Jump to content

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

SSgt Baloo

By SSgt Baloo
in Science & Spaceflight

 Share

Recommended Posts

SSgt Baloo

SSgt Baloo

Posted
Posted

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). 

Bell_X-15_design_model_large.jpg

Republic_X-15_design_model_1_large.jpg

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sevenperforce

sevenperforce

Posted
Posted
  On 4/7/2016 at 6:19 PM, 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. 

Expand  

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fredinno

fredinno

Posted
Posted
  On 4/7/2016 at 6:19 PM, 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. 

Expand  

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites
todofwar

todofwar

Posted
Posted
  On 4/7/2016 at 6:41 PM, 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.

Expand  

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wumpus

wumpus

Posted
Posted
  On 4/7/2016 at 11:39 PM, 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

f5v1.jpg

Expand  

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lobe

lobe

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nibb31

Nibb31

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fredinno

fredinno

Posted
Posted (edited)
  On 4/8/2016 at 6:22 AM, 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.

Expand  

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 :P

 

  On 4/7/2016 at 11:39 PM, 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

f5v1.jpg

Expand  

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.

  On 4/8/2016 at 12:51 AM, 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

Expand  

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.)

  On 4/8/2016 at 1:35 AM, 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.

Expand  

Apparently, each launch would kill 1 person.

  On 4/8/2016 at 3:43 AM, 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.

Expand  

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 by fredinno
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lobe

lobe

Posted
Posted (edited)

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 by lobe
Link to comment
Share on other sites
fredinno

fredinno

Posted
Posted
  On 4/8/2016 at 7:44 AM, 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.

Expand  

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wumpus

wumpus

Posted
Posted
  On 4/8/2016 at 7:44 AM, 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.

Expand  

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sevenperforce

sevenperforce

Posted
Posted
  On 4/8/2016 at 7:32 AM, 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

 

Expand  

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fredinno

fredinno

Posted
Posted
  On 4/8/2016 at 6:29 PM, 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.

Expand  

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)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoSlash27

GoSlash27

Posted
Posted
  On 4/8/2016 at 7:44 AM, 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.

Expand  

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites
todofwar

todofwar

Posted
Posted

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nibb31

Nibb31

Posted
Posted
  On 4/9/2016 at 2:46 PM, Nothalogh said:

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

Expand  

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...).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nothalogh

Nothalogh

Posted
Posted (edited)
  On 4/9/2016 at 3:12 PM, 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...).

Expand  

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 by Nothalogh
Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...