Different "Space Race" Whys and What ifs?
- Thread starter RanulfC
- Start date
Well, this is what happens when I stop going to forums for a bit
Still, as a business plan theirs at least acknowledged the "issues" with the "suborbital flight" being billed as the 'main' part of a two week luxery vacation. Futron pointed out that customers wanted EITHER an immersive 'experiance,' (which is still VG's plan) OR a rapid turn around time. The former was more expensive and (obviously) had less throughput and the customer base dropped off rapidly where as the latter was steady, higher and more long-term though of course required a substantially lower cost.Quoting "Men in Space" again but when one general talks about space flight in context of launching people into space; "You have to make it routine, it has to become routine" and it does for it to work.
Randy
From WikiHow did it "not work"? Note they retro-propulsed to a dead stop, (early hover-slam... only it was a hover-splash
Wiki said:
That's how it didn't work.
Which is why I brought up that it "didn't" work due to mechancial details and that computing wasn't an issue, then or now.
Randy
Actually they would run into problem already in 1977, like USAF and there Titian II ICBM flight computers servicing
Were IBM explain short and hard to them "We don't manufacture those parts, since TEN Years !!!"
So USAF ware forced to build new flight computers with stuff, you put normally in aircraft but it worked
NASA had chance to keep Saturn IB and V productions they would face same problem in 1977 since IBM build there Flight Computers
but hell a upgrade of Saturn flight computers on more modern electronic would be good !
I do wonder if the manned space age starting in the 1930s or 1940s, when electronics was more primitive, would have lead to more manned activity in space, and (since the infrastructure would need to be deeply developed) a persistent extensive manned presence in space. This may not mean much in the way of men are sent out beyond low earth orbit tho.
fasquardon
They would use Suborbital flights in begin, until the Hardware is working, than put a man into rocket for Suborbital jump in 1940s.
Michel Van; Actually NASA had an Electronics Laboratory till it was cut during the first round of budget cuts in 1967. Part of the reason it was cut was because commercial electronics were already equaling what it was working on for the most part anyway and it was too 'niche' and small compared to other centers. (It was in fact working on updating the Apollo era electronics but most of the work was actually being done at other locations such as MIT)
IBM would have been quite willing to build new flight computers for the Air Force Titan-IIs as they had been doing so for other Titan-II Launch Vehicles for several years. The problem was most of the LAUNCH SITE computers were unable to talk to the new controllers and the Air Force needed an interface so they at least could talk to each other. The production run was going to be so small IBM didn't see the profit in just making the links, and the Air Force didn't want to pay for all new computers both for the missile and the launch sites...
The Air Force podged together some flight computers from existing inventory AND new links and still ended up replacing both during the last Titan modernization anyway
Fasquadron wrote:
Michel Van wrote:
(Warning: Though this might appear as if I've "over-thought" this a bit, this off the top of my head with some glances at some possible "Alt-Trek" or "Alt-Space" notes so be forwarned that ship sailed a LOOOONNNGGGG time ago )
Howard Hughes runs into or is given a copy of Eugen Sangers antipodal spaceplane paper and decides he wants to REALLY clinch a cross-continental speed record flight? There's going to be some obvious issues with "known" aerodynamics and materials as well as basic technology but it's possible at least. On the other hand your technology and hardware is also going to be an issue as the electronics of the day were really not up to the demand of even suborbital flight as for example radio range was pretty bad.
Complaint's about 'atmospheric interference' were rampant even though no one really knew or understood HOW it was effecting the signals over long distance. Getting an understandable signal DOWN from 40 miles up without more transmitting equipment than the vehicle can possibly carry is an issue. Hence the need for a 'man' on board to take notes and observe AND return. And before you think about 'recording' the data let's keep in mind this is pre-magnetic tape aka: your record is literally a record-platter most likely
The 'learning-curve' is going to be steep and expensive but with some doing you can probably get a really high altitude flight but the question of utility versus existing systems comes up. Most camera systems had to be relatively 'close' to the target they were photographing. (Far less than 100km and don't forget if there is a horizontal component of velocity to put the vehicle 'over' the target there has to be enough delta-v on the vehicle to GET to that speed AND it be robust enough to survive the flight!)
Even around the late 1930s the idea of 'side-scan' photography, (taking pictures inside an enemy or unfriendly nation from high up but not overflying) was around but the needed camera dimensions were rather excessive. And the human eye would need 'aid' as well so you would still have a problem with fitting it into a credible vehicle.
I've a partially written 'scenario' where HH does the above and then uses it after Pearl Harbor, (wrecking the launcher in the process but the government is interested in paying for building a replacement) to try and fly up and locate the Japanese attack force so the Navy can maybe get some revenge. The problem I run into of course is even if he does get high enough he probably can't see, (or ID) the TF without some sort of telescope AND has no way of getting that information to the ground without bringing it back and just where the heck does he land this thing?
(Of course the idea of what the Japanese would make of 'something' smashing into one of their carries at around Mach-2/3 has all sorts of fascinating connotations but I'm not seeing Howard as the suicide type for something like this) And 'operationally' and all the Navy is in no position to USE any such information even if HH is at all accurate AND survives to get said information back to them.
Even having a launcher on the East Coast, (add "round trip-record" to that list ) doesn't net you much, as this would have an estimated 'range' of around 3200 miles you'd have to launch it from Newfoundland to put Germany in 'range' and that's assuming something like an overly expensive V1-ish glide-bomb/missile. (I don't see the US being willing to 'give' this to the Soviets by trying to land there but maybe Switzerland?) The operational load would be miniscule for the cost of delivery though and you're pretty much at the end of the 'operational' range so you'd be low and getting slower as well which is also less effective. You might see an early suggestion of using ramjets and turning back to France or England. (Listening to Two Steps From Hell "Flight of the Silverbird" will get these kind of thoughts going )
Utility in the Pacific is more problematical though 'technically' Japan's in range from Alaska, again some way to extend the flight* to China might be in order but not sure it would be feasible. And again your actual 'payload' would be negligible though with Japan that's a bit beside the point at first. (Doolittle Raid)
Operationally where you launch from and where you land is problematical in the Pacific but with the right equipment and operations it might be possible to keep good tabs on Japanese surface movement using suborbital flight but the question is would it be worth the actual cost? Having said that if someone figures out kinetic bombardment methods, (it's 'just' math after all ) the distance between Hawaii and Midway is about 'half' your continental flight distance which would put the 'bird' near maximum speed and altitude over Midway and a REALLY bad day for the Japanese fleet who probably won't even know the "Rods from the Gods" are coming...
Again where do you land though... (Speaking of Midway though, that puts Tokyo a bit over 2500 miles away, and Silverbird was calculated to be capable of delivering around 8,800lbs of payload which strangely enough is around the mass of "Little Boy"...)
And arguably as this is a lot less "capable" than the Silverbird, (3200 miles versus 12,000 to 15,000 miles and about half the speed) it might be that much more plausible as a system. Which could lead to some interesting post-war work as focus would not shift to actually creeping up of speed and distance to 'handle' the new Soviet threat. So...
By the late-40s/early 50s the focus is less on ballistic missiles than even OTL as "manned" skip-glide recon-bombers are the main focus of the US military (think BOMI possibly rail launched) while the USSR might continue to concentrate on ballistic missiles. With this you have the US actually having a slower time due to the more complex, technologically harder, and more expensive "boost-glide" vehicle which is rather 'tied' to a certain design and operational philosophy, (manned therefore it MUST have both a launch AND landing base and the ability to go from one to the other after every mission, this makes the task much more difficult) whereas the "expendable" ICBM needs only a launch facility and target.
So the US builds up overseas 'landing' bases, (Japan comes to mind) and pursues a rather less capable "space" launch capacity whereas the USSR continues in a similar manner to OTL and develops a much heavier payload capability than the US. By the late 1950s the US actually has the ability to 'overflight' the USSR/China with their manned system but the question is do they as it would be impossible to 'hide' as we tried to do with the U2 overflights? Meanwhile the USSR has developed the capability to orbit larger payloads than the US but the general 'perception' is about equal to the general public. (And frankly replacing the boost-glide vehicle with an 'upper-stage' could be fairly straight forward) The main question is political as to what the "current" situation is. Assume anyone other than Ike and its likely neither the over-flights or "militarization" of space is regarded as questionable. If Ike is President then the whole focus of the "military" space program is distasteful to him, but what real choice does he have other than ordering a "crash" ICBM program the military probably want's to pursue even less TTL than OTL...
*Both the Soviets and to some extent the US investigated the possible use of ramjets to extend the range of the Sanger idea. One of those ideas that was lost/found/lost/found over time is that while "skip-glide" has some issues it wasn't as bad as people thought and in fact if you can provide some sort of 'propulsive-impulse' during the deepest part of the 'skips' both your range and stress/heating issues are much lower. So how to provide that 'propulsive-impulse'? Funny thing but during the mid-to-late-50s when the "SCramjet" concept was brand new no one had a clue as to how to build one but "common wisdom" was that building a duct to contain a supersonic airflow 'probably' wasn't an option. So they experimented with massive 'open' ducts under the wings and/or fuselage with fuel injected just inside the lip so it had time to mix. Found out that didn't work, but fuel injected into a supersonic airflow tended autoignite if 'held' long enough especailly at higher than Mach-3. Mixing and ignition length weren't practical for a duct though...
Near the same time it was noted (in a different program) that fluids injected into a high speed airstream tended to carry away some of the heat, (transpiration cooling) and even a rocket engine exhaust plume tended to be 'cooler' than air passage at some speeds.
So, dip into the atmosphere to begin a 'skip' and near the lowest point you inject fuel into the airstream behind the nose and along the flat lower surface. Trap it with careful design work and direct it along the fuselage till it mixes and hits auto ignition temperature. As it flows along the fuselage you get a) a barrier between the heated airflow, b) compression of the "exhaust" stream between the fuselage and supersonic shock, and c) thrust. Keep the fuel flowing till thrust, (along with heating and air pressure) drop as you rise out of the 'skip' and repeat as needed. Note we know now that they suspected but lacked the wind-tunnels and test data to prove but this SIGNIFICANTLY increases a vehicles super/hypersonic L/D ratio as well which feeds into the range capability.
Like much else that got significantly side-tracked/forgotten in the rush to make the SCramjet a reality, (intake cooling, rockets that could breath super-cooled and not LIQUID air, etc) this stuff fell off the radar as contractors were told to 'focus' on the "important" stuff rather that the "hey this is cool" stuff by the people actually paying the bills. Jerks
This is one reason I believe the SABRE engine cycle will work if it every gets built. All the "suppositions" have been proven to work but no one has been interested in actually applying them because they didn't fit the 'paradigm of the month' at any one time.
Randy
IBM would have been quite willing to build new flight computers for the Air Force Titan-IIs as they had been doing so for other Titan-II Launch Vehicles for several years. The problem was most of the LAUNCH SITE computers were unable to talk to the new controllers and the Air Force needed an interface so they at least could talk to each other. The production run was going to be so small IBM didn't see the profit in just making the links, and the Air Force didn't want to pay for all new computers both for the missile and the launch sites...
The Air Force podged together some flight computers from existing inventory AND new links and still ended up replacing both during the last Titan modernization anyway
Fasquadron wrote:
Michel Van wrote:
(Warning: Though this might appear as if I've "over-thought" this a bit, this off the top of my head with some glances at some possible "Alt-Trek" or "Alt-Space" notes so be forwarned that ship sailed a LOOOONNNGGGG time ago
)Howard Hughes runs into or is given a copy of Eugen Sangers antipodal spaceplane paper and decides he wants to REALLY clinch a cross-continental speed record flight? There's going to be some obvious issues with "known" aerodynamics and materials as well as basic technology but it's possible at least. On the other hand your technology and hardware is also going to be an issue as the electronics of the day were really not up to the demand of even suborbital flight as for example radio range was pretty bad.
Complaint's about 'atmospheric interference' were rampant even though no one really knew or understood HOW it was effecting the signals over long distance. Getting an understandable signal DOWN from 40 miles up without more transmitting equipment than the vehicle can possibly carry is an issue. Hence the need for a 'man' on board to take notes and observe AND return. And before you think about 'recording' the data let's keep in mind this is pre-magnetic tape aka: your record is literally a record-platter most likely
The 'learning-curve' is going to be steep and expensive but with some doing you can probably get a really high altitude flight but the question of utility versus existing systems comes up. Most camera systems had to be relatively 'close' to the target they were photographing. (Far less than 100km and don't forget if there is a horizontal component of velocity to put the vehicle 'over' the target there has to be enough delta-v on the vehicle to GET to that speed AND it be robust enough to survive the flight!)
Even around the late 1930s the idea of 'side-scan' photography, (taking pictures inside an enemy or unfriendly nation from high up but not overflying) was around but the needed camera dimensions were rather excessive. And the human eye would need 'aid' as well so you would still have a problem with fitting it into a credible vehicle.
I've a partially written 'scenario' where HH does the above and then uses it after Pearl Harbor, (wrecking the launcher in the process but the government is interested in paying for building a replacement) to try and fly up and locate the Japanese attack force so the Navy can maybe get some revenge. The problem I run into of course is even if he does get high enough he probably can't see, (or ID) the TF without some sort of telescope AND has no way of getting that information to the ground without bringing it back and just where the heck does he land this thing?
(Of course the idea of what the Japanese would make of 'something' smashing into one of their carries at around Mach-2/3 has all sorts of fascinating connotations but I'm not seeing Howard as the suicide type for something like this) And 'operationally' and all the Navy is in no position to USE any such information even if HH is at all accurate AND survives to get said information back to them.
Even having a launcher on the East Coast, (add "round trip-record" to that list
) doesn't net you much, as this would have an estimated 'range' of around 3200 miles you'd have to launch it from Newfoundland to put Germany in 'range' and that's assuming something like an overly expensive V1-ish glide-bomb/missile. (I don't see the US being willing to 'give' this to the Soviets by trying to land there but maybe Switzerland?) The operational load would be miniscule for the cost of delivery though and you're pretty much at the end of the 'operational' range so you'd be low and getting slower as well which is also less effective. You might see an early suggestion of using ramjets and turning back to France or England. (Listening to Two Steps From Hell "Flight of the Silverbird" will get these kind of thoughts going )Utility in the Pacific is more problematical though 'technically' Japan's in range from Alaska, again some way to extend the flight* to China might be in order but not sure it would be feasible. And again your actual 'payload' would be negligible though with Japan that's a bit beside the point at first. (Doolittle Raid)
Operationally where you launch from and where you land is problematical in the Pacific but with the right equipment and operations it might be possible to keep good tabs on Japanese surface movement using suborbital flight but the question is would it be worth the actual cost? Having said that if someone figures out kinetic bombardment methods, (it's 'just' math after all
) the distance between Hawaii and Midway is about 'half' your continental flight distance which would put the 'bird' near maximum speed and altitude over Midway and a REALLY bad day for the Japanese fleet who probably won't even know the "Rods from the Gods" are coming...Again where do you land though... (Speaking of Midway though, that puts Tokyo a bit over 2500 miles away, and Silverbird was calculated to be capable of delivering around 8,800lbs of payload which strangely enough is around the mass of "Little Boy"...)
And arguably as this is a lot less "capable" than the Silverbird, (3200 miles versus 12,000 to 15,000 miles and about half the speed) it might be that much more plausible as a system. Which could lead to some interesting post-war work as focus would not shift to actually creeping up of speed and distance to 'handle' the new Soviet threat. So...
By the late-40s/early 50s the focus is less on ballistic missiles than even OTL as "manned" skip-glide recon-bombers are the main focus of the US military (think BOMI possibly rail launched) while the USSR might continue to concentrate on ballistic missiles. With this you have the US actually having a slower time due to the more complex, technologically harder, and more expensive "boost-glide" vehicle which is rather 'tied' to a certain design and operational philosophy, (manned therefore it MUST have both a launch AND landing base and the ability to go from one to the other after every mission, this makes the task much more difficult) whereas the "expendable" ICBM needs only a launch facility and target.
So the US builds up overseas 'landing' bases, (Japan comes to mind) and pursues a rather less capable "space" launch capacity whereas the USSR continues in a similar manner to OTL and develops a much heavier payload capability than the US. By the late 1950s the US actually has the ability to 'overflight' the USSR/China with their manned system but the question is do they as it would be impossible to 'hide' as we tried to do with the U2 overflights? Meanwhile the USSR has developed the capability to orbit larger payloads than the US but the general 'perception' is about equal to the general public. (And frankly replacing the boost-glide vehicle with an 'upper-stage' could be fairly straight forward) The main question is political as to what the "current" situation is. Assume anyone other than Ike and its likely neither the over-flights or "militarization" of space is regarded as questionable. If Ike is President then the whole focus of the "military" space program is distasteful to him, but what real choice does he have other than ordering a "crash" ICBM program the military probably want's to pursue even less TTL than OTL...
*Both the Soviets and to some extent the US investigated the possible use of ramjets to extend the range of the Sanger idea. One of those ideas that was lost/found/lost/found over time is that while "skip-glide" has some issues it wasn't as bad as people thought and in fact if you can provide some sort of 'propulsive-impulse' during the deepest part of the 'skips' both your range and stress/heating issues are much lower. So how to provide that 'propulsive-impulse'? Funny thing but during the mid-to-late-50s when the "SCramjet" concept was brand new no one had a clue as to how to build one but "common wisdom" was that building a duct to contain a supersonic airflow 'probably' wasn't an option. So they experimented with massive 'open' ducts under the wings and/or fuselage with fuel injected just inside the lip so it had time to mix. Found out that didn't work, but fuel injected into a supersonic airflow tended autoignite if 'held' long enough especailly at higher than Mach-3. Mixing and ignition length weren't practical for a duct though...
Near the same time it was noted (in a different program) that fluids injected into a high speed airstream tended to carry away some of the heat, (transpiration cooling) and even a rocket engine exhaust plume tended to be 'cooler' than air passage at some speeds.
So, dip into the atmosphere to begin a 'skip' and near the lowest point you inject fuel into the airstream behind the nose and along the flat lower surface. Trap it with careful design work and direct it along the fuselage till it mixes and hits auto ignition temperature. As it flows along the fuselage you get a) a barrier between the heated airflow, b) compression of the "exhaust" stream between the fuselage and supersonic shock, and c) thrust. Keep the fuel flowing till thrust, (along with heating and air pressure) drop as you rise out of the 'skip' and repeat as needed. Note we know now that they suspected but lacked the wind-tunnels and test data to prove but this SIGNIFICANTLY increases a vehicles super/hypersonic L/D ratio as well which feeds into the range capability.
Like much else that got significantly side-tracked/forgotten in the rush to make the SCramjet a reality, (intake cooling, rockets that could breath super-cooled and not LIQUID air, etc) this stuff fell off the radar as contractors were told to 'focus' on the "important" stuff rather that the "hey this is cool" stuff by the people actually paying the bills. Jerks
This is one reason I believe the SABRE engine cycle will work if it every gets built. All the "suppositions" have been proven to work but no one has been interested in actually applying them because they didn't fit the 'paradigm of the month' at any one time.
Randy
Oh and interesting article on the two main competitors for the early "future" weapons system:
https://thehighfrontier.blog/2017/01/15/atlas-bomi-weapons-for-a-new-frontier/
Randy
https://thehighfrontier.blog/2017/01/15/atlas-bomi-weapons-for-a-new-frontier/
Randy