Proposed versions of spacecraft that were (or weren't) made.

[SSgt Baloo]

Everybody has their favorites, and mine are weird ones that were proposed, but weren't made, for whatever reason. Share images or links to articles about any "neat" or interesting spaceplane or spacecraft (or airplane) proposal that strikes you as interesting.

I never knew there were so many different proposals for the X-15 program until I stumbled across this article.

Just a few pictures here (more at the above link). 

Short article about the X-15 "Navaho" here: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/navhox15.htm

Another article about the X-15B: http://news.discovery.com/space/history-of-space/the-x-15b-the-spaceplane-that-wasnt-130510.htm

 

Just an unrelated article that cropped up while I was looking for X-15 prototypes: Yuri Gagarin's Spaceplane Quest.

[todofwar]

Always thought this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fly-back_booster was worth a second look. Basically, slap some wings and engines on your boosters so they fly themselves back when they're done. I actually got this to work using the FMRS mod in Kerbal. 

[sevenperforce]

5 minutes ago, todofwar said:

Always thought this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fly-back_booster was worth a second look. Basically, slap some wings and engines on your boosters so they fly themselves back when they're done. I actually got this to work using the FMRS mod in Kerbal. 

This is basically what I expected to see:

"The thing that shocked me was that at the beginning, this reusable flyback booster was just a cylinder with engines and little wings, just a turbo fan in the back. And three years later these were complete Airbuses in terms of size with four engines in each of them."

Your designs really really burgeon.

[fredinno]

20 minutes ago, todofwar said:

Always thought this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fly-back_booster was worth a second look. Basically, slap some wings and engines on your boosters so they fly themselves back when they're done. I actually got this to work using the FMRS mod in Kerbal. 

It's more complex than that. The very fact you need wings and jet engines increases cost and complexity enormously. It's not simple.

[todofwar]

3 hours ago, fredinno said:

It's more complex than that. The very fact you need wings and jet engines increases cost and complexity enormously. It's not simple.

Of course, hence it was never finished. I actually found this wikipedia page after I made my own, funny enough I accidentally replicated what had already been done. Went from just a couple wings and some light jet engines to, as someone else pointed out, a pair of airbus jets that also happen to have rockets on them. Still, the system I ended up with in Kerbal did work, and saved me tons of money while I built up to SSTO spaceplanes (landing three planes every launch got old fast though). I still think it could work as a fully reusable system IRL, but I happen to like VTHL systems more than VTVL so I might be biased. And the OP did say to point out systems that were or weren't made, this is my favorite of the failed projects I've read about. 

[Spaceception]

The Falcon 5, which was going to be a rocket in between the Falcon 1 and Falcon 9.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_5

[wumpus]

1 hour ago, Spaceception said:

The Falcon 5, which was going to be a rocket in between the Falcon 1 and Falcon 9.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_5

I suspect that Falcon 5 suffered when the Merlin engine could "only" be throttled down to 60% or so.  Coming down with a minimum throttle with a TWR well over 2.0 (anybody know minimum TWR of a landing Falcon9?), it would be much harder to land than a falcon9 (which is what, 1-5?).

This thread needs the Orion.  http://www.amazon.com/Project-Orion-Story-Atomic-Spaceship/dp/0805059857

[max_creative]

42 minutes ago, wumpus said:

This thread needs the Orion.  http://www.amazon.com/Project-Orion-Story-Atomic-Spaceship/dp/0805059857

Yeah that was awesome.

Although it probably would kill everyone within a I-don't-exactly-know-but-it's-really-big radius.

[lobe]

There were some Space Transportation System proposals that should have flown rather than what we got (a bathroom tile covered glider with reusable boosters and a disposable tank). Specifically the Lockheed Starclipper should have been chosen, though it might have also been covered in TPS tiles. Ideally the STS should have been light enough to use a metal skin (titanium or inconel) and phenolic carbon on the hot spots. I also think Dynasoar should have been chosen over Gemini and the X-15B over the Mercury capsule. Then again, I am a planes guy.

[Nibb31]

Let's see. Unflown derivatives of actual spacecraft:

• Gemini: Blue Gemini, Big Gemini
• Saturn V: Saturn N, Nova, Wet Workshop
• Apollo: The entire AAP program (LM Truck, LM Shelter, MOLAB, ATM...)
• Soyuz: LOK, Military Soyuz, etc...

Check out www.astronautix.com. The whole website is dedicated to the more obscure sides of both the US and Russian space programs.

[fredinno]

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

Check out www.astronautix.com. The whole website is dedicated to the more obscure sides of both the US and Russian space programs.

Yeah, I don't really like the site sometimes because it lacks anything on the modern era. Gunter's Space Page does better in that aspect, with articles in literally everything, but also only the basic information of each. I guess every catalogue on space needs to use compromises

 

7 hours ago, Spaceception said:

The Falcon 5, which was going to be a rocket in between the Falcon 1 and Falcon 9.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_5

I think they should revive it, just as a lower cost option for Dragon and LEO sats, or at least a variation of the concept, plus barge reuse.

6 hours ago, wumpus said:

I suspect that Falcon 5 suffered when the Merlin engine could "only" be throttled down to 60% or so.  Coming down with a minimum throttle with a TWR well over 2.0 (anybody know minimum TWR of a landing Falcon9?), it would be much harder to land than a falcon9 (which is what, 1-5?).

This thread needs the Orion.  http://www.amazon.com/Project-Orion-Story-Atomic-Spaceship/dp/0805059857

Well, they *eventually* need to figure out high-speed landings, since FH is probably going to use it (otherwise it needs to expend the core, or have crummy payload capacity for RTLS.)

5 hours ago, max_creative said:

Yeah that was awesome.

Although it probably would kill everyone within a I-don't-exactly-know-but-it's-really-big radius.

Apparently, each launch would kill 1 person.

3 hours ago, lobe said:

There were some Space Transportation System proposals that should have flown rather than what we got (a bathroom tile covered glider with reusable boosters and a disposable tank). Specifically the Lockheed Starclipper should have been chosen, though it might have also been covered in TPS tiles. Ideally the STS should have been light enough to use a metal skin (titanium or inconel) and phenolic carbon on the hot spots. I also think Dynasoar should have been chosen over Gemini and the X-15B over the Mercury capsule. Then again, I am a planes guy.

Starclipper I think would actually have been more safe, Columbia was destroyed due to a hit on the RCC tiles, not the normal heat shield tiles, which could survive holes and reenter safely, as shown by STS-27 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-27

The ET foam would likely hit the RCC at less velocity if it fell, as it is directly below the tank.

And Dyna-Soar should not have been chosen, Gemini's purpose was to be built quickly to demonstrate rendezvous and docking before Apollo did it. And X-15B was a bad idea to replace Mercury since it would not be able to get to orbit (unless it was put on maybe a Saturn or Titan)

 

Edited April 8, 2016 by fredinno

[lobe]

X-15B was meant for orbit, how is it not superior to the Mercury design, other than the way it was to produce the future of spaceflight?

Also, Dynasoar or at least the winged Gemini could still dock with the Agena target vehicle given some mods to it.

Edited April 8, 2016 by lobe

[fredinno]

37 minutes ago, lobe said:

X-15B was meant for orbit, how is it not superior to the Mercury design, other than the way it was to produce the future of spaceflight?

Also, Dynasoar or at least the winged Gemini could still dock with the Agena target vehicle given some mods to it.

It can't be upscaled into Gemini, so as to do the rendezvous and docking missions.

And Dyna-Soar would take too much time to develop anyways. It would be better just to wait for Apollo if that was the only option.

[wumpus]

7 hours ago, lobe said:

X-15B was meant for orbit, how is it not superior to the Mercury design, other than the way it was to produce the future of spaceflight?

Also, Dynasoar or at least the winged Gemini could still dock with the Agena target vehicle given some mods to it.

An expendable vehicle that would take longer to build [and as mentioned,  only one passenger]?  Not better.  I have no idea why they didn't plan on landing the thing.  The three X-15 planes made 199 missions all together (although mostly not into space as the link implies.  Typically they went fast and relatively level).  Maybe they already understood just how rough re-entry would be and didn't plan on upgrading the X-15 to survive it multiple times.

[kerbiloid]

Probably you know this site

https://falsesteps.wordpress.com/

(Better use its "Previous Months" combo-box to navigate.)

Edited April 8, 2016 by kerbiloid

[fredinno]

40 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Probably you know this site

https://falsesteps.wordpress.com/

(Better use its "Previous Months" combo-box to navigate.)

Yeah, I do. Unfortunately, it updates every century nowadays.

[sevenperforce]

10 hours ago, fredinno said:

 

Starclipper I think would actually have been more safe, Columbia was destroyed due to a hit on the RCC tiles, not the normal heat shield tiles, which could survive holes and reenter safely, as shown by STS-27 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-27

 

How have I not seen StarClipper before? That is beautiful. 

More beautiful would be a StarClipper setup, but with an airbreathing VentureStar core and a pair of F9 boosters in place of the ET.

[fredinno]

1 hour ago, sevenperforce said:

How have I not seen StarClipper before? That is beautiful. 

More beautiful would be a StarClipper setup, but with an airbreathing VentureStar core and a pair of F9 boosters in place of the ET.

Inside the starclipper is actually apparently a regular LRB. The StarClipper is just a casing used to reuse the booster, which allows for modifications (but is also heavier)

[sevenperforce]

12 minutes ago, fredinno said:

Inside the starclipper is actually apparently a regular LRB. The StarClipper is just a casing used to reuse the booster, which allows for modifications (but is also heavier)

Then by all means let's replace it with an SSTO-capable airbreathing VentureStar.

[GoSlash27]

15 hours ago, lobe said:

X-15B was meant for orbit, how is it not superior to the Mercury design, other than the way it was to produce the future of spaceflight?

Also, Dynasoar or at least the winged Gemini could still dock with the Agena target vehicle given some mods to it.

lobe,

 Remember, we were in a race with the Russians and wanted to beat them to orbit. The Mercury was our best bet to get an astronaut into space with short development time. The X-15 might have been a technically "better" option, but it would've taken too long to field.

Best,
-Slashy

[todofwar]

Allot of hate for the shuttle here, but it's probably my favorite design that actually flew, and was the workhorse of the space program long after it was supposed to be retired. It remains the only succesful reusable system, and while it demonstrated many flaws with reusability a part of me still thinks we abandoned the basic concept too early. Who knows, maybe a few more iterations on the shuttle would have made it cheaper to refit in between missions. 

[Northstar1989]

Let's not forget THIS baby:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Dragon_%28rocket%29

 

Would have been a great low-cost option for a Mars mission- but too high of a payload capacity for anything much smaller...

 

Regards,

Northstar

[Nothalogh]

I think the X-20 DynaSoar was one of the most promising proposals made

[Nibb31]

24 minutes ago, Nothalogh said:

I think the X-20 DynaSoar was one of the most promising proposals made

Not really. It was just a winged capsule that weighed much more than a conventional capsule. As a result, it launched on top of an expendable rocket that was much larger than it needed to be. It also had no actual operational capability (like docking, crew transfer, EVA, etc...).

[Nothalogh]

10 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Not really. It was just a winged capsule that weighed much more than a conventional capsule. As a result, it launched on top of an expendable rocket that was much larger than it needed to be. It also had no actual operational capability (like docking, crew transfer, EVA, etc...).

You know that the design proposal included crew transfer and docking as part of further development, right? 

The initial X-20, was a mercury analogue, further development would have matched and likely exceeded  Gemini and Apollo. 

If Dyna Soar had been done, we'd have never had to mess with the absolute silliness of the Shuttle trying to be both crew transfer and a cargo lifter at once.

And before you say it was an unworkable design, the USAF is running the X-37B, which is basically the Dyna Soar reborn. 

Edited April 9, 2016 by Nothalogh