team, and their data, and a number of A-4s)  was in the hands of the United States Army. This was by his choice… he knew the war was lost and that they would be captured and put to work by one of the allied nations… and Britain did not have the resources to fulfill von Braun’s dreams of spaceflight, and the Soviets were rightly seen as pure evil and horrible bosses. That left the US. But von Braun, as well as being a good manager and a good engineer, was a great pitch-man. He proved that in Germany when he convinced the German military to expend vast sums on his crazy rockets, and he proved that after the war when he convinced the US military to expend vaster sums on his less crazy rockets, and vaster still sums by NASA on his truly crazy moon rockets. In retrospect, he clearly knew what he could accomplish. At the time, his goals were often seen as unattainably nutty. But he was able to sell ’em nonetheless. Billy Mays eat your zombie heart out.

So, the A-11 and A-12. Other German rocketeers have claimed no knowledge of such projects. No wartime records of such designs have to date been produced. At the end of the war the A-10 project was three years dead; the team of rocketeers who had succeeded in putting the first man-made object into space were hard at work on rather small “flak rockets” to combat the swarms of American and British strategic bombers that were busily converting German industry into gravel. There is no way that a satellite launcher or a space shuttle would have been funded. So at best, they would have been von Brauns personal “ideas,” and not actual “projects.” So,how did the A-11 and A-12come about?

My own hypothesis is this: when von Braun was being interrogated by the US Army, he had to think on his feet. He wanted the US military to fund his work… but they proved that they already had his work. His carefully hidden stash of technical reports and drawings and such were quickly found by the US Army. They already had the V-2. So of what use was von Braun? Well… if he could promise Bigger And Better Things, he might have felt that that would improve his bargaining position. And so, the one, single, solitary illustration that can be tangentially linked to both von Braun and the A-11 concept was created at White Sands in 1946. This painting represents a satellite launcher that clearly resembles the A-11 concept, featuring a huge clunky first stage, an A-10-like second stage, and a V-2-like third stage. The painter, one “de Beek,” was the illustrator at Peenemunde. It is safe to say that it was painted under von Brauns direction.

Suddenly, so goes my hypothesis, von Braun claims to have designed vehicles capable of putting sizable payloads into orbit. In 1945, the US military could see the use for such things… especially after August 1945. A rocket that can put a satellite into orbit can drop a bomb anywhere on the planet. Once von Braun found out about the American atom bomb, he undoubtedly spent mere milliseconds putting the ideas together, and thus was able to claim that he had already laid the groundwork for an intercontinental ballistic missile.

Is the hypothesis the way it actually happened? Dunno, but to me it seems reasonable. If so, would it have been necessary to secure a place in American industry for von Braun and his team? Possibly. The United States had, at least by 1946, several companies actively working on space launch systems of their own; in several cases, much more advanced than the clunky “A-11.” But being able to claim to have  a several-year head start couldn’t have hurt. And if that was the story von Braun told to get himself in the door, he could hardly back out of it later. Interestingly, a few technical details about the A-11 and A-12 were revealed some years later, and proved to be remarkably similar to the weights and thrust data used for the von Braun “Ferry Rocket” made famous in the Collier’s magazine series. But which came first… the A-11/A-12 data, or the ferry rocket data? The ferry rockets were worked out in considerable detail. It would have been easy to simply claim after the fact that the A-11/A-12 had much the same features, now that such features were known.

For more on the A-9/10/11/12 and other German “space projects” from WWII, check out Aerospace Projects Review issue V5N6.

 Posted by at 10:21 am
Apr 072011
 

The mythology has grown since the late 1940’s that the German rocket scientists were the masters of the craft, and the US could not have gotten anywhere without them. While that made for good PR (especially for the German rocket scientists), it’s by no means even close to the truth. While it’s obvious that during WWII the Germans were well ahead of the US, what’s less well known is that in the years immediately after the war, American rocket scientists, engineers, designers and planners had their own advanced concepts. Had the Germans not commanded the attention of the decision makers, it’s entirely possible that the US would have gone to space anyway, and on much the same schedule. If America’s first orbital craft had been based on Douglas’ World Circling Spaceship or North Americans’ High Altitude Test Vehicle, maybe the space program would have been better, maybe worse… but it certainly would have looked different.

One thing post-war Americans had in some abundance were American designers who Thought Big about space travel. For instance, there were the Darryl Romick’s who produced the METEOR city-sized space station concept in the mid 1950’s. But an even bigger example of that was Donald Ritchies space station. In early 1949, Mr. Ritchie published a newspaper article discussing the need for space stations. The article was an abridged version of one he’d originally written in 1946. Who was Mr. Ritchie? I honestly don’t know. But I do know that for several years during the war, Mr. Ritchie was a designer and draftsman  at Wright Field (where also worked Alex Tremulis, a designer who came up with a concept for a two-stage rocket-boosted VTOHL interceptor during the war), and after the war had what appears to have been a heck of a career in aerospace.

Ritchie’s space station (poorly reproduced in the 1949 newspaper article), at first glance, looks both conventional and oddly familiar:

It’s ring shaped and set to rotate for artificial gravity… a common design for the 1950’s. And it’s familiar due to its resemblance to “Space Station V” from “2001: A Space Odyssey.”

But there’s an oddity to the design: it’s a ring with no hub. Typically ring-shaped space station have a central hub; here a spacecraft can dock by simply matching rotation. Docking with the rotating ring itself would be very difficult and would quickly blow through propellant. But this station design had no hub.

Ritchie came up with a solution that is, to say the least, unique: If you look close, there are actually two rings, an inner and an outer. As it turns out, the inner ring is stationary, the outer ring rotates. Any spacecraft that needs to dock can easily dock with the inner ring. How exactly people and cargo get from the inner ring to the outer was left unanswered in the abbreviated article.

There’s one other thing: the space station diameter was to be three MILES. Why? Again, unanswered. My guess would be “because we just kicked Hitler’s ass and are staring down Uncle Joe, that’s why!” I’ve tried to reconstruct the layout of the space station based on the poorly reproduced illustration; while I can’t vouch for it’s precision, I think it’s reasonably close. I have shown the lazily constructed cutaway with decks 10 feet apart… 62 decks. This thing would have been as thick as a very respectable skyscraper, but would have been about 1500 feet wide and, if stretched out, would have been more than nine miles long. The surface area of the decks would probably have exceeded the floorspace of Manhattan. Shown to scale are the Space Shuttle and the Saturn V. The original illustration shows a number of barely visible rocket ships docking with the station; each of them is easily larger than the entire Saturn V.

Does it make any rational sense? Not even a little bit.  Would it under any circumstances have stood a chance in hell of being funded, or even studied in any depth? Less likely than me winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Is it All American Awesomeness? You bet!

 Posted by at 7:40 pm
Mar 222011
 

Zentih Star was the name of a little known program to develop a space-based anti-missile laser during the Reagan SDI days. Vaguely shaped like the Hubble space telescope, it was much bigger and heavier, and could not be hauled into orbit in the Shuttle. Since the Shuttle was the biggest launch vehicle the US had, something new was needed. While several launch vehicles were proposed specifically to launch the Zenith Star, another idea was to use the proposed Shuttle C. Shuttle C was an expendable all-cargo derivative of the shuttle… stame external tank, same boosters, same “boattail” of the orbiter, but no wings, no cockpit, no recovery systems and an extended cargo bay. The Shuttle C was a NASA-MSFC idea that Martin Marietta ran with; the artwork below is likely Martin.

 Posted by at 9:11 am
Feb 182011
 

From 1975 comes this Piasecki concept for a hybrid heavy lifter, the Model 97-X-0011 “Gargantua.” A Macon-class dirigible (with one center section removed) is mated with four CH-53E helicopters to create a cargo zeppelin “Heli-Stat” capable of lifting 280,000 pounds of payload. In this case, the cargo is shown as a Space Shuttle Orbiter.

It’s a neat idea, but the one heli-stat that c built came to a very quick, very sudden and very permanent end during a test flight in 1986:

[youtube _7jENWKgMPY]

The PA-97 Heli-Stat was brought down due to the structure being shaken apart. It certainly *looked* like a crudely-cludged assemblage… combining the appearance of both a whole lot of mass and a whole lot of frailty.  A lack of precise controls between the wide separated choppers, combined with winds and ground resonance, led to a spectacular self-dis-assembly.

Ground resonance is a hell of a thing, generally to be avoided.

[youtube D2tHA7KmRME]

 Posted by at 1:12 pm
Feb 032011
 

James May of Top Gear presents an interesting idea on how to make electric cars practical:

1: Make ’em hybrids

2: And give em the long antenna-like power connectors that are used on dodge cars, and build overhead power systems along major roadways.

The cars would use gas engines along minor roads, and overhead electrical power along major roads. This would reduce or eliminate the need for the large, massive, crappy batteries that currently make electic cars useless jokes. He also suggests that the cars be given “autopilos” so that they could drive themselves while on the overhead power grid. To provide the electicity, he suggests nuclear power, in particular fusion. And to provide the fusion power, he suggests that the US go back to the moon.

So far, it seems like an intriguing set of ideas. But its here where his lack of science knowledge comes into full force, and throws the whole idea (and his editors ability to, you know, edit) into serious doubt:

President Barack Obama should reverse his decision to cut funding for further Nasa Moon missions. Once established on Luna we can mine it for tritium, or hydrogen-3, which could be the basis of ultra-clean nuclear fusion. One space shuttle-load of tritium could, I’m told, satisfy the entire energy demand of America for a year.

Tritium? Really? Not, you know, helium-3?

Sigh.

 Posted by at 9:31 am