2001: A Space Time Odyssey (Version 2)

[Shevek23]

I enjoy this last post, Michel! But I still think it is kind of dubious to try to make an Orbiter that includes all the hydrogen and oxygen tankage in the Orbiter hull.

Did they ever consider this compromise--Since the Orbiter is not firing in parallel with the Booster, but afterward, what if the geometry were than the Orbiter includes the relatively dense, compact LOX tanks inside the hull, but the light and bulky hydrogen goes in a fuel tank (now really just a fuel tank and not a loose name for "propellant tank" hanging from the belly of the Orbiter? So, the Orbiter is mounted straight atop the Saturn derived winged booster, but the hydrogen tank is hanging off the belly of the Orbiter.

Just pulling the OTL numbers out of the air, which would not apply directly here of course:
OTL ET is originally some 32 tonnes, before they lightened it. It holds 726 tonnes of propellant, but only 104 of that is hydrogen, but this hydrogen fills 73 percent of the volume. Making the tank just a hydrogen tank for the same stuff, the mass I scale down by (0.73)^2/3 to reflect a conservative reduction by area only. Now it is down to 27 tonnes (and can later be lightened a bit). The overall hanging weight then is 131 tonnes--pretty close to the OTL hanging weight of the Shuttle Orbiter off the ET!

Since your Orbiter burns only as a second stage, it will need less propellant all round (well, barring the offsetting effect that encapsulating the fuel tank would raise the Orbiter dry mass by quite a bit)--it sure would if the hydrogen were kept outside anyway--so the properly figured ET would be even lighter.

You may recall that not only do I doubt that the Orbiter can be made light enough if it encloses the hydrogen tank, but that hydrogen leaking inside the fuselage is a serious risk. Putting just the hydrogen outside with the oxygen inside is better for that reason too then, the oxygen won't have the same likelihood of leaking.

So the weight can surely hang there. It is not clear to me just whether having it there would be OK for service tower reasons--so I went to your drawing to see if you have the dorsal or ventral side of the Orbiter and Booster facing the tower. You probably caught my little rants on Right Side Up against the madness of having a perfectly good escape ejection system for the Booster crew with a nice survivable capsule--then aiming it like a cannon straight at the damned service tower! I wondered which way you leaned, and if you were to listen to me then the stupid hydrogen tank would be in the way, unless it moved to the dorsal side of the Orbiter which I think would be very dumb...
...
And behold you've fixed the whole issue by mounting the stack sideways which I had not dreamed possible! Now the "upward" ejection of the Booster crew has a clear path, and yet at the same time the proposed hydrogen tank could fit just fine off to the other side! And the access to the Orbiter hatch on the side of the Orbiter, presumably on your Booster as well, faces the tower directly, no reach around as needed OTL for Shuttle. Access to both ventral and dorsal sides are quite clear! What a brilliant idea!

Why didn't NASA do this with the OTL Shuttle and have they ever had the brains to think of doing this themselves?

OK i can see that the SRBs would have made having one of them right next to the bottom of the tower structure pretty problematic, which is why not do it with TAOS Shuttle.

Yet another blow for the rationality of Saturn Shuttle!

Does the flight crew of the Booster have an escape capsule as in Right Side Up, or do they have ejection seats only (boo!). I think a capsule that itself has ejection seats is needed, for an exciting two ejections. Sometimes the capsule will come down soft and crew should stay in it, because it floats and is protection from the environment--heat, cold, sharks, alligators, mosquitoes... and can have a lot of good survival gear in it, first aid kits and flare guns and all that jazz. But sometimes the capsule is going to come down hard or wrong or needs to be destroyed by the range officer because it is going to hit a shopping mall or something, and then the crew need to eject from the capsule. But only ever after riding the ejected capsule out first--they need protection from blast and other hazards while ejecting.

Your drawings are gorgeous as always Michel. But I can't see any control cabin on the Booster. it looks like it would be right under the Orbiter tail--oh now I see it. Shouldn't it be smaller than the OTL Orbiter one since we just have a couple astronaut pilots in it, no need for all the cabin space an Orbiter would need?

 

[Shevek23]

Well well well, IMPRESSIVE! This really blows the OTL shuttle out of the water eh?

"Blows the Shuttle out of..." hey, that's about as tasteful as...

Well, those of us in America in the 1980s will remember that Budweiser beer brand had a series of ads for their Light Beer in which people would ask for a "Light," only to be given a chandelier or a traffic light or a bright searchlight in their eyes or some such goofy thing...

In the year of Challenger, after the disaster, one of my housemates at Caltech ordered a House mug with the words:

"Negative, Houston. Make that a Bud Light..."

 

[Shevek23]

And now for something different...

Recall my suggestion a few posts back to transform the second stage Orbiter into a pure and unmanned launch stage. Remove the cargo bay, remove the cargo, remove the crew flight deck. How much weight is this taken out? At a wild guess I guessed maybe 40 tonnes altogether out of the 105 tonne no-fuel mass. Now the actual cargo, which might be a crewed small Orbiter strictly for space, with no launch engines included, can go on the nose as a third "stage." That way if it is crewed, they can escape, and as I explained before, the second stage uncrewed can orbit around until it can land ASAP, to be put into the process of refurbishment for reuse immediately.

Then----Today I have been kludging around with a concept for boosters, mainly to demonstrate an example of a very very simple reusable booster, big and dumb, that can be reprocessed for use quickly. It would not fly back, it would just coast to a splashdown and because of its gigantic mass, I propose no parachute, just a solid rocket to brake it to a soft splash. There is no crew and as I will show, it is so robust nothing gets hurt with a 20 G thrust from a big solid in the nose.

Using a procedure I outlined in the ASB thread on life found on Titan that is going, after entering the "cut down" version of your Orbiter, with its internal fuel tanks holding 495 tonnes of propellant, its new dry mass of 65 tonnes, and assuming the thrust of 5 J-2S engines with improved nozzle extension to bring Isp up to 450 and thrust up to 1180 each for all up thrust of 5900 kN, I then calculated a very big, very dumb first stage whose special feature is a dry mass 25 percent as great as its propellant, and my calculation gave me 230 tonnes dry, 931 tonnes of propellant. I estimated that if that propellant were used up in 120 seconds and burned in engines capable of 315 Isp vacuum, the thrust would be 23,700 kNewton. With that in hand, I plugged it all into Silverbird and for a 200 km circular orbit, 28 degrees out of Canaveral got a payload of 45.607 tonnes! So we make up whatever mass we gut out of your Orbiter and gain nearly 6 tonnes more. Nice! A 45 tonne Orbiter would be like the big HL, -58 or whatever the number was bigger than 20, I forget. Or of course instead of the booster with expendable stage, Turgidson could have 40.366 tonnes in an orbit to that altitude over the poles out of Vandenberg.

Looking at the booster--the goofy idea here is to make it massive and make it out of steel, mainly to make it so rugged it can just fall out of sky without worrying too much about it being heated when passing through the stratosphere at 2000 m/sec. I think it would work, and if anything I am guilty of massive overkill with the mass, it could work with a much lower dry mass perhaps.

Thrust--holy cow, it works with less thrust than 3 F-1A! I raised the thrust to be equal to 3 F-1A and the outcome is nearly 48 tonnes to LEO from Canaveral.

But they aren't standard F-1A. The sheer mass of steel should be far more than enough to contain all that propellant (again a remarkably low amount considering our ambitions here) under pressure, more than enough pressure to feed the LOX and kerosene into the combustion chambers of an F-1A with no pumping at all. Thus these aren't F-1A, they are stripped down lightened versions with none of the turbo machinery. Because no propellant is being diverted to a gas generator, the Isp should therefore be higher but I can't estimate how much--maybe 320 sec? That would raise the payload even higher.

Three is an excellent number; just the right amount to enable full thrust control authority with each engine gimbaled in only one dimension.

Pressure fed engines mean very easy throttle ability, not that we need it but if we want it, there it is. Maybe we do for reasons of acceleration? All up mass on the pad is just 1800 tonnes or a bit less, sea level thrust would be 2447 tonnes force and the higher vacuum thrust on 650 tonnes--but wait, the dry stage is so huge that adding it in too means full vacuum thrust is about 3 Gs, so the only reason we'd want to throttle would be to avoid Q-Max issues. Like I said the bottom stage is made of friggin' steel so it is not going to be hurt at Q-max, only the upper stack might be threatened. Well if it is, just throttle back for a little while.

So without trying for mass efficiency at all, I get the most mass efficient Shuttle configuration I have ever seen, with 45 tonnes to LEO above and beyond the 65 tonnes of the dry former Orbiter that is now a push to orbit stage.

The extra cost involved is that the big dumb steel booster stage will fall into the ocean, use a retro rocket to avoid hitting it hard, and float there until a ship comes along to drag it back. So that is an operational cost your system does not have. But once it is back, setting it back up for assembly and another launch should be a breeze.

Actually with all that weight and only a fraction of it needed for pressurized fuel tanks, we probably could put wings on it and have it glide-jet back. If there were a flight crew they'd need protection from the braking heat, but there is plenty of margin for both an escape capsule style control deck and air conditioning.

Hell, they could probably have a hot tub to rest in while cruising back to the launch site....


The bottom line idea is to get a booster component that will be cheap, easy and fast to recertify for launch. The most worn part will be the three F engines, but if they can be made to be reused many times--remember, just the chamber and bell, and plumbing to feed it with pre-pressurized oxygen and kerosene, so it is a matter of verifying nothing is clogged, corroded, bent, chipped or cracked or about to crack, no turbo machinery to break or wear down or burn up. Otherwise, it is made of steel about an inch thick! What is going to break? Inspection, in big cavernous spaces providing easy access, looks for answers to that question. Testing is possible if necessary but it is mainly to check out nothing happened. Turnaround should be fast and not require a substantial staff either. Massive heavy lifting equipment would be needed but NASA and the Air Force have that.

So refurbishment costs and labor requirements are low. Integration is like the booster, big and dumb--point it at the sky and attach the upper stages. Haul out to pad and fill with propellants, launch, wait for it to fly home if we don't just let it splash.

I am striving for cheap refurbishment to answer the "you need high flight rate" mafia. Yes--higher flight rate lowers fixed costs. But if we can get the fixed costs low, even mediocre flight rates can allow substantially lower prices than ELV launch. Moderately lower prices tempt in the market which ditches the ELVs (now they face the low flight rate related high costs) and the Shuttle costs come down more. Lower prices bring in the rest of the market and launch cost savings expand the market.

 

[Michel Van]

Thanks, Shevek23

Did they ever consider this compromise--Since the Orbiter is not firing in parallel with the Booster, but afterward, what if the geometry were than the Orbiter includes the relatively dense, compact LOX tanks inside the hull, but the light and bulky hydrogen goes in a fuel tank (now really just a fuel tank and not a loose name for "propellant tank" hanging from the belly of the Orbiter? So, the Orbiter is mounted straight atop the Saturn derived winged booster, but the hydrogen tank is hanging off the belly of the Orbiter.

Actually there were such proposals of installing the Hydrogene tanks is outside Orbiter in two or one drop tanks

or smaller extenal tank on Flyback-1

But there production cost money and wanted a Shuttle with lower launch cost.

You probably caught my little rants on Right Side Up against the madness of having a perfectly good escape ejection system for the Booster crew with a nice survivable capsule

Yes and No the Original design of the Saturn Shuttle is from first version of ASTO in 2014, but it feature already the Escape pods for Booster AND Orbiter
They protect the crew during supersonic decent after ejection from Launcher and then as Life raft for in Ocean or other hostile environment you mention.
see this F-111 pod after crash

Why didn't NASA do this with the OTL Shuttle and have they ever had the brains to think of doing this themselves?

It's complex story:
NASA wanted something big with untested Hardware on other side Capitol Hill that not care about it and there were Senator Walter Mondale and Caspar Weinberger.
The original Plane went nowhere so they went for Flyback-1 a Saturn V S-IC with wings, but they missed $200 Million (in 1970 Dollar) to realized this (thanks for that Caspar Weinberger...)
The Shuttle program was almost single-handed murder by Walter Mondale, was not for USAF involvement in Program
Also play the immature Administrator James Fletcher a role in story what became "our" Space Shuttle
He went for cheaper and cheaper Design, until we got two SRB with External tank and Orbiter, with argumentation lost of SRB is cheaper as lost of Liquid booster, (oh hell tell that crew of Challenger)
Instead to fight with Capitol Hill for missing 200 Million for Flyback one...

In ASTO Things look quite Different
The Soviet landed First on Moon at 4 of July 1969,
with such humiliation for USA, Nixon goes for Integrated program Plan (Odyssey) a $500 Billon space program for period from 1970 to 1990)
Over next 3 years in Capitol Hill goes fierce battle let by Senator Walter Mondale, But Nixon give Nasa higher budget (this include later the $200 Million needed to realized the Flyback F-1)
Mondale little crusade against NASA back fire horribly for him in 1976, as Democrats tell him were he can put his Nomination for US President into, see Post 47 part one for more detail.
But even with such good conditions, thing went not so very well, the Shuttle went over it Budget, so NASA cut last four Apollo mission (22 to 25).
and it took two years delay until first test launch of Booster and Orbiter

 

[Michel Van]

Shevek23 the Idea to put a S-IIB on top of Flyback F-1 is not so bad, using J-2S-2 restart for a Hohmann transfer orbit, you get around 100 tons in low earth orbit.
NASA will use a Saturn INT-21 in similar way to get 130 tons into low orbit in this TL

a very very simple reusable booster

Convair NEXUS had that concept since the Booster are very voluminous.
They simply drop them empty into ocean with aerodynamic stabilizers and in final descent, fire bunch of Solid rocket just before touch down in water
since the engine are on top during landing, not much contact with seawater

Seadragon look also into concept of this reuse, since the Launcher was build from very robust steel, instead of Aluminum.

Philip Bono ROOST (Recoverable One Stage Orbital Space Truck) went ever steps crazier

Note how ROOST not swimming in water but float in air like airship !

since Spaceflight began in 1923 with Herman Oberth book "Die Rakete zu den Planetenräumen"
over last 94 years engineers look in ever aspect of Space flight
Shevek if you have idea, it's certain a Aerospace Engineer has thought about it years ago...

 

[Roger Redux]

Philip Bono ROOST (Recoverable One Stage Orbital Space Truck) went ever steps crazier

Since you brought up Phil Bono I have to ask: Could the RHOMBUS concept have really worked the way he wanted it to?

 

[Michel Van]

Since you brought up Phil Bono I have to ask: Could the RHOMBUS concept have really worked the way he wanted it to?

ROMBUS it's "Achilles' tendon" is the plug nozzle engine it use.
On paper it's dynamite, but no none had build one and tested it, by launching one into Space. There only ground test with modified J-2S engine, that's all.
The 36 Engines hat to have Mixture ratio of liquid oxygen to hydrogen of 7:1 (compare SSME 6.032:1 or J-2S 5.5:1)
Although his heat shield design by using the the Aerospike engine base is pure Genie
It use Hydrogen to active cooled the plug nozzle and base during reentry
similar how it use the hydrogen to cool the engine during launch, only difference is shorter time of cooling and far more lower temperature.

But such engine would also be expensive to build and maintain, i guess after 10 flights they had to scrap the entire engine assembly...

By the way
the Only one who still works on plug nozzle engine is ARCA Space Corporation
for there Haas 2CA rocket, for moment they build Demonstrator 3 Rocket to test there plug nozzle engine from the ground up to 120 km altitude !
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,29115.0.html

 

[Michel Van]

For those who wonder about Aerospike engine ?
here very good explanation

 

[generalurist]

For those who wonder about Aerospike engine ?
here very good explanation

Wow.... I'm surprised this hasn't seen more OTL use. Then again, with the sorry state of OTL space exploration...

 

[Michel Van]

Wow.... I'm surprised this hasn't seen more OTL use. Then again, with the sorry state of OTL space exploration...

Again it was not NASA fault, responsibility lies at US Congress, Senat and White House
For moment is ARCA the Only company working on Linear Aerospike engine for a Launch vehicle.
in ASTO this concept got "also under the wheels" because NASA got other priority for moment

 

[RanulfC]

Michel Van wrote:

On paper it's dynamite, but no none had build one and tested it, by launching one into Space. There only ground test with modified J-2S engine, that's all.

Eh, Michel? That's VERY wrong since both liquid and solid aerospike nozzles have been test flown since the early 2000's:
https://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0404/19aerospike/
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=12631
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19980223961.pdf

Both private and government flights including one "cold-flow" SR-71 so they HAVE been flight tested along with ground and vacuum chamber tested. (Point of fact the Garvey/CULB team was working on a multi-chamber or "plug-cluster" design as well) The Air Force 'pressure-fed' test engine, (based on the J2 combustion chambers and plumbing) was fired several times with no issues noted and was also the basis of the J2T toroidal aerospike proposals.

The main worry was a possible drop out of thrust at trans-sonic speeds which was disproved during the test flights.

But such engine would also be expensive to build and maintain, i guess after 10 flights they had to scrap the entire engine assembly...

Depends on the engine and design actually but 'historically' that's pretty dismal and no where near what was projected for any proposed project. The J2-based aerospikes were rated to last as long as the 'standard' J2s if not a bit more since the engine bell was the maintenance driver for long duration burns. In most respects the main article of concern was the gimbaling systems as the aerospike engine is normally a bit larger than the single combustion chamber/bell nozzle if not as 'long' as them. One of the main reasons for having a 'plug' insteadf of a pure aerodynamic, (gas plume) "spike" is so that you can use thrust deflector plates attched to the plug to provide vector control withoug having to actually gimbal the engine itself.

In the ROMBUS and other designs the individual thrust chambers are designed to be removed and replaced as needed for rebuilding after a certain number of flights as were the SSME's of our Shuttle.

Again it was not NASA fault, responsibility lies at US Congress, Senat and White House

No, NASA has something to do with it too OTL as they were pretty adament about what they would 'accept' even if it was less than they 'wanted' at any point in time. Arguably, (and we've done so on more than a few "Shuttle" threads around here ) the Administration/Congress/OMB reasonably expected the Shuttle to significantly reduce access costs to orbit but despite that being a MAJOR point on which the Shuttle was 'sold' it was the first thing NASA dropped from the requirements/planning for the program. This statement is just as 'wrong' as those that blame it ALL on NASA, it wsa a combined failure to have an integrated and defined policy as well as budget and both political and public support.

Randy

 

[Michel Van]

Thanks for info RanulfC
I was not aware of 2003/4 test

 

[Michel Van]

Happy Birthday Space age !

60th years ago a beep radio sound from sky started the Space Age.
Follow by Space Race, the Moon race, Space station, Space Shuttle and SpaceX reuse of rockets

in 2001: A Space-Time Odyssey is the Space Race in 1980 further as our timeline

 

[O'Alexis 89]

Joyeux Anniversaire Space Age!

 

[RanulfC]

1. Not sure if I posted any of these "Orion Spaceplane" concepts but if I hadn't...
   
   One of the original concepts of the Orion -1 booster and Orion-II (Cargo) and -III (Passenger) came from this website:
   http://www.planet3earth.co.uk/2001 page 4.htm, http://www.planet3earth.co.uk/2001 page 5.htm,
   Using the description from the Book "2001" of a rail-launch assist Horizontal Take Off and Horizontal Landing Booster unit and either a Cargo or Passenger version of the Orion spaceplane. Of course is you want to be 'different' rather than electromagnetic, or rocket boosted track there is the "Closed End Launch Tube" (CELT) pneumatic concept here: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20010027422.pdf
   
   He also has the Titov V Russian spaceplane here:
   https://www.planet3earth.co.uk/ilyushin titov.htm, where it is described as part of a "tri-mese" LV design. http://www.worldof2001.com/gallery.htm, "Worlds of 2001" has it as a TSTO also ramp launched but a significantly different design Of course the same site has the Orion III dropping a large underslung "drop tank" on the way to orbit.
   
   An interesting article called "Fantastic Flight: The Orion III Spaceplane from 2001: A Space Odyssey" shows a concept sketch of the Orion booster that makes it look a bit air-breathing and a bit nuclear powered: https://www.space.com/g00/32258-ori....encReferrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8=,
   
   The biggest issue is there is simply no place to put propellant in the Orion III to get it from staging to orbit, so the ideas of drop tanks we never saw or such. One notion had a 'different' evolution of the Orion such as evolving from the Space Shuttle Orbiter, http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/99-sc...2210-pan-am-space-clipper-orion-thread-9.html,* which uses the front of an Airfix Orion III kit melded with the rear end of a Revel/Monogram "Armagedon" Shuttle just aft of the radiatior bulge. Looks kind of nice attached to the SRBs and tank. Probably going to do some Paint/Photoshopping of this set up as the idea would be the Orion I "Orbiter" for passengers and a Shuttle-C derivitive for Cargo.
   Even slicker is this Orion III mounted on an Ariane V launcher set up, http://www.modelermagic.com/?p=42468, though why you'd need major engines on the Orion with such a set up...
   
   Pretty much in the end you'll need some sort of "drop tanks" for the Orion even if its small over-wing tanks like on the Shuttle II concepts, http://spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com/2017/02/nasa-johnson-space-centers-shuttle-ii.html,
   
   And I can see a way it would "evolve" from Dynasoar no less
2. (*Pics were on photobucket so see below)
3. Randy

 

[RanulfC]

Here's the pics, hope not to huge:

Could have sworn there was at least one more but... All credit and ownership to the originator and poster of the cited thread. I take no credit other than stumbling upon them on the internet.

Randy

 

[Michel Van]

Thanks Randy
I know those pages

in The TL we are just in beginn of Saturn-Shuttle flights in 1970s
wait for successor systems in 1990s

SpaceGeek is for moment busy in University with exams
We hope to continue the TL during christmas vacation...

 

[RanulfC]

Michel Van wrote:

Thanks Randy
I know those pages

I kinda of figured that for most of them but I wasn't sure about some of the more recent ones. I actually like the "Worlds of 2001" Orbiter/Titov-V design using the Starclipper 'upper-stage' for full Lunar runs but I'm not sure that USSR could have done that. Though the idea of a fully reusable 'fly-back' booster is cool I always felt a more 'near-term' solution was needed, hence why I posted the "Shuttle-Orion" and "Orion-Ariane" pages. (Though why Kubrick or the art-department had an issue with VERTICAL STABILIZERS I sure don't know )

I dropped in the CELT because of the "need" for a launch assist from the book and frankly NASA had been looking at such a system over the years but mostly towards the higher end/higher tech concepts and as the study points out you really don't NEED such for a work-a-day launch system.

One of the reasons I pointed out the Orion-Shuttle was I was reminded by your post in the "Rotating Space Station" thread that you folks had in fact used a "Saturn-Shuttle," (Heh, are we going to retcon calling it a "Lifter" just out of curiosity*?) which uses the same booster for both Cargo and "Shuttle" (passenger) flights. Shevek 23 had a point about the internal tankage issues and it was in fact found to be more 'economical' to not include them in the Orbiter OTL, keeping in mind the various 'assumptions' involved in the process. Using a titanium airframe and heat-sink TPS is going to allow for less direct refurbishment between flights but internal leakage and venting is going to be more, not less of an issue.

The 'best' solution is over-the-wing tanks such as shown on Shuttle-II, or a mirror-image "belly" tank and arguably the way it seems to be going anyway, but... At least it's a 'reason' to have a more '2001-ish' vehicle right?

Oh, and I wanted to note that the engine nozzle design on the Orion is called a "Scarfed" nozzle system which you tend to see on things like fixed RCS systems where they are trying to direct the exhaust plume away from adjacent surfaces.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine_nozzle
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252919746_Rocket_exhaust_plumes_issued_from_scarfed_nozzles

Oh yes, something to keep in mind was the OTL difference between when the Orbiter had the "Aft Aerodynamic Fairing" on;
(https://images.nasa.gov/details-KSC-08pd4027.html) and off was a HUGE difference in aerodynamics. So much so that the Orbiter would have been far more 'capable' if it had been a 'glider' with the aft cone a permanent fixture. But since you needed the rocket engines one barely looked at concept for which there is no imagery, (why would there need to be as you'll see in a moment) was the replacement of the Three (3) SSME's with Two (2) more powerful rockets in streamlined and 'scarfed/stepped' nozzle arrangements. With the fairing it would look something like this: (http://fantastic-plastic.com/2001-pan-am-space-clipper-orion-iii-by-aurora-models.html)

Now imagining that "Orion/Orbiter" model with the aft fairing on and two scarfed engine holes on the upper surface... (And a 'requirement' to lose the vertical stabilizer... for reasons I suppose )

Tell SpaceGeek to not forget to have fun over the holiday as well as working your keesters off for the time line... The latter is FAR more important of course but we wouldn't want you to get burned out

Randy

 

[Michel Van]

On Film Design of Kubrick 2001
Most were made by german Harry Lange
He study Art in Germany, went to USA and worked in advertising than Illustrator for the Army Ballistic Missile Agency, later in the future projects section at NASA and made stuff for Werner von Braun.
Then he worked for Stanley Kubrick for Film Design for 2001.
He made very authentic looking design, but he was not Aerodynamic or technical engineer for Space Flight.
Everything of his work was critical study by Kubrick and what he not liked ended in waste-paper basket and Lange & co start from new...

I highly recommend the Book "The 2001 File: Harry Lange and the Design of the Landmark Science Fiction Film" for more information

• ISBN-10: 0957261020
• ISBN-13: 978-0957261020

This here is Orion Shuttle design of harry Lange, that Kubrick disliked one of ten...

 

[Das Amerikan]

It's....alive?