Dyna-Soar/Atlas-Centaur

Dyna-Soar on a Atlas-Centaur:
http://renax.club.fr/sharkit/altlas-...as-centaur.htm
Krafft Ehricke would've approved:
http://www.geocities.com/atlas_missi...r_missions.htm

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote in
:

Dyna-Soar on a Atlas-Centaur:
http://renax.club.fr/sharkit/altlas-...as-centaur.htm

Article states the Centaur would burn LOX and "SF-1"; what the
heck would that have been? Seems like an obscure way to refer
to LH2.

--Damon

Damon Hill wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote in
:

Dyna-Soar on a Atlas-Centaur:
http://renax.club.fr/sharkit/altlas-...as-centaur.htm

Article states the Centaur would burn LOX and "SF-1"; what the heck
would that have been? Seems like an obscure way to refer to LH2.

Indeed. The designation "SF-1" was a code name for a specification for
liquid hydrogen fuel that had been developed by Wright Field in the
1950's. The specification was apparently used to guide industrial firms
bidding on the development of LH2 facilities for the USAF.

--
Dave Michelson

On Apr 21, 10:44 pm, Dave Michelson wrote:
Damon Hill wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote in
:

Dyna-Soar on a Atlas-Centaur:
http://renax.club.fr/sharkit/altlas-...as-centaur.htm

Article states the Centaur would burn LOX and "SF-1"; what the heck
would that have been? Seems like an obscure way to refer to LH2.

Indeed. The designation "SF-1" was a code name for a specification for
liquid hydrogen fuel that had been developed by Wright Field in the
1950's. The specification was apparently used to guide industrial firms
bidding on the development of LH2 facilities for the USAF.

SF-1 also appears in a series of Convair preliminary designs for
hydrogen-fueled ASW and bomber aircraft. The unbuilt Convair P6Y was
studied with "SF-1" fueled variants: http://www.up-ship.com/drawndoc/drawndocair.htm

"Dyna-Soar on a Atlas-Centaur"?

Hmmmmm, I had only seen the Titan IIIC version. Thanks for the
thread.

But I have a question. As I recall Gemini used ejection seats for
early aborts because the Titan II catastrophically failed in such a
way that seats were feasible (slower, smaller fireball), whereas
Mecury and Apollo catastrophically failed in such a way that seats
were out of the question.

How was a crew supposed to get away from the Atlas Centaur in a
hurry? IIRC, an escape tower was not fitted to Dyna-Soar and since
Atlas would not permit the use of a seat in Mercury, it would seem the
same would be the case for Dyna-Soar.

AND . . . how was a Dyna-Soar (or MOL) crew supposed to get away from
a Titan IIIC? SRBs can fail very quickly and with TONS of nasty
debris (recall the Delta at the Cape a few years ago or the Titan III/
IV loss at Vandenburg in the mid 1980's. Also remember the first
launch attempt of Ariane V, the SRBs were not the root cause, but the
rupture of the solids was spectacular)

Thanks and take care . . .

John

John wrote in news:1177520192.861750.75140
@t38g2000prd.googlegroups.com:

AND . . . how was a Dyna-Soar (or MOL) crew supposed to get away from
a Titan IIIC? SRBs can fail very quickly and with TONS of nasty
debris (recall the Delta at the Cape a few years ago or the Titan III/
IV loss at Vandenburg in the mid 1980's.

The SRBs would have had thrust termination capability.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

John wrote in news:1177520192.861750.75140
@t38g2000prd.googlegroups.com:

AND . . . how was a Dyna-Soar (or MOL) crew supposed to get away from
a Titan IIIC? SRBs can fail very quickly and with TONS of nasty
debris (recall the Delta at the Cape a few years ago or the Titan III/
IV loss at Vandenburg in the mid 1980's.

The SRBs would have had thrust termination capability.


I guess higher order detonation of an SRB could be described as thrust
termination also.

scottlowtherATixDOTnetcomDOTcom wrote:
SF-1 also appears in a series of Convair preliminary designs for
hydrogen-fueled ASW and bomber aircraft. The unbuilt Convair P6Y was
studied with "SF-1" fueled variants: http://www.up-ship.com/drawndoc/drawndocair.htm


Does anyone else think the propellant tankage on this proto-Centaur
second stage is a bit on the small size?:
http://www.geocities.com/atlas_missi...tal_System.gif

Pat

John wrote:
"Dyna-Soar on a Atlas-Centaur"?


Hmmmmm, I had only seen the Titan IIIC version. Thanks for the
thread.

But I have a question. As I recall Gemini used ejection seats for
early aborts because the Titan II catastrophically failed in such a
way that seats were feasible (slower, smaller fireball), whereas
Mecury and Apollo catastrophically failed in such a way that seats
were out of the question.

How was a crew supposed to get away from the Atlas Centaur in a
hurry? IIRC, an escape tower was not fitted to Dyna-Soar and since
Atlas would not permit the use of a seat in Mercury, it would seem the
same would be the case for Dyna-Soar.

Dyna-Soar reincorporated a high-thrust solid motor in the interstage
between it and the launch vehicle. In case of a launch problem it would
use that to blast itself free; that's what's firing in this drawing:
http://www.aero.org/publications/cro...ages/01_02.jpg
AND . . . how was a Dyna-Soar (or MOL) crew supposed to get away from
a Titan IIIC? SRBs can fail very quickly and with TONS of nasty
debris (recall the Delta at the Cape a few years ago or the Titan III/
IV loss at Vandenburg in the mid 1980's. Also remember the first
launch attempt of Ariane V, the SRBs were not the root cause, but the
rupture of the solids was spectacular)

The Titan III was originally going to incorporate blow-off panels on the
SRB nosecones that would vent them in case of a problem; it was found
that the abrupt decrease in pressure in the fuel grain from venting it
would cause combustion to cease.
Originally the Shuttle was going to have these also, but the ET appeared
to be too fragile to take the blast from the panels firing, and the
fire exiting from them would envelope the orbiter, with probably fatal
effects on it as well.
In MOL, you'd shut everything down and then either eject, or at higher
altitudes separate the Gemini RV from the stack via salvoing its five
retro motors (it had five, unlike the standard Gemini's four).

Pat

On Apr 25, 5:56 pm, John wrote:
IIRC, an escape tower was not fitted to Dyna-Soar and since
Atlas would not permit the use of a seat in Mercury, it would seem the
same would be the case for Dyna-Soar.

Early on (e.g. a pad abort) they'd use the Dyna-Soar's solid rocket to
get away from the booster, and then glide back to land. It seemed
quite an optimistic plan, but Neil Armstrong did some tests using a
jet that had been modified to fly like the Dyna-Soar and proved that
it could be done.

I'm not sure what they'd have done later in the launch when they
couldn't return to KSC... presumably they'd have to ditch and hope to
get picked up. Assuming they didn't lose a wing due to aerodynamic
stress in a Challenger-style accident anyway.

NTRS has at least one document about Armstrong's pad abort test
flights, I'm not sure if they have others about Dyna-Soar aborts.

Mark