Search Results : shuttle

Jan 232009
 

Lots of people have Hope for Change and believe that an attitude of Yes We Can is all that’s really needed for the future to become a bright sunshiny day filled with daisies and puppies and low-cost, high quality smack.
History, however, is replete with examples of grand visions that fell flat because of either an insufficient understanding of the complexity of the issues… or because of con jobs. Take, for example, the Space Shuttle. While it remains a remarkable example of engineering, it is not what it was sold as. It was supposed to be dirt cheap ($25 million per flight in early-’70’s money), and easy to maintain. Two weeks sitting in a hangars, with some greasemonkeys tinking with it, and it’ll be good to go. No sweat, no problem. See how easy it will be:shuttle-vision.jpg

But the reality turned out to be just a little more costly, complicated and time consuming. Instead of weeks, months to years. Instead of a basic facility, a complex single-function facility. Instead of a few techs, a standing army. Instead of low cost, half a billion dollars a pop.
shuttle-reality.jpg

This sort of thing should be a lesson for those selling massive government bailouts… or indeed any government program whatsoever. But somehow these lessons never sink in.

 Posted by at 3:09 pm
Dec 312008
 

Columbia Crew Survival Investigation Report (16.2 MB PDF)

Details of the conditions of the astronauts bodies are redacted. This is both to be expected… and wholly appropriate. Those who *need* to know, know. The last thing the familes – and familes of *other* astronauts – need is to see such photos plastered all over by the scumbag media.

Still, a few bits of extreme disturbishment are present. Such as this paragraph describing the conditions of the crews helmets, from page 3-53:

The hold-down cables on each neck ring were severed at the attach points to the cable guide tubes due to
mechanical overload (figure 3.2-24). Most cable guide tubes experienced significant plastic deformation.
The guide tubes display evidence of external contaminants (i.e., melted metal and suit material) and thermal
effects on top of the fractures and localized deformation. This indicates that mechanical loading preceded
exposure to the thermal environment. Rotation of the helmet relative to the normal forward position was
observed on all neck rings varying from 90 to 180 degrees. Major cable guide tube deformation and
helmet rotation indicates that a significant loading event occurred where helmets were removed via
a mechanical (nonthermal) mechanism.

The translation here: something happened *before* the crew were tossed out of the exploding spacecraft into the hypersonic airstream. That something was so bad that it caused helmets to be yanked from 90 to 180 degrees around, and ripped off the space suits.

Draw your own conclusions as to what happened to the crew subjected to forces like that.

One conclusion that can be drawn here is that an escape capsule, no matter how well designed, no matter how automatic, would not ahve done a damned bit of good here. If the forces involved – I’m guessing here, but I’m thinking sudden rotation and decelleration as the Shuttle wing snapped off – are so hard and so fast that they would actually rip helmets from suits, there’s *no* way to survive.

Space is dangerous. This should not be forgotten.

 Posted by at 1:50 am
Dec 182008
 

As mentioned previously, I’ve uploaded seven new space documents. I’ve now also updated the Up-Ship.com website with full details. You can now order:
1) Advanced Saturn/Apollo Missions
2) Douglas ASTRO 2-stage RLV
3) Goodyears phenomenal METEOR space “city”
4) 260-inch solid rocket plans
5) Titan III-C9 “MOL” launch details
6) Martin Mariettas “Aft Cargo Carrier” for the Shuttle
7) Apollo Laboratory Module – sort of a MOL for Apollo

I am also putting six space drawing sets (the Shuttle, Titan and Saturn launch vehicle diagrams) on sale as a bundle, for half price!

http://www.up-ship.com/drawndoc/drawndocsale.htm

     

 Posted by at 2:30 pm
Dec 172008
 

I’ve uploaded the next seven space documents to their password-protected sites, but have not yet updated the up-ship.com/blog webpage to describe them. For some reason, I always drag my feet at this stage. So until I get the individual document descriptions written and uploaded, I am making the seven documents available as a bundle at a lower price. Added together, the total price of the individual documents will be more than $40… but until I get the pages uploaded – a day or so, shouldn’t be much longer – you can have the whole set for $36. I’ll keep it a mystery for the moment exacty what the set contains… but if you like Apollo, MOL, Titan, Saturn, Shuttle derivatives, reusable launchers and phenomenally forward/gigantic-thinking plans for space development, you’ll like this set. See this page for ordering…

 Posted by at 4:24 am
Dec 102008
 

Fantastic Plastic has just released a model kit that I made the master parts for: the Lenticular ReEntry Vehicle. This is a 1/72 scale resin replica of a 1962 North American Aviation concept for a disk-shaped “space bomber.”

The model comes with a detailed weapons bay, four bombs and the little “shuttlepod” that was to be used to transport the bombs out of the weapons bay and either onto the outer surface of the bomber or to a separate orbiting weapons depot.

 

lent.jpg

 Posted by at 2:41 pm
Nov 262008
 

A few years back I went ona  business trip to Kennedy Space Center. While there I got a behind-the-scenes tour of some of the less-seen spots of aerospace interest. By far the most impressive was a tour of the Vehicle Assembly Building… which was all the moe impressive due to the fact that the Shuttle (Discovery, IIRC) was not only inside, but was fully stacked. Got to go up to the 16th level and look right in the windows. Sadly, they disallowed cameras (grumble, grumble…).

abandoninplace.jpg

Another spot I saw was the Apollo 1 launch table. This is a forelorn bit of concrete architecture out seemingly in the middle of nowhere; it’s difficult to imagine that at one time an entire launch complex was located here. Something I wanted to make damned sure I got a photo of was the stencilled “Abandon in Place” notice… which I got.

pdr_0193.JPG  pdr_0194.jpg  pdr_0196.JPG

.

.

These photos and more are available at full resolution in the “Kennedy Space Center/USAF Missile Museum” photo set which you can find here:

http://www.up-ship.com/drawndoc/drawndocphotos.htm 

 Posted by at 8:35 am
Oct 062008
 

A year ago I visited the Bell archives in Niagara, NY. Sadly, my scanner crapped out, so all I had available to me was my camera… better than nothing, but not optimal. Anyway, I found some PR art – paintings and a display model – of a two-stage passenger transport… a turboramjet powered first stage with a rocket powered second stage. Dating from 1960, this concept clearly had some relationship to the earlier BoMi studies (especially Dornbergers passenger transport version), while the second stage was presciently similar to the Dyna Soar and Space Shuttle.

img_1517.jpg img_1518.jpg img_1520.jpg img_1697.jpg img_1701.jpg img_1702.jpg img_1703.jpg

And a few weeks ago I came across a Bell press release describing the concept:

hst1.gif hst2.gif hst3.gif hst4.gif image6.gif image8.gif

And from Jay Miller’s archives comes a photo of the display model from a different angle.

image102.jpg

 Posted by at 9:22 pm
Sep 032008
 

The first job I had that lasted more than a blink of an eye (my first “real” job got yanked out from under me at Orbital Sciences… got hired to work on the X-34B, damn thing got cancelled the week after I got there) was for Pioneer Rocketplane, where I was the first employee (much to the surprise of two of the companies three founders, who had not authorized such a hiring… but hey, there were NASA SBIRs to pay me from, so there ya go).

<> One of the first things I did there was preliminary design of the Pioneer “Pathfinder” suborbital spaceplane. The idea was that this aircraft would lift off under turbojet power with full fuel (kerosene) tanks, but an effectively empty liquid oxygen tank (actually carried a small quantity on board in order to pre-chill the LOX tank). It would quickly rendezvous with a tanker aircraft which would then transfer a large qauntity of LOX to the Pathfinder. Pathfinder would then separate from the tanker, fire up its rocket engine, pop above the sensible atmosphere, open cargo bay doors, and toss overboard a satellite with an attached upper stage. Satellite goes to orbit, Pathfinder comes back down for refurb and reflight. Easy!

<> This was the mid/late 1990’s, when every Tom, Dick and Bill Gates was planning on launching constellations of thousands of satellites. Consequently a great need was foreseen for dirt-cheap  space launch, which Pioneer Rocketplane intended to provide. With the collapse of the dot-com boom, and aided immensely by the bizarre behavior of a certain sociopath, Pioneer never got the chance to build the Pathfinder. Pioneer Rocketplane surives, sorta, to this day in the form of Rocketplane Ltd., about which I know almost none at all. Not sure if they’re even really a going concern anymore. Sad.

<> Still, it was my first chance to design stuff For Real.  Pathfinder was a fairly dull design, to be sure… looks a whole lot like the Shuttle. But the propulsion system was not some neato whiz-bang system that required lots of funky vehicle integration; it was two turbojets and a rocket engine. Going bizzarre for the sake of going bizzarre is a tad pointless. To help sell the concept to investors, the company cooked up brochures and the like. And for the brochures, Pioneer had space artist Michael Carroll paint a series of illustrations. Paint. Not render on a computer, but honest-to-Odin paint. I recently found glossies of them, and reproduce them below.

See if you can spot the Babylon 5 reference subtlely hidden within one of them….

pr-1aa.jpg  pr-2aa.jpg  pr-3aa.jpg  pr-4aa.jpg

 Posted by at 7:04 pm
Jul 092008
 

The passenger-carrying versions of Dyna Soar could have attached directly to a space station via either a passageway that ran after through the transition section or througha hatch in the “roof” of the passenger compartment. The aft approach seems to have been preferred due to it’s simpler and more reliable nature (the actual attachement system to the station woudl be left in space, not stuck to the outside of the spaceplane during re-entry. But the passengers could also leave by the simple expedient of opening the roof much like the paylaod bay of the Shuttle. This would be used not so much for normal space station logistics missions, but for repair missions and the like.

image1.jpg

 Posted by at 11:49 pm
Jul 072008
 

A United Technologies concept for a recoverable Titan III SRM. Nothing major needed doing, mostly just the addition of the parachute pack on the nose. This would have added weight and reduced payload performance slightly, but would have permitted recovery of the SRMs. This proposal was very similar to what has actually been done with the Shuttle SRBs; had this program gone ahead, it likely could have flown well before the end of the sixties, and could have informed the Shuttle programs decisions. Either the SRB recovery and reuse procedure would have started out from a smarter and more efficient base… or NASA could have decided on the basis of the Titan III experience that it was just too much of a headache.

The obvious alternative to the recoverable SRM approach would ahve been the flyback booster… like the Boeing 979.

srmrecov.jpg

 Posted by at 9:42 pm