Search Results : shuttle

Dec 182009
 

Along with the Titan launched station shown here, Boeing also put forward a design for a “wet lab” space station to be launched by a Saturn I. This station would be a prepackaged unit not unlike the Manned orbiting Laboratory, but permanently fixed to the front of the Saturn I’s S-IV second stage. Once in orbit solar panels would unfurl. The hydrogen tank of the S-IV would be available for further utilization.

skylab1a.gif

And to access the space station, Boeing suggested an operational version of the Dyna Soar as a Space Shuttle. The Shuttle would differ from the X-20 Dyna Soar in that the systems, materials and design would be refined after lessons learned from the X-20; the mass of science instruments would be deleted, freeing up considerable space in the center section to install seating for four space suited passengers (see here, here and here for more on that), and the power and thermal control systems in the aft repackaged to make room for a passageway tunnel leading into the Transstage adapter. Additional cargo space would be provided by splicing in a cylindrical section between the adapter and the Transstage. With further refinement, a sixth passenger could be squeezed into the aft section. Additionally, docking probes would be added to the upper side of the Dyna Soar wings.
s5p4.gif

If you like the sort of aerospace history stuff I post, you can support the cause by Buying My Stuff, which includes aerospace drawings and documents, as well as the journal of unbuilt aircraft and spacecraft projects, Aerospace Projects Review. Or you could just Donate. To the right for more posts like this, click on the Unwanted Blog header up top and then click on the “Projects” tag to the right.

 Posted by at 9:37 pm
Nov 192009
 

OK, hands up anyone who didn’t see this coming…

Orlando Sentinel:

But the launch came amid major worries about NASA’s future, as the agency has been told by the White House to consider cutting its 2011 budget by as much as 10 percent. Based on the agency’s proposed 2009-2010 budget of $18.7 billion, that would equal roughly $1.87 billion.

That kind of cut would end human spaceflight for at least the next decade — and likely longer — according to a presidential space panel that recommended last month a $3 billion-a-year spending increase so NASA could run a “meaningful” manned-space program.

On Monday, NASA associate administrator Bill Gerstenmaier told reporters that he does not expect to know what the White House will do until February. But he said the uncertainty has made it difficult for NASA as it flies out the remaining missions.

“How do we keep our workforce and ourselves focused on what we are doing and don’t get too distracted by all the ‘what if’ scenarios?” he said.

I’ve seen what budget cuts can do to operations in an aerospace firm. I’ve seen what rumors of bugest cuts can do. Back around late 2002, when things started going screwy at United Tech in California, many people could see that the company was facing troubles. And as the troubles mounted, those who could began to split. And “those who could” were, often enough, “those the company really needed to help them pull through.” So as Obama dithers on whether or not to end America’s role as a modern nation, expect to see a lot of the more qualified people at NASA decide that Now Is The Time, and either retire or go into the private sector. And this does not mean that they will simply transfer to other aerospace programs, ready and able to help the private sector take over after NASA is reduced to a shell… many of those who left United Tech went into Dot Coms, fiber optic cables, computer manufacturing, etc.

And so come 2013, if we have a new President determined to try to reverse the numerous bad decisions made by Obama, returning the United States to space might prove difficult. In the best of times you can’t simply pick up where you left off with a program that was cancelled just a few years before. And history, especially the history of science and spaceflight, is unlikely to view the Obama years as “the best of times.”

More discussion from Examiner.com:

The problem is that having spent eight hundred billion dollars on a “stimulus package” that has failed spectacularly to stimulate the economy and having been attacked without mercy for proposing to spend trillions of dollars on “health care reform” that would raise health care costs, cut services, and ration care, the Obama administration is contemplating an election year conversion to fiscal frugality.

There is as yet no confirmation that the proposed ten percent cut will take place nor how Congress might react. But should such occur, it would prove devastating to areas of the country dependent on aerospace already reeling from the impending end of the space shuttle program. It can also be suggested that cutting NASA would constitute a breaking of faith, not only with Obama campaign promises, but with the future. Yet another cancellation of human space exploration would more than ever mean that the Obama administration is just not serious about doing space. As someone once suggested, every Obama promise has an expiration date and the one for NASA may have just about come due.

 Posted by at 9:48 am
Nov 162009
 

On sale for half off:

The Story of Peenemunde:” Normally $15, on sale for $7.50


————————————–
Saturn V and Saturn Ib Payload Planers Guides: Normally $11 for both, now get both for $5.50


————————————–
Lunar Module Manuals: Normally $7.00, now $3.50


————————————–
Saturn S-IVB sketches: Normally $8.00, now $4.00


————————————–
Goodyear METEOR: Normally $8.00, now $4.00


————————————–
Early Shuttle Docs (Flight Test Vehicle, Single Body Canard Booster, ILRV, Astrorocket, ASTRO): Normally $27.50 all separate, now $13.75 together


————————————–
Early Space Station Docs (Manned Space Lab, 12 Man Space Station, Skylab Guidebook, MOL test launch, Extended Apollo Lab, MOL Briefing): Normally $34.50 all separate, now $17.25 together

Sale Has Ended
 Posted by at 11:45 am
Nov 052009
 

This bit of artwork illustrates the 1983 design by Rockwell International for the Air launch Sortie Vehicle program. This was meant to develop a small reusable spaceplane that could be launched on a moments notice, to service or place small satellites (communications, recon, etc.) or even weapons systems. Several companies hit upon the idea of using the 747 to carry a spaceplane equipped with a Shuttle-like expendable external fuel tank. Rockwell’s design was a manned vehicle equipped with a single SSME.

alsv1.jpg

 Posted by at 10:30 pm
Jul 142009
 

Take a look at the listing of items to be auctioned off HERE on July 16 (direct link to 7 meg PDF file catalog). Some damned nifty stuff…

image1.jpg
PARAGLIDER CONCEPTS.
Two large blueprints illustrating concepts for returning the Mercury
spacecraft to dry land using a triangular shaped airfoil:
1. “Study – Mercury Paraglider Controls,” blueprint, McDonnell Aircraft
Corporation, Saint Louis, MO, June 18, 1961, 108 by 36 inches, ¼ scale.
2. “Geometry Layout – Mercury Paraglider Controls,” blueprint, McDonnell
Aircraft Corporation, Saint Louis, MO, May 22, 1961, 81 by 36 inches, 1/20
scale.
Both blueprints signed by Max Faget as Mercury Designer. The paraglider
concept would save the expense of numerous armed services ships and
aircraft during an ocean landing. Various engineering problems prevented
paraglider use in time for the Mercury Program, but the concept became
part of the basis for popular “hang gliding” just a few years later.
Drawings include a side view showing an astronaut inside the Mercury
spacecraft with the heat shield deployed as a landing skid and shock
absorber. The paraglider airfoil is shown in various stages of stowage and
deployment.
$1,000 – 1,500

SATURN V MODEL.
Model of the Saturn V by the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), plastic, composites, metal, and
wood, 48 inches tall when assembled, approximately 1/96 scale. Many parts identified with decals.
Housed in original MSFC wooden carrying case, 27 by 14 by 10 inches.
Each rocket stage is identified with large red decals near the center point of each stage. The first
stage (S-IC) is screw-mounted onto a wooden base. Each of the five F-1 rocket engines are clearly
visible at the base and painted in silver and red with touches of yellow and green. Four large
stabilization fins with fairings are at the base of the S-IC.
A fully detachable interstage ring separates the S-IC from the S-II stage and includes the eight ullage
rocket motors (these motors gave a brief burst forward to help “settle” the second stage liquid
propellants into the engine pumps during flight).
The S-II stage includes the five silver and red J-2 rocket engines and the slanted interstage assembly
with four small retro-rocket motors.
The smaller S-IVB/V or third stage fits into the slanted interstage. It has a single J-2 rocket engine and
dual auxiliary propulsion and ullage motors at the base. The Instrument Unit (IU) is attached.
An all-metal silver and yellow-colored Lunar Excursion Module fits inside the plastic Spacecraft-LM
Adapter (SLA) section which has a clear viewing port. The Ascent Stage and Descent Stage are
detachable from each other and the SLA section. The LEM’s landing legs can be deployed outward
from their folded positions. A removable white Command/Service Module (CSM) and Launch Escape
Tower (LES) are at the very top of the model. The Command Module can separate from the Service
Module. There are 7 mission thrusters on the CSM and 3 on the LEM.
A metal plaque on the 8½-inch square wood base reads: “George C. Marshall Space Fight Center,
Huntsville, Alabama, Graphics Engineering and Models Branch, SATURN V.” There is a 1-inch human
figure on the wood base for scale.
MSFC was the lead NASA center for the development of the vehicle which took Man to the moon.
The Apollo Saturn V rocket had a 100% success flight record. Nine Apollo crew traveled to the moon
powered by the F-1’s 1.5 million pound and J-2’s 225,000 pound thrust engines. Six two-man LEM
(later called LM) crews made landings there. In 1973, this vehicle’s first and second stages put the
Skylab space station into earth orbit. Included with the lot is a black and white photograph from
1966 of Dr. Faget with this Saturn V model in an MSC conference room area discussing aspects
of a lunar mission with visiting foreign dignitaries. This model is a superb icon of the technological
achievement made by the United States during the Space Race.
$10,000 – 15,000

Ten grand. Oh, why I aughtta…. grrrrr….

APOLLO 8 COMMAND MODULE CONTROL PANEL.
“Design Layout – Main Display Console, Command Module 103,”
blueprint, North American Aviation, Downey, CA, April 5, 1967 with two
revisions, the last dated March 12, 1968, approximately 79 by 11 inches,
scale not given.
Signed by a total of 15 Apollo astronauts, each giving their Apollo flight
numbers: Buzz Aldrin, Alan Bean, Gene Cernan, Gordon Cooper, Walt
Cunningham, Charles Duke, Richard Gordon, Fred Haise, James Lovell,
Edgar Mitchell, Wally Schirra, Rusty Schweickart, Dave Scott, Tom Stafford,
and Al Worden.
A blueprint illustrating the locations of the critical command and flight
controls of the spacecraft that took the first men to lunar orbit during
December 1968. Signed by a member or members of every Apollo flight
crew including Apollo 8 Command Module Pilot James Lovell.
The largest drawing is the Main Display Panel which was located in front
of the astronaut couches and has two large flight attitude indicators, the
re-entry monitor, caution and warning panel, 28 meters, and over 100
individual switches.
$2,500 – 3,500

image7.jpg

image8.jpg

FLOWN APOLLO 16 EVA CUFF CHECKLIST.
ASTRONAUT CHARLES DUKE’S SPACE SUIT CUFF CHECKLIST.
Cuff checklist, comprising 29 thin plastic printed leaves, spiral-bound and
attached to a 7-inch curved metal wrist band (“P/N SEB 33100302-302,
S/N 1025”). Each leaf 3½ inches square and with a reference tab on the
fore-edge, 2 also with tabs on the top-edge (for immediate access to EVA
3 activities and EMU malfunction trouble-shooting steps). The wrist band
has an 18-inch Velcro strap (“P/N SEB 12100030-201, S/N 1087 ASSY”).
The whole assembly mounted on a wooden base with plaque reading:
“Presented to Fred Haise, EVA cuff checklist, with warmest personal
regards from the crew of Apollo 16.”
The cuff checklist used by Lunar Module Pilot Charles Duke, Jr., during the
second and third lunar surface explorations of the Apollo 16 mission. It was
exposed directly to the lunar environment for over 12 hours during those
exploration periods, and continued the tradition of bringing a smile to the
astronauts’ faces while providing back-up plans for the first lunar “Grand
Prix.”
Apollo 16, flown in April 1972, was the fifth lunar landing mission, and
targeted the Descartes region of the moon, some 250 miles southwest of
the Apollo 11 Tranquility Base site. This area was the first true highland
region of the moon visited by Apollo astronauts and has brightly rayed
craters with structural features similar to volcanic areas on the earth.
Astronauts John Young and Charles Duke were scheduled to spend 73
hours at the Descartes landing site and to perform three EVAs. Just prior to
the Lunar Module’s descent from lunar orbit down to the landing site, the
Command/Service Module developed problems associated with its large
rocket engine, known as the Service Propulsion System (SPS). Since the
SPS was the only means to leave lunar orbit and return to Earth, the lunar
landing was delayed about six hours until the situation was deemed safe
to continue the planned mission. This curtailed the overall lunar stay to 71
hours.
Apollo mission planners were well aware of the importance of making

every minute productive while astronauts explored the lunar surface.
Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin had a single “page” made of space suit
material and placed directly on the left arms of their space suits, listing their
surface activities. This was adequate for a single 2 ½ hour EVA, but the
flights starting with Apollo 12 planned for at least 2 separate EVAs lasting
at least 4 hours each. With the lunar rover flights of Apollos 15, 16, and
17, the exploration times were extended to 7 hours and 3 EVAs. In order
to make certain the lunar explorers did not overlook planned tasks, spiralbound
cuff checklists were created to provide a detailed script of each
task or activity. This put all the complex procedural steps of an EVA at the
astronaut’s fingertips. Young and Duke each had two individual cuff check
lists for this mission, one for EVA 1 with the ALSEP deployment, and the
present checklist for EVAs 2 and 3, which focuses on the true exploration
and sample-gathering objectives.
The cover of the present checklist features a black and white Apollo 16
crew emblem. The verso has the printed signatures of those who prepared
and approved this checklist, including Charles Duke, and the title “Apollo
16 EVA 2 & 3, Lunar Surface Cuff Checklist LMP.” A date of 3/20/72 and
LMP ascending page numbers are printed in the inner margin. Eleven and
a half leaves are devoted to tasks associated with EVA 2. Two leaves cover
steps associated with space suit connections prior to venting the LM’s cabin
atmosphere. That venting allowed the front hatch to open and the next
steps of climbing down to the lunar surface. Once the preparations were
completed around the LM and the lunar rover loaded, the crew found
a special drawing on the next leaf. It features a drooling space-suited
astronaut melting away in the arms of a buxom nude woman. The astronaut
says: “Happy Birthday Whatever Your Name Is.” This gag illustration
continues the tradition started on Apollo 12 with the cuff checklists that
had small images of Playboy pinups and Snoopy cartoons. These gags were
master-minded by devious back-up and support crew members.
The next six leaves list the activities for lunar sites 4 through 10. These
were called “Station Stops” and the checklist pages have plans of
craters, placement positions for the rover, and suggested areas to take
panoramic photography. Tasks listed include taking core samples, scientific
measurements, and notes for geologic observations. Station 4 was located
about one mile south of the LM on the slopes of Stone Mountain, and
marked the highest point reached during their explorations. Stations 5 and
6 were located along craters at the base of Stone Mountain, with material
that landed after the creation of nearby South Ray Crater. Station 7 was
dropped as a stop to continue on to Stations 8 and 9, that were either on
or very close to a bright ray from South Ray Crater. Station 10 was very
close to the LM and was followed by activities to stow collection samples.
This is listed on three additional pages (one and a half leaves).
EVA 3 begins with a full 2-page spread reviewing procedures and objectives
for sampling lunar rocks and boulders. Three more leaves have the steps
similar to the beginning of EVA 2. Six and a half leaves describe tasks
planned for Stations 11 through 17. Due to time constraints related to the
delayed landing, Young and Duke only explored the areas at Stations 11
and 13. Station 11 was at the very edge of North Ray Crater and was the
greatest distance from the Lunar Module. At a boulder the crew called
“House Rock” (due to its large size), Young took several pictures while
Duke took samples. In those pictures, this checklist opened to the Station
11 pages can clearly be seen on Duke’s left arm (a photolithograph is
included in the lot). The crew then continued back toward the LM and
stopped at Station 13 where they found a spot to gather lunar soil under
a large boulder that was “permanently shadowed.” This meant that soil
was not exposed to millions of years of solar radiation after the boulder fell
there from a nearby impact. A full page after the last task for Station 13
features the second gag cartoon. It shows Young blocking the view of the
TV camera by hand with a “relieving” look on this face. A caption reads:
“Looks Bad, Feels Good.” Two additional pages cover steps to close out this
final EVA.
As a contingency, a 2-page spread was included at the end of EVA 3
activities listing steps with a diagram for the first lunar “Grand Prix.” In
case this test was unable to be done in the original plan for EVA 1, a backup
period was set within the EVA 3 timeline. The “Grand Prix” involved
Young driving the lunar rover at the highest speeds possible with Duke
recording the sprint with a 16mm motion picture camera. Part of the
objective was to have a visual record of how the rover bounced around and
the amount of lunar dust kicked up by the wheels. This was actually done
during EVA 1, thus not required at the end of EVA 3.
The final six leaves list trouble-shooting steps for eleven possible EMU
malfunctions such as activation problems or loss of voice communications.
Accompanied by a Typed Letter Signed by Back-up Commander Fred W.
Haise, which reads in part: “This Apollo 16 ‘Cuff Checklist’ was presented
to me by the crew of Apollo 16 as a thank-you for the role I played as the
back-up Commander for this flight. Charlie Duke wore this checklist outside
on the lunar surface during the last two exploration periods of Apollo 16,
known as EVA 2 and EVA 3. It was exposed directly to the airless lunar
environment for over 12 hours and spent approximately 71 total hours on
the moon during April 20 to 23, 1972.”
$200,000 – 300,000

BOGGLE

image9.jpg

EARLY SPACE STATION MODEL.
Model of a prototype Space Station, composites, metal and decals, 20
inches tall. Comprises an Attitude Control Module at the base with four
sets of “quad” attitude control thrusters. This module is attached to a
Docking Port Assembly with two CSM’s attached (up to four CSM’s could
dock at one time). A Saturn-type upper stage is attached to the docking
area and tapers to a point. All sections removable and mounted to a
circular wooden base.
$3,000 – 5,000

image10.jpg

LOCKHEED SPACE STATION MODEL.
Model of a Lockheed “Y”-design Earth-orbiting space station, painted
wood and plastic, 7 inches tall with a 5-inch diameter base. Comprises
a circular base representing the Earth and a 6-inch clear plastic “vector
tower” from which the space station model is suspended. A magnet in
the base holds the station ‘above’ the surface of the Earth. A small metal
Lockheed logo is on the base. The NASA emblem is on the vector tower
and the station.
This station was designed circa 1964. It would rotate in Earth’s orbit to
provide artificial gravity for the crew. Gravity would increase as crew
members moved down the levels inside each of the “arms.” The central
hub provided a pressurized area for zero-G experiments.
$1,000 – 1,500

image11.jpg

APOLLO SOYUZ MODEL.
Model of the American Apollo CSM and Russian Soyuz, by Pacific
Miniatures of Alhambra, CA, wood and painted metal, 17 inches long
assembled. The two vehicles are connected by a black Docking Module
(DM) which provided a functional docking port for each spacecraft. The
entire model is mounted above a 7-inch oval wood base with a plaque
reading: “Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, Scale 1/50, Space Division, Rockwell
International.”
$3,000 – 5,000

image12.jpg

ROCKWELL-GENERAL DYNAMICS SPACE SHUTTLES MODEL.
A large and impressive model set by Rockwell and General Dynamics,
composite material, metal, and wood. Features a pair of shuttle orbiters
each designed to use a common booster vehicle. The booster, 15 inches
tall, is mounted vertically at the center rear of a wood display stand. It has
12 silver rocket engines at the rear, a large V-tail stabilizer, and detailed
paint and decal markings. The straight-wing orbiter, 11 inches long,
and the delta-wing orbiter, 10 ½ inches long, each have two rear rocket
engines. Both have detailed paint and decal markings. Tthe landing gear of
each is permanently mounted to the base, though each can alternatively
be lifted from metal pegs on the landing gear and mounted to the booster
vehicle. A large metal plaque on base reads: “Space Shuttle – North
American Rockwell Space Division – General Dynamics Convair Division.”
Smaller plaques alongside read: “Limited Cross Range Orbiter,” “Maximum
Cross Range Orbiter.”
The designs for these vehicles were released by these contractors during
November 1970, in response to NASA’s Phase B Integral Launch and
Re-entry Vehicle competition. Included is a NASA photograph of Dr.
Maxime Faget at his JSC office area holding the booster component of the
present model. Both orbiters and the large wood base can be seen on a
table in the background.
$7,000 – 9,000

image13.jpg

SPACE SHUTTLE REUSABLE ENGINES PROTOTYPE.
Prototype model displaying reusable engines for the Space Shuttle, made
by Technical Services Division, MSC, Houston, TX, plastic, metal and
decals, comprising a 9 inch wide aft end of an orbiter alongside a 5½ inch
diameter external tank, mounted onto a 13 by 9 inch wood base. With
original 15 by 9 by 10 inch wood carrying case.
There are four modified Apollo J-2 rocket engines attached to the base of
the external tank. Hinged arms allow these four engines to be moved and
mated to the orbiter section. There is a removable interstage ring attached
to the external tank. The inside lid of the carrying case has a series of scale
drawings titled: “Orbiter Configuration 040B and External Tanks. MSC-SDD
– Oct. 12, 1971.” A side view shows how the orbiter and external tank are
located above a booster vehicle. Additional side and aft drawings show the
translation of the rocket engines from the external tank to the orbiter. The
case lid bears a NASA meatball logo.
A new propulsion concept by Maxime Faget. This design allowed for
the engines to be reused after removal from the external tank or to be
jettisoned reducing weight during an ascent abort. The design was never
implemented for a shuttle flight vehicle, but it was patented in December
1975 by Dr. Faget, W. Petynia, and W. Taub. A copy of this patent is
included with the model.
$5,000 – 7,000

image14.jpg

SPACE SHUTTLE CONCEPT.
Model of a concept Space Shuttle, designed by McDonnell Douglas, plastic,
metal and decals. Comprises a booster, 10 inches long, and a delta-winged
orbiter, 6 inches long. The orbiter is separable from the booster section.
The two parts slot onto pins above a wooden base with a plaque reading:
“McDonnell Douglas Space Shuttle, McDonnell Douglas Astronautics
Company.”
This particular concept was one of the many industry designs responding
to a 1970 NASA Phase B competition for an integrated launch and re-entry
vehicle, commonly called a space shuttle. The entire vehicle would be
launched vertically with the larger booster section returning to a runway
landing for reuse. The orbiter section would continue into earth orbit
and perform a gliding re-entry and runway landing once the mission was
completed. Presented to Dr. Faget during the early 1970’s.
$2,000 – 3,000

I can’t afford any of this stuff.


Now, if any kind reader of the Unwanted Blog wants to procure these items and donate them to me… why, I’d *swear* to make a good faith effort to not be rude to you for, oh, at least a week.

 Posted by at 6:00 pm
Jun 092009
 

I create a great many three-view drawings using CAD programs for Aerospace Projects Review and other efforts. Many books produce new three-views rather than showing the original drawings. The reasons for this are many, but some of the most important include:

  • New drawings can be much clearer than the originals
  • New drawings can “repair” damaged drawings
  • New drawings can be conveniently put into a constant scale
  • New drawings on occasion avoid certain copyright issues

However, when the original drawing is not shown, it is difficult, if not impossible, for the reader to determine just how accurate that new drawing may be. Often, especially in the case of “Luftwaffe, 1946” books, the drawings are based on scant description at best, and can often be described as pure invention on the part of the draftsman. But without further information, that is not known to the reader. As a result, many designs that can be safely described as inaccurate nonsense gain cache as “real.” This is a particular annoyance to me, and one I don’t wish to contribute to. Consequently, all drawings I create for APR will have an indication of the “reliability” of the drawing, through a simple grading system, 1 through 6.

  • A “source grade” of 1 indicates that the drawing is a provisional reconstruction, based on text description, not actual drawings.
  • A “source grade” of 2 indicates that the source drawing is at best crude, often a notional design with just a sketch. Alternatively, the source image is an isometric or perspective artists impression rather than orthogonal drawings.
  • A “source grade” of 3 indicates that the source drawings are serviceable but simple.
  • A “source grade” of 4 indicates that the source drawings were clear, but the design was not entirely detailed.
  • A “source grade” of 5 indicates that the source material was detailed, clear and unimpeachable.
  • And finally, a “source grade of 6 indicates that the drawing presented is the actual source drawing, not a reconstruction. A grade 6 drawing can thus run the gamut from blurry to crystal clear, from spartan to detailed.

In consultation with several other authors (including Dennis R. Jenkins, author of “Hypersonic The Story of the North American X-15” and “Space Shuttle, The History of the National Space Transportation System,” and Robert Godwin, editor of Apogee Books’ “NASA MissionReports”), this system has been refined, and changed somewhat from when I first used it in “US Bomber Projects Preview.” Grade six has been added, and instead of text describing the source grade, a standardized graphic has been created. A numeral, one through six, inside a circle inscribed within a square will be added to the drawing, either within the body of the art itself, or at the end of the caption (in APR, the source grades are located at the end of the captions). The intent is to be clear yet unobtrusive.

In short, the source grade is a measure of how much you can trust the drawings you’re looking at.

grades.gif

Here are some examples, showing the original source and what the grade would be for a reconstruction based on it.

—————

grade-1-example.gif
A reconstruction based on a pure text description rates a 1: grade-1x.gif

————
grade-2-example.gif

A reconstruction based on an artists impression to create a 3-view rates a 2: grade-2x.gif

grade-2a-example.gif
A reconstruction based on a very crude 3-view also rates a 2: grade-2x.gif

————

grade-3-example.gif
A reconstruction based on a very simple, but basically accurate, 3-view rates a 3: grade-3x.gif

————

grade-4-example.gif
A reconstruction based on a clear 3-view rates a 4: grade-4x.gif

————
grade-5-example.gif
A reconstruction based on a “perfect” drawing rates a 5: grade-5x.gif

————

grade-6-example.jpg
And of course, if the actual original drawing is presented, that – no matter what the quality or detail of the drawing – rates a source grade of 6: grade-6x.gif

————

 Posted by at 9:04 pm
May 312009
 

Fine. The “Big Ass Hole In The Ground” award has to go to nature for this one:

2009-05-31-pano-1.jpg

Oh, and a question for any European or Asian tourists-in-America who may be reading this blog:

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?

Over the years I have noticed an odd quirk among Asian tourists (presumption has always been Japanese, but I cannot confirm that) that I have recently also noticed in a great many European tourists (most notably German, or at least German-speaking) tourists: the elevator or bus door opens, and those *outside* rush to get *inside.* This is not only rude, it’s fricken’ stupid. The people inside need to be let out first, otherwise there is a needless “traffic jam” within that confined space.

This happened again today, on a shuttle bus at the Grand Canyon – a shuttle bus which spends several minutes stopped dead at each stop. Bus stops, and two scrawny German-speaking dorks rush onboard, and tried to shove their way past me. Now, y’all know I’m an even-tempered, peace-lovin’ kinda guy, but this annoyed the hell out of me, especially since one of my party is a cripple (yes, that’s right ya bastards, a cripple. Not handicapped, not handicapable, not physically challenged… the cripple in question self-references as a cripple, so if that offends, feel free to bend over, pucker up and bite my shiny metal ass) and needs a little extra time and space to exit the bus. Consequently I stuffed them into a small corner, making it clear that they did not have the right of way. Granola-gnawing vegan Euro-hipster stick figures cannot easily shove their way past an annoyed American carnivore on the upper end of the bell curve in terms of height, weight, width and stubborn-ness. Sure, they gave me dirty looks, but like the UN, that’s about all they were capable of.
So what this hell is it? Is it a common cultural thing to rush onboard a bus that’s not going to leave for five fargin’ minutes, or am I just running into (and over – but that’s another story of high hilarity, elevators, small Japanese tourists and demonstrations of momentum and the advantages of mass) a particularly annoying breed of lame-ass tourist?

So, here’s my little bit of advice if yer planning on visiting the US: calm the hell down. The bus ain’t gonna leave without you.

NOTE: I have no doubt that Americans similarly make asses of themselves while touristing overseas. I’ve seen “European Vacation” and watched Obama in action.

 Posted by at 11:35 pm
Apr 192009
 

No, not Paris Hilton.

UPDATE: More photos here.

Today I went to Sandy, Utah to check out the gun show. Sold off a little-used rifle, but managed to not buy anything (fairly easy to do, actually, since the few ammo dealers were getting mobbed, and the vast bulk of the Interesting Weapons were gone… most dealers had Blah Guns) . Afterwards I decided to go somewhere I hadn’t been before… the Bingham Canyon Mine, the largest man-made excavation in the world.

This was one of those “why haven’t I been here before” visits. It was a lot easier to get to than I’d thought. It was also VASTLY larger than I’d thought. Trust me, photos do NOT put across the immensity of this project. It’s a manmade Grand Canyon.

the-holea.jpg

I took a whole bunch of photos, most of which I need to process yet into proper panoramas. But this image, made from four photos, might help get across the immensity of the place. As a handy scale reference… note the little yellow thing down at the bottom near some of the truly ginormous dump trucks.

See it?

therenotthere.jpg

Haha, school bus.

nottherethere.jpg

This is one of those places that leads to a feeling that This Is What Men Can Do. Rather than being the plaything of nature, Man made nature his bitch, and created a true wonder. Only once before have I been given this feeling up close and personal… in 2005 on a business trip for ATK, I got a guided tour of the VAB at Kennedy Space Center. My timing was fortuitous on that day… the Shuttle Discovery was fully stacked within the VAB, and I got to ride the elevator up to the 16th level and look right in the windows… and look straight down the boosters and the tank. THAT will inspire religious feelings, I guaran-damn-tee. And much to my eternal infinite godsdamned annoyance, they wouldn’t let me take a camera with me.

 Posted by at 1:07 am
Apr 132009
 

In the 1980’s, the French studied the Hermes spaceplane… sort of the midpoint between the Dyna Soar and the Space Shuttle. It took them substantially longer than a decade to figure out that a reusable payload shroud is not that great of an idea. But they cranked out some spiffy artwork in the meantime. The art below came from a variety of magazine/journal articles, scanned quite a few years ago.

hermesart10c-aerospatiale.jpg hermesart11c-aerospatiale.jpg

image8cgf.jpg

image10.jpg

image10zxcfgh.jpg

hermesart12a.jpg

hermesartkey.jpg

key.gif

 Posted by at 11:08 am