Author Topic: Before Dream Chaser: The Martin Space Taxi “Yellowbird”  (Read 28122 times)

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7952
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2157
  • Likes Given: 5101
I know what you’ve read about the Dream Chaser and how it was based on the Russian BOR-4 and all. Even NASA’s own webpage states that the HL-20, Dream Chaser’s ancestor was based on it. This is doing a disservice to all the Lifting Body work done by Dale Reed and the magnificent series of X-planes, such as the X-23, X-24A/B, the HL-10 and M2-F1/2/3. One obscure and forgotten program was Martin’s Space Taxi or “Yellowbird”. It was displayed in the Hall of Science at the 1964 New York World’s Fair. It was shown with an Orbital Space Station that was animated with the docking Space Taxis and the film “Rendezvous in Space” made to explain the program. The Space Shuttle did fulfill the vision of the conceptual program at a larger scale, but the Dream Chaser is closer to the actual vision dimensionally depicted by Martin.  Sorry BOR, you were about 20 years too late to claim the concept.
http://www.worldsfaircommunity.org/topic/10567-martin-company-at-hall-of-science/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=P2iKXSRt6aM

« Last Edit: 10/28/2011 10:11 PM by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7952
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2157
  • Likes Given: 5101
A couple more...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Online BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1312
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 196
  • Likes Given: 263
I would bicycle to the hall on weekends and watch the show every time I went. I knew then that lifting bodies are not only way cool but the right way to get back down. Thanks for reminding me of where I came from!

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7952
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2157
  • Likes Given: 5101
I would bicycle to the hall on weekends and watch the show every time I went. I knew then that lifting bodies are not only way cool but the right way to get back down. Thanks for reminding me of where I came from!
Sweet, I guess we lived close by. I was at the tip of the South Bronx at Clason point. Went to fair when it opened, pretty cool stuff to have seen...

Regards
Robert
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Offline raketen

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 107
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
I know what you’ve read about the Dream Chaser and how it was based on the Russian BOR-4 and all. Even NASA’s own webpage states that the HL-20, Dream Chaser’s ancestor was based on it. This is doing a disservice to all the Lifting Body work done by Dale Reed and the magnificent series of X-planes, such as the X-23, X-24A/B, the HL-10 and M2-F1/2/3.

A small wind tunnel model was initially made by NASA Langley using photos of the BOR-4.  This was used to generate the mold line of other wind tunnel models and eventually the HL-20 mockup (now the SNC Dream Chaser).  BTW, the HL-20 designation was selected, tongue-in-cheek, because it was "twice as good as the HL-10."  It was assumed at the time that the U.S. lifting body work may have influenced the BOR-4 design, but it became clear from wind tunnel results that the Soviets had obviously put a lot of effort in refining the shape they eventually flew to orbit 4 times.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7952
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2157
  • Likes Given: 5101
I know what you’ve read about the Dream Chaser and how it was based on the Russian BOR-4 and all. Even NASA’s own webpage states that the HL-20, Dream Chaser’s ancestor was based on it. This is doing a disservice to all the Lifting Body work done by Dale Reed and the magnificent series of X-planes, such as the X-23, X-24A/B, the HL-10 and M2-F1/2/3.

A small wind tunnel model was initially made by NASA Langley using photos of the BOR-4.  This was used to generate the mold line of other wind tunnel models and eventually the HL-20 mockup (now the SNC Dream Chaser).  BTW, the HL-20 designation was selected, tongue-in-cheek, because it was "twice as good as the HL-10."  It was assumed at the time that the U.S. lifting body work may have influenced the BOR-4 design, but it became clear from wind tunnel results that the Soviets had obviously put a lot of effort in refining the shape they eventually flew to orbit 4 times.
Sure, they refined an American Idea that first flew into space 1966 as the X-23. Way before BOR in the eighties. It's a good idea we took back. :)
Compare side by side...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Online mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2065
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 165
  • Likes Given: 35
I swear I remember that same display in the Denver museum of Natural History.  It amazes me how much the station looks like the Revelll Space Station model from the 1950s.

Offline GClark

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 333
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 5
Actually, the genesis of the BOR-4 is at the same time more complex and yet simpler than that.

What would become the BOR-4 was first sketched out at the bureau of Pavel Tsybin in the late 'fifties right around the same time as Eggers was developing the M1 - the PKA.  The design was eventually passed off (I'm simplfying this more than a little) to Mikoyan where it landed on Lozino-Lozinskys' desk.  He developed it into the  Spiral EPOS.  Sub-scale tests of BOR-1, -2, and -3 models were flown in the 'sixties and 'seventies, along with the piloted MiG 105.11 (now at Zhukovskii).

Rather than an adaptation of US lifting bodies, IMNSHO the BOR was a case of concurrent development.

Note:  Technically, there was no X-23.  The sub-scale SV-5 reentry tests were simply called SV-5D/PRIME.  Andreas Parsch has a discussion of this at his Designation Systems website.

V/R,

Edit: Added name of SV-5D program.
« Last Edit: 10/29/2011 06:52 AM by GClark »

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7952
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2157
  • Likes Given: 5101
Actually, the genesis of the BOR-4 is at the same time more complex and yet simpler than that.

What would become the BOR-4 was first sketched out at the bureau of Pavel Tsybin in the late 'fifties right around the same time as Eggers was developing the M1 - the PKA.  The design was eventually passed off (I'm simplfying this more than a little) to Mikoyan where it landed on Lozino-Lozinskys' desk.  He developed it into the  Spiral EPOS.  Sub-scale tests of BOR-1, -2, and -3 models were flown in the 'sixties and 'seventies, along with the piloted MiG 105.11 (now at Zhukovskii).

Rather than an adaptation of US lifting bodies, IMNSHO the BOR was a case of concurrent development.

Note:  Technically, there was no X-23.  The sub-scale SV-5 reentry tests were simply called SV-5D/PRIME.  Andreas Parsch has a discussion of this at his Designation Systems website.

V/R,

Edit: Added name of SV-5D program.

Yes, I know about the Mig 105/Spiral. Jet powered and folding wings, which makes them just a conventional swept wing A/C in landing config, not a pure lifting body as was "Yellowbird". Also, by your logic "technically", there was no BOR 4 or X-38, since they were "subscale" as well ::)
« Last Edit: 10/29/2011 02:30 PM by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Offline GClark

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 333
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 5
(Heavy sigh)  Now you've made me go all over pedantic.

"The X-23A designation is generally attributed to the Martin Marietta SV-5D PRIME unmanned lifting body reentry test vehicle, but available USAF nomenclature records show that X-23A was never actually assigned. On 16 November 1965, the designation X-23A was requested for the SV-5P [sic!] vehicle, which is known to have been designated as X-24A in mid-1967 (see next paragraph). The vehicle description accompanying the designation request of 1965 clearly describes the SV-5P as a low-speed (Mach 2 to landing) manned lifting-body aircraft. However, in a letter dated 15 December 1965, the request was disapproved for the reason that the subject aircraft was unmanned (at that time, the aircraft designation system was still used as originally intended in 1962, i.e. for manned aircraft only)! This appears to be very weird indeed, but apparently there was a severe misunderstanding regarding the nature of the research aircraft at the office which had to approve the designation.

In late 1966, the offices responsible for the USAF's lifting body reentry programs again pondered the question how to designate the test vehicles. After a stillborn proposal to introduce a completely new designation category for gliding reentry vehicles, it was decided that the best way to go was to request the designations X-23A for the unmanned SV-5D PRIME and X-24A for the manned SV-5P. X-24A was accordignly requested and approved, but it appears that no actual request for X-23A was ever sent to the nomenclature office. Reasons are unknown, but maybe it was realized that an MDS request for an unmanned vehicle was futile, especially when the rejection of the 1965 request for X-23A explicitly said that unmanned aircraft need no designation. Whatever the reasons, the designation X-23A was never even requested for, let alone allocated to, the SV-5D PRIME vehicle. "

Source:  http://designation-systems.net/usmilav/missing-mds.html

This is heading OT.  I would debate the origin of the BOR family of lifting bodies with you all night, but the mods probably wouldn't appreciate it very much.

I recommend more reading, young padawan.

V/R,

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7952
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2157
  • Likes Given: 5101
Re: Before Dream Chaser: The Martin Space Taxi “Yellowbird”
« Reply #10 on: 10/30/2011 12:20 PM »
Sometimes “X” is assigned to programs for no other reasons other than its “sexy” which in turn means “funding”.  Getting back on thread it is interesting how if you look at the Martin “Yellowbird”,  you can definitely see its influence on Northop’s HL-10… Interesting…  ;)

Regards
Robert

Some history for those interested...
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4220/contents.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/saintii.htm
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20965.0
« Last Edit: 10/30/2011 01:10 PM by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7952
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2157
  • Likes Given: 5101
Re: Before Dream Chaser: The Martin Space Taxi “Yellowbird”
« Reply #11 on: 11/02/2011 12:19 AM »
Martin concept for HL-10

http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=4912

"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Offline simonbp

And predating all that, the Martin Model 410 Apollo proposal. It actually outscored NAA in the ranking, but lost as it was too different from what Faget & Co. had asked for.

(last is a 3d rendering I did)

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7952
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2157
  • Likes Given: 5101
Re: Before Dream Chaser: The Martin Space Taxi “Yellowbird”
« Reply #13 on: 11/08/2011 11:24 AM »
And predating all that, the Martin Model 410 Apollo proposal. It actually outscored NAA in the ranking, but lost as it was too different from what Faget & Co. had asked for.

(last is a 3d rendering I did)
Great pics Simon, but the "biconic capsule" is a bit OT. Thanks for sharing just the same.

Robert
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7952
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2157
  • Likes Given: 5101
Re: Before Dream Chaser: The Martin Space Taxi “Yellowbird”
« Reply #14 on: 11/08/2011 11:26 AM »
A historical timeline of U.S. and U.S.S.R. efforts...

http://crimso.msk.ru/Site/Arts/Art4293.htm
« Last Edit: 11/08/2011 11:26 AM by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Offline simonbp

It's not a actually biconic capsule, it's the Langley M-1 lifting body shape, which was the father of the M2-F1 and the grandaddy of all other US lifting bodies...

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7952
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2157
  • Likes Given: 5101
Re: Before Dream Chaser: The Martin Space Taxi “Yellowbird”
« Reply #16 on: 11/09/2011 11:23 PM »
It's not a actually biconic capsule, it's the Langley M-1 lifting body shape, which was the father of the M2-F1 and the grandaddy of all other US lifting bodies...
Hey Simon,
Yup, I know the M-1 is an oldie in lifting body concepts, but I guess I’m not making myself clear in my thread, that it isn’t about lifting bodies in general but a “Space Taxi” to and from a space station that has its history in the lifting body vein. That being said, is your model rendered for Orbiter Sim, I’m always looking for some good addons, especially “grandpa”…   ;)

Regards
Robert
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Online mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2065
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 165
  • Likes Given: 35
Re: Before Dream Chaser: The Martin Space Taxi “Yellowbird”
« Reply #17 on: 09/07/2012 04:03 PM »
Sort of a Bump.  I seem to recall an exhibit in the Denver Museum of Natural History of the Yellowbird and the Space Station.  I also am touched by the resemblence of the Martin Space Station to the Revell Space Station model of 1953.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7952
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2157
  • Likes Given: 5101
Re: Before Dream Chaser: The Martin Space Taxi “Yellowbird”
« Reply #18 on: 09/07/2012 04:19 PM »
Sort of a Bump.  I seem to recall an exhibit in the Denver Museum of Natural History of the Yellowbird and the Space Station.  I also am touched by the resemblence of the Martin Space Station to the Revell Space Station model of 1953.
I'm thinking you mean this one Mike?

http://www.oldmodelkits.com/index.php?detail=4298&searchtext=space%20station
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Online mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2065
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 165
  • Likes Given: 35
Re: Before Dream Chaser: The Martin Space Taxi “Yellowbird”
« Reply #19 on: 09/07/2012 09:03 PM »
Yep, that's the one.  I have one in my collection.  Sort of my pride, along with the XSL-01.  Unfortunantly, it did not turn out so well as I would have liked when I built it.

Tags: