Aug 292019
 

Continuing…

In 1985 Rockwell pondered the business possibility of an “Aft Cargo Carrier” for the Shuttle. This idea, which received a fair amount of study by Martin Marietta, installed a payload shroud to the *rear* of the external tank. Doing this would allow the Shuttle to carry payloads too large in diameter to fit in the Shuttle bay; if the STS system was overall improved, this would allow the vehicle to carry payloads heavier than the Shuttle itself would be allowed to carry (the Orbiter has to *land* with whatever payload might be in the cargo bay; by moving the cargo away from the Orbiter, in an abort situation the orbit can land light and just let the aft payload go into the drink). The cargo carrier has to be insulated from a *lot* of heat, radiant energy coming from the solid and liquid rockets.

A common idea was that the Orbiter would carry some sort of satellite or other payload not capable of much self-propulsion, while an orbital tug would be carried in the ACC. The tug would be fueled with light & fluffy liquid hydrogen, which not only would be challenging to fit into the Orbiter cargo bay, it would also require new fuel line pass-throughs in either the cargo bay doors or the sides of the cargo bay… along with boiloff vents. Much preferable, went the argument, to put the LH2 in an ACC that you could poke whatever holes you want to in.

The configuration of the ACC shown in the sketch is noticeably different from all other ACC designs I’ve seen elsewhere. I don’t know if this is because Rockwell designed a rather ellipsoidal carrier, or the artist just sorta dashed this one out.

Next time: boosting the boosters

Continue reading »

 Posted by at 10:06 pm
Aug 282019
 

Continuing…

In 1985 Rockwell pondered the idea of an unmanned Orbiter. The US did not proceed with that concept, while the Soviets did with their Buran. It was an interesting notion and for the time reasonably advanced tech… but it’s clearly a very silly idea (even more so with Buran). The whole purpose of the Orbiter as compared to any other launch vehicle is to *return* stuff. With the Space Shuttle, the stuff it returned was sometimes payload, always avionics, engines and crew. Making the Orbiter unmanned means… why the hell are you launching a crew cabin? Buran was even worse; it didn’t even bring back the main engines.

 Posted by at 11:05 pm
Aug 262019
 

Continuing…

In 1985 Rockwell suggested stretching the Orbiter to create a 75-foot-long cargo bay in order to carry longer – though clearly not heavier – payloads. Exactly what those payloads might be was not given, but they would presumably be sizable yet relatively light structures… deployable structures such as solar arrays and radar arrays seem not unlikely. Interestingly, the main landing gear were to be moved slightly forward, the nose gear well aft.

Up next: the “hump-backed” Orbiter, with the most amazing shuttle diagram EVAR.

Hey. Hey.

Tips


 

 

 Posted by at 10:04 pm
Aug 192019
 

Continuing. This time, discussion of possibilities of higher thrust SSMEs including the SSME-150 with an extendable nozzle. Once again this would be for increased payload capability, in particular 32,000 pounds to polar orbit from Vandenburg.

Hey. Hey.

Tips


 

 Posted by at 10:05 pm
Aug 182019
 

Continuing. This time, discussion of possibilities of swapping out existing Orbiter structures with graphite composites. The advantage would be lowered dry mass of the Orbiter, leading to potentially higher payload performance. this would, presumably, be of interest for USAF launches from Vandenburg, a possibility that Challenger put to bed.

If this sort of stuff is of interest or use, why not help support the project? A monthly subscription to the APR Monthly Historical Documents Program would not only help support the project, it would also provide you with a monthly package of rare aerospace documents and diagrams.

 




 Posted by at 3:39 am