Reusable Atlas

A concept that Convair/GD pushed for a while in the 1960's was a
flyback version of the Atlas. The core would be structurally
strengthened, the booster engines would be permanently afixed, wings,
landing gear, jet engines and a cockpit would be added.

Additionally, the Centaur would be repackaged as the propulsion system
for a lifting body "space shuttle." End result would be a fully
reusable space launcher based in part on existing hardware.

I have a GD/Convair report on this concept availabel he:
http://www.up-ship.com/drawndoc/drawndocsale.htm

The booster kinda has a "brontosaurus" look, but the spaceplane is
kinda cute and cuddly.

/dps

snidely wrote:
The booster kinda has a "brontosaurus" look, but the spaceplane is
kinda cute and cuddly.


It's going to take a lot of "reinforcement" to make that booster
capable of taking the heat it's going to encounter as it returns to the
surface after the spaceplane separates.
"Winged Titan" was fairly impressive looking also:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/wintitan.htm

Pat

On May 13, 11:43 pm, snidely wrote:
The booster kinda has a "brontosaurus" look, but the spaceplane is
kinda cute and cuddly.

The space plane looks like the Lunex spacecraft.

Yeah, the booster looks a bit awkward.

(There's another one on the page, the Martin Midget attack plane, that
looks like a jet version of the WW2 BV-40 glider fighter.)


Mike

On May 13, 11:43 pm, snidely wrote:
The booster kinda has a "brontosaurus" look, but the spaceplane is
kinda cute and cuddly.

And another appearance comment: the booster looks like someone at
Convair had a special relationship with the nose of the B-36. The
similarity is remarkable. One wonders why whoever it was didn't go
with the pointed YB-60 nose, which had the same bubble canopy.


Mike

On Wed, 14 May 2008 13:27:38 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On May 13, 11:43 pm, snidely wrote:
The booster kinda has a "brontosaurus" look, but the spaceplane is
kinda cute and cuddly.

The space plane looks like the Lunex spacecraft.

....If you look at about 90% of the lifting body concepts from that
period, they all pretty much resemble the LUNEX/HL-10/M#-F# shape -
ergo, the offpspring of a bathtub and a spade that had the
aerodynamics of a brick that at least managed to learn how to glide.

....As for the other 10%, they all still managed to have some sort of
wing configuration, even the lenticular ones.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

wrote:
The space plane looks like the Lunex spacecraft.

Yeah, the booster looks a bit awkward.

(There's another one on the page, the Martin Midget attack plane, that
looks like a jet version of the WW2 BV-40 glider fighter.)


Yeah, it looks kinda clumsy, but the A-4 Skyhawk showed just how much
attack capability could be packed into a small airframe.
Now, what the Skyhawk needed was that bomb on the end of a cable it
could unreel to destroy pursuing MiG's like the BV-40 had. They wouldn't
have been expecting _that_ over North Vietnam

By the way, I designed the BV-437
nuclear-pulse-jet-powered-forward-swept-asymmetrical-flying-wing-heavy-bomber
....with integral parasite fighter and 800 mm recoilless cannon for
firing botulism shells over NYC, if you want me to send you a jpg or bmp
with its 3-view, specs, and history. :-)

Pat

wrote:
And another appearance comment: the booster looks like someone at
Convair had a special relationship with the nose of the B-36. The
similarity is remarkable. One wonders why whoever it was didn't go
with the pointed YB-60 nose, which had the same bubble canopy.


And you know, you don't need a canopy like that on it... a single pilot
in a X-15 type cockpit will do just fine for flying it back, and would
match the expected descent speed well.

Pat

OM wrote:
...If you look at about 90% of the lifting body concepts from that
period, they all pretty much resemble the LUNEX/HL-10/M#-F# shape -
ergo, the offpspring of a bathtub and a spade that had the
aerodynamics of a brick that at least managed to learn how to glide.


Assuming you don't stall out while gliding in for landing on the runway,
the poor aerodynamics might be an advantage in bleeding off speed during
reentry and landing approach, so you could avoid the speed loss banking
of the Shuttle on the way down.
The X-24B/FDL-7 design was the flip side of that concept; it had
remarkably low hypersonic drag during reentry, and a spectacular
cross-range capability once it was in the upper atmosphere.
(See the drag/cross-range graph in "The Hypersonic Revolution")
Landing speed would have been a lot higher than the Shuttle for a
FDL-7/8 based shuttle orbiter-sized vehicle, but its layout would have
given it great internal volume for its size and overall weight.

Pat

On Thu, 15 May 2008 01:20:59 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote:

By the way, I designed the BV-437
nuclear-pulse-jet-powered-forward-swept-asymmetrical-flying-wing-heavy-bomber
...with integral parasite fighter and 800 mm recoilless cannon for
firing botulism shells over NYC, if you want me to send you a jpg or bmp
with its 3-view, specs, and history. :-)

....You're *still* pushing the botulism payload? Pat, I thought we
talked about this. To the average Noo Yawker, botulism is about as
dangerous as Lite Beer.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[