Space Cruiser Part 1: APR Extra

On 25 Dec 2004 13:52:38 -0800, "
wrote:

There's some stuff there that just doesn't make
sense... like launching the SC into orbit off the back of a 747,
without any additional boosters.

....Hey, it worked for Drax.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

wrote:

Just hit the refresh button,
and you'll be fine.


The updated version showed up the next morning.

That was one of my early sources as well (along with "Warplanes of the
future," IIRC). There's some stuff there that just doesn't make
sense... like launching the SC into orbit off the back of a 747,
without any additional boosters.


Yes, I ran into some of the same stuff- it's very odd, unless they were
trying it as a suborbital test flight, and the artist got mixed up as to
the description of the concept.

Wouldn't even come *close*. However,
the next article will have drawings of the 747/Titan-derived booster
planned for SC, along with the SC/Centaur GEO booster from the Shuttle.


What about the Poseidon missile launched version?

Pat

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 16:26:22 +1300, Kerry Ferrand
wrote:

In article ,
says...
Anyway, thanks for putting that stuff up- I've been wanting to find
out
more about this gizmo since it showed up in the book "Advanced
Technology Warfare" back in 1985.

That was one of my early sources as well (along with "Warplanes of the
future," IIRC). There's some stuff there that just doesn't make
sense... like launching the SC into orbit off the back of a 747,
without any additional boosters. Wouldn't even come *close*. However,
the next article will have drawings of the 747/Titan-derived booster
planned for SC, along with the SC/Centaur GEO booster from the Shuttle.


There was a Lockheed aircraft in both of those books listed as a "Mach
5 methane powered aircraft". Come to think of it the 2nd book I'm
thinking of maybe have been "Future Figters". IIRC it was a smallish
book with a front view of the XFV-12. If we're talking about the
same book do you have any info on the Mach 5 aircraft and the Lockheed
flying aircraft carrrier?

Gosh, sorry for butting into the thread.. I have both "Future Fighters"
(yep its the small one with the XFV-12 front view) and "Warplanes of the
Future" on the shelf right here..were essential reading as a teenager.


Cant recall if I ever saw "Advanced Technology Warfare", although I read
alot of that type of material from the library.
"Warplanes of the Future" was sort of like a large format expansion of
the small book, has alot of different illustrations and more 3-view
drawings..scope is a bit different. Both are by Gunston.


Back in the day Gunston took two stabs at what he thought a stealth
bomber would look like. One was sortof a Vulcan-with-no-fuselage
thing and the other was a rediculous looking thing that appeared to be
about a hundred and sixty feet long with a Concord-like wing, a
V-tail, a funky looking wrap-around-the-fuselage intake and was
supposedly suppose to be powered by two F101s. Were either one of
those in that book? :-) Come to think of it I recall a book about
future aircraft that had some Russian thing with wing-mounted engines
and upsidedown ramp intakes. Those were the days eh? Every couple
months you could go to Waldenbooks and they'd have another Salamander
publication that was full of goodies.

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 12:08:23 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:



Scott Ferrin wrote:


I liked the part about the pilot's head being exposed to space. Like
a space-going WWI biplane.

It needs a big fold-up ring sight like on a WW II anti-aircraft gun.
Come to think of it, it also needs a big anti-aircraft gun; I'm
thinking a 20 MM Vulcan rotary cannon here. With tracer rounds. Range
would be effectively unlimited, if you could figure out the
gravitational deflection of the projectiles...of course, any projectiles
that missed the target would go into strange orbits and be a hazard for
months or years to come....we need a weapon that doesn't cause recoil,
isn't deflected by gravity, and won't clutter space with unexploded 20
MM shells....and I think we both know just what that weapon should
be...the Space Cruiser needs a "LASER BEAM"!!!

You'd think they'd be a little bit
concerned about micro-sized impacts though.


I say they should have just reinforced the nose and started ramming
things with it


Ya know that doesn't sound as crazy as you'd think. Keep the relative
velocity in the below 30 mph range and have a solid steel nose and you
could plow right through a delicate satellite and not even really lose
much speed. You'd have to lose the open-to-space cockpit though.
Paint the whole thing DayGlo orange and slap an STP logo on the side.
.. .a roll bar for the pilot. Definitely has potential.





. Mr. Commie would have soiled his red drawers when he saw
this thing bearing down on his Uragon space fighter, spitting coherent
photonic fire and with its diamond drill nose spinning at 2000 rpm! :-)

Pat

Scott Ferrin wrote:

Back in the day Gunston took two stabs at what he thought a stealth
bomber would look like. One was sortof a Vulcan-with-no-fuselage
thing and the other was a rediculous looking thing that appeared to be
about a hundred and sixty feet long with a Concord-like wing, a
V-tail, a funky looking wrap-around-the-fuselage intake and was
supposedly suppose to be powered by two F101s. Were either one of
those in that book? :-)


Here's your tailless Vulcan:
http://rt0023gv.eresmas.net/picsale/stealtho.jpg
Revell models made a 1/72 scale kit of this many years ago.
The long skinny one and a really slick VTOL stealth fighter-bomber
design are illustrated in "Advanced Technology Warfare" the VTOL uses a
Pegasus motor like the Harrier, and looks sort of like the Boeing Bird
Of Prey; it's shown in British markings, and IIRC this is another of
Gunston's designs- it's the one in the lead in this pictu
http://rt0023gv.eresmas.net/picsale/future.jpg
and for comparison, the Bird Of Prey:
http://www.sufoi.dk/billeder/a-g/fugl-3.jpg

Those were the days eh? Every couple
months you could go to Waldenbooks and they'd have another Salamander
publication that was full of goodies.


Oh yeah, and the prices were quite low on them also. :-)

Pat

Scott Ferrin wrote:



Ya know that doesn't sound as crazy as you'd think.

Yeah, considering how lightly built most satellites are, you could do a
lot of damage by giving them a good bump with a reinforced nose; you
could also back up to them and give them a shot of your rocket exhaust.
that should remove any pesky solar panels quite nicely.

Keep the relative
velocity in the below 30 mph range and have a solid steel nose and you
could plow right through a delicate satellite and not even really lose
much speed. You'd have to lose the open-to-space cockpit though.
Paint the whole thing DayGlo orange and slap an STP logo on the side.
. .a roll bar for the pilot. Definitely has potential.




How about we redesign it a bit for ramming, and make the front end look
something like this: http://members.aol.com/WbNemo1/svenNaut2.jpg :-)

Pat

Scott Ferrin wrote:

If we're talking about the
same book do you have any info on the Mach 5 aircraft and the
Lockheed
flying aircraft carrrier?

Sadly, no. Lockheed has done a reasonably good job at keeping a lot of
their stuff secret.

wrote:



Sadly, no. Lockheed has done a reasonably good job at keeping a lot of
their stuff secret.


Particularly that flying aircraft carrier the co-developed with Stark
Industries:
http://www.iconian.com/fury/gallery/carrier.jpg
Of course, there was some British input as well:
http://www.badmovieplanet.com/infern...nocam/cpt1.jpg
Although I can't find an image of it on the web, the Soviets designed a
_real_ giant multirotored helicopter to carry a complete six missile
SA-2 "Guideline" battery with reloads around. The thing was going to be
160 feet long, have six six-bladed rotors, and be powered by no less
than twenty-four turboshaft engines. It was called the VVP-6, and there
is a photo of a model of it on page 205 of "Yakovlev Aircraft" by Gordon
and Gunston. They never built it though, which is a pity- as it would
have really thrown everyone for a loop at the Paris Air Show.

Pat

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 13:01:24 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:



wrote:



Sadly, no. Lockheed has done a reasonably good job at keeping a lot of
their stuff secret.


Particularly that flying aircraft carrier the co-developed with Stark
Industries:
http://www.iconian.com/fury/gallery/carrier.jpg
Of course, there was some British input as well:
http://www.badmovieplanet.com/infern...nocam/cpt1.jpg
Although I can't find an image of it on the web, the Soviets designed a
_real_ giant multirotored helicopter to carry a complete six missile
SA-2 "Guideline" battery with reloads around. The thing was going to be
160 feet long, have six six-bladed rotors, and be powered by no less
than twenty-four turboshaft engines. It was called the VVP-6, and there
is a photo of a model of it on page 205 of "Yakovlev Aircraft" by Gordon
and Gunston. They never built it though, which is a pity- as it would
have really thrown everyone for a loop at the Paris Air Show.

Pat



The one I'm thinking of somewhat resembled a Boeing BWB aircraft with
4 THIRTY foot diameter geared ducted fans for propulsion and had
twelve or so aircraft on pylons beneath each wing.

Pat Flannery wrote:

What about the Poseidon missile launched version?

A little discussion, but no details. Honestly, that idea seems a bit
suspect. If a Trident would be capable or orbitting a SC (and it quite
possibly could), the boomer would have to surface, open two missile
hatches, pop up a crane, and load the SC out of one missile tube and
bolt it to a Trident. There just can't be room to put a SC atop a
Trident and stuff it in a boomer tube.