SunlitZelkova Posted March 8, 2022 Share Posted March 8, 2022 Saenger, which was basically a German Spiral. It would have had an uncrewed and crewed variant, the latter of which competed with Hermes for a short time in the late 80s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saenger_(spacecraft) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted March 25, 2022 Share Posted March 25, 2022 https://space.nss.org/lunar-base-studies-1992-first-lunar-outpost-flo/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted April 13, 2022 Share Posted April 13, 2022 This site is great https://e05.code.blog/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted April 20, 2022 Share Posted April 20, 2022 (edited) Spoiler https://www.flickr.com/photos/x-ray_delta_one Various retro-futuristic pictures. Edited April 20, 2022 by kerbiloid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDE Posted April 21, 2022 Share Posted April 21, 2022 20 hours ago, kerbiloid said: Hide contents https://www.flickr.com/photos/x-ray_delta_one Various retro-futuristic pictures. When it's WWII already, but you're still thinking 1914. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted April 21, 2022 Share Posted April 21, 2022 26 minutes ago, DDE said: When it's WWII already, but you're still thinking 1914. But the propellers are coaxial. Not classic, not synchronized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 https://www.aiaa.org/docs/default-source/uploadedfiles/about-aiaa/history-and-heritage/shuttlevariationsfinalaiaa.pdf?sfvrsn=b8875e90_0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted May 20, 2022 Share Posted May 20, 2022 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beccab Posted May 21, 2022 Share Posted May 21, 2022 Honestly I'm not even sure where to post it, but I just found it and just... what the hell Boeing report on the Space Transfer Vehicle, came out in april 1991 so it's kinda related to the SEI but a lot more under the radar afaik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted May 21, 2022 Share Posted May 21, 2022 The problem is that as "real" companies that have stockholders, and need to actually make money, such projects require an entity to write the checks. So they came up with some epic ideas, but those ideas are sales pitches to NASA. No check written, no epic spacecraft. It takes a company that doesn't actually exist to make money to do anything epic short of a national goal set such that they are free with the checkbook because there is not really a business case for super heavy lift (much less a case for frequent super heavy lift). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beccab Posted May 21, 2022 Share Posted May 21, 2022 (edited) 4 minutes ago, tater said: The problem is that as "real" companies that have stockholders, and need to actually make money, such projects require an entity to write the checks. So they came up with some epic ideas, but those ideas are sales pitches to NASA. No check written, no epic spacecraft. It takes a company that doesn't actually exist to make money to do anything epic short of a national goal set such that they are free with the checkbook because there is not really a business case for super heavy lift (much less a case for frequent super heavy lift). It also seems to have taken a long time, coming out a year after the Augustine committee was formed - meaning it had lost every reason to exist long before being finished. Seeing how little sense the concept with the Shuttle makes (I think that the engine shroud even clips with the wing of the orbiter), perhaps it was added in a last attempt to make at least one part of this study survive Edited May 21, 2022 by Beccab Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted May 21, 2022 Share Posted May 21, 2022 (edited) Could be. All the "old space" companies had, and have some brilliant engineers. These are the same entities that sent humans to the Moon, after all. The cash flow to bootstrap stuff like we see in this thread just never happened. I say bootstrap because I think there is a nonzero probability that once started, cheap heavy lift might actually create new markets, in which case it could become self-sustaining. Edited May 21, 2022 by tater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted May 21, 2022 Share Posted May 21, 2022 On 4/14/2022 at 12:34 AM, tater said: This site is great https://e05.code.blog/ What it is. Could not find it on the site, guess its for an Mars mission as you have an four deck living quarter in the rocket and one large and some small cones, assume the large is the lander and accent module and the smaller ones are for cargo to the surface? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beccab Posted May 21, 2022 Share Posted May 21, 2022 7 minutes ago, magnemoe said: What it is. Could not find it on the site, guess its for an Mars mission as you have an four deck living quarter in the rocket and one large and some small cones, assume the large is the lander and accent module and the smaller ones are for cargo to the surface? Integrated Program Plan mars mission, with the living quarters S-IVB sized and the nuclear shuttle attached being S-II sized - the smaller landers are sample return probes to analyze the terrain before putting humans on the surface, giving that this was studied in 1969/1970. I recreated it in the BDB thread some time ago Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beccab Posted May 22, 2022 Share Posted May 22, 2022 (edited) On 5/21/2022 at 4:06 PM, Beccab said: Honestly I'm not even sure where to post it, but I just found it and just... what the hell Boeing report on the Space Transfer Vehicle, came out in april 1991 so it's kinda related to the SEI but a lot more under the radar afaik In another report I've found a few other gems that also use this rocket, all of which tend to indicate that a very low number of people was working on the report sober. How the hell did this become an 800+ pages long NTRS report? Edited May 22, 2022 by Beccab Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunlitZelkova Posted May 24, 2022 Share Posted May 24, 2022 (edited) Behold Lunar Gateway's granddad, the Orbiting Lunar Station. It would have been built by North American, launched on a Saturn INT-21, then ferried to the Moon by a Reusable Nuclear Shuttle. Launch would be in 1983 and it would be active for 10 years. It would reside in a circular polar orbit at an altitude of 60 nautical miles. It was a research, observation, and command station, not a ferry point for the lunar base. Image source- https://falsesteps.wordpress.com/2016/08/13/ols-the-orbiting-lunar-station/ Original summary of the final report- https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19710015273/downloads/19710015273.pdf Note that all of the information in it was compiled and researched prior to Apollo 13, so it was assumed flight rates would be far higher and lunar flights would become "routine". Interestingly, the very end of the report mentions halo orbits- Quote The work of Dr. R.W. Farquhar of the Goddard Space Flight Center has indicated several potential uses of the unique characteristics associated with the libration point on the earth-moon centerline that is beyond the moon (L2). Recognizing the problems and limitations of placing elements at L2 or attempting to maintain an element offset from L2, Dr Farquhar has proposed orbiting this point in a halo orbit that is sufficient to provide continuous line-of-sight communications with earth. As mentioned previously in this report, this technique appears very attractive as a means to provide continuous communications capability with any point on the lunar surface via an earth link. Additional analyses including this technique are required to define the preferred lunar data relay satellite concept. In NASA GSFC report X-551-70-449, December 1970, Dr. Farquhar further expanded the utilization of the halo orbit concept to provide a staging point for lunar logistics operations. Using his lunar flyby technique (use of the moon's gravitational force to assist in the retro maneuver of the cislunar shuttle) a preliminary analysis of just the affect on the payloads of the RNS shuttle model used in this study indicated that the usable payload in lunar orbit per RNS flight could be as high as 204,100 pounds, which is more than sufficient for two surface sorties per RNS resupply. The conventional TEI-LO1 approach with the RNS delivered 161,500 pounds to lunar orbit permitting only one tug surface sortie per RNS resupply flight. It is recommended that additional studies including operational considerations and optimization of shuttle vehicles be conducted on the lunar resupply concept of using the L2 halo orbit as a staging point. The top paragraph refers to putting a communications relay into such an orbit. The OLS itself was to remain in polar LLO. The second paragraph mentions its use for the RNS arriving at a halo orbit, not the OLS. The RNS would carry Space Tugs which would then fly on their own using conventional rocket engines to reach the OLS with cargo or land on the surface to resupply the base. And curiously on page 13, regarding OLS orbit selection... Quote The circular orbit was selected for the OLS. No advantage for eccentric orbit was uncovered and a number of disadvantages were identified. It should be noted that safety considerations, including providing options for some sort of escape craft, were factored into the whole OLS study. EDIT- note that this is a contractor report, so it's not like NASA "should have known better" per say. Edited May 24, 2022 by SunlitZelkova Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted June 1, 2022 Share Posted June 1, 2022 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted June 2, 2022 Share Posted June 2, 2022 Proper Starlink. https://archive.org/details/missilesrockets6196unse/page/n67/mode/2up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beccab Posted June 11, 2022 Share Posted June 11, 2022 (edited) Found something interesting on NTRS:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19730003145/downloads/19730003145.pdf According to this study, all of the four initially proposed Phase B fully reusable Space Shuttles once refueled in orbit had more than enough fuel to make a TLI, enter lunar orbit, do stuff and return (but only with a direct lunar return, no LEO insertion was possible without aerobraking 4-5 times) - and all of this without additional fuel in the payload bay, but only in the main orbiter tanks. In this context it was studied as a possible method to rescue a crew stranded in lunar or geosynchronous orbit, and it was found to be fully feasible for that purpose Edited June 11, 2022 by Beccab Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDE Posted June 13, 2022 Share Posted June 13, 2022 On 6/11/2022 at 10:00 PM, Beccab said: (but only with a direct lunar return, no LEO insertion was possible without aerobraking 4-5 times) Would they even survive that, though? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted June 13, 2022 Share Posted June 13, 2022 21 minutes ago, DDE said: Would they even survive that, though? Spoiler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted June 17, 2022 Share Posted June 17, 2022 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDE Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 On 6/18/2022 at 2:58 AM, tater said: Another one for the Real-Life Untitled Spaceships. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wumpus Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 I suspect it would be easier to get 4 AJ-260s (roughly equal thrust) all firing at once vs. 16 F1s. Don't ask about the next stage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunlitZelkova Posted June 22, 2022 Share Posted June 22, 2022 (edited) 20 hours ago, DDE said: Another one for the Real-Life Untitled Spaceships. In case anyone does want to give a name though, Saturn VB and Saturn VC, and presumably a continuation down the alphabet would be likely designations if it was built (like how there is a Saturn I and Saturn IB). Saturn VB and Saturn VC were actually discussed in NASA planning documents when they thought development would continue. Edited June 22, 2022 by SunlitZelkova Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.