Author Topic: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane  (Read 16388 times)

Offline Doylwwelch33

  • Member
  • Posts: 1
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
In the early 1980s, McDonnell Douglas proposed the GRM-29A (Global Range Mach-29 Aerospaceplane) as part of the Science Dawn program, sponsored by the US Air Force. This program aimed to explore the feasibility of a manned horizontal takeoff and landing Single-Stage-to-Orbit (SSTO) aerospaceplane capable of carrying a 10,000-pound payload to polar orbit for Strategic Air Command missions.

The GRM-29A was an unusually designed spaceplane, resembling the size of the B-1 swing-wing bomber. It was intended for vertical takeoff in a horizontal attitude, akin to the Harrier aircraft. With the capability to launch from up to 480 sites in the lower 48 states, it could strike anywhere in the world from orbital altitudes. The design featured a downward-pointing Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) in the nose to meet runway requirements.

However, the GRM-29A remained a design study only, as the final report on Science Realm design studies published in 1984 concluded that horizontal takeoff was an inappropriate use of rocket power. Nonetheless, the report recommended the construction and testing of metallic structural test articles. McDonnell Douglas, along with Boeing and Lockheed, built a structural test article for an SSTO vehicle as part of the Have Region initiative.

References:

- Butrica, A.J., 2003. Single Stage to Orbit: Politics, Space Technology, and the Quest for Reusable Rocketry. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press. [Link](https://www.google.com/books/edition/Single_Stage_to_Orbit/v6eTVBEDA54C?hl=en&gbpv=0)
- [Link](https://up-ship.com/blog/?p=6004)
- [Image Reference](https://up-ship.com/apr/images/v5n2all.jpg)

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16048
  • Liked: 8892
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #1 on: 03/28/2024 11:10 am »
There were a bunch of USAF-sponsored orbital spaceplane concepts in the late 1970s/early 1980s. My favorite was the Air Launched Sortie Vehicle, which I wrote about. There may be a thread about them in this history section. If not, it might make sense to have a single thread bout them rather than one devoted to a specific proposal (because that thread will be short and fade away quickly).

Offline leovinus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1225
  • Porto, Portugal
  • Liked: 966
  • Likes Given: 1872
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #2 on: 03/28/2024 12:19 pm »
A more general thread on transatmospheric vehicles (TAV) and early designs could be fun. As an example, we talked  about Rockwell International MRCC (Multi Role Common Core) spaceplane earlier. There is also a lot of material here as well

One word of caution for this thread. The initial post is almost identical to the initial post at an earlier thread with identical title but different poster.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=59416.0

Offline LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1301
  • UK
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 659
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #3 on: 03/28/2024 02:35 pm »
A more general thread on transatmospheric vehicles (TAV) and early designs could be fun. As an example, we talked  about Rockwell International MRCC (Multi Role Common Core) spaceplane earlier. There is also a lot of material here as well

One word of caution for this thread. The initial post is almost identical to the initial post at an earlier thread with identical title but different poster.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=59416.0

I share your concern re duplication etc, however I must admit what I'd really like to know is what SAC thought they needed "10,000-pound payload to polar orbit" for ;-)

Offline zubenelgenubi

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12594
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Sometimes it feels like Trantor in the time of Hari Seldon
  • Liked: 8487
  • Likes Given: 83639
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #4 on: 03/28/2024 08:18 pm »
Moderator:
I locked the other threads in question until such time as someone can locate other TAV threads and merge them.

Admittedly, that may take some time.

If someone can search and list them here, then that would be of great assistance. 👍

Thank you. 😊
Support your local planetarium! (COVID-panic and forward: Now more than ever.) My current avatar is saying "i wants to go uppies!" Yes, there are God-given rights. Do you wish to gainsay the Declaration of Independence?

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16048
  • Liked: 8892
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #5 on: 03/29/2024 06:17 pm »
This is my article from three years ago about the ALSV. I've always loved this concept, but I never really thought it was practical.

https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4161/1

Higher burning: The Air Launched Sortie Vehicle of the 1980s
by Dwayne A. Day
Monday, April 19, 2021

A recent episode of the AppleTV+ series “For All Mankind” featured a big reveal: an advanced space shuttle launched off the back of a C-5 Galaxy, headed for space on a military mission. It is a concept that has been around since the beginning of the shuttle program. In the early 1980s, the United States Air Force sponsored studies of what was initially designated a Space Sortie Vehicle, then renamed the Air Launched Sortie Vehicle, or ALSV. The ALSV would have launched into space off the back of a 747. In one early concept, the 747 would have been equipped with multiple rocket engines in its tail to boost it to launch altitude. Now, newly-acquired information indicates that Boeing conducted several studies of “Trans-Atmospheric Vehicles” in 1983, including a revised variant of the ALSV. This Sortie Vehicle, looking somewhat like a space shuttle orbiter that had been (lightly) stepped on by Godzilla, would have fired its own rocket engines while on top of the 747 and pushed both vehicles higher before separating the spacecraft to head into orbit.

In late 1980, Don Hart, the head of the Air Force Rocket Propulsion Laboratory, outlined what was described as “an Air Force Sortie Space System” in a seven-page overview document. According to Dana Andrews, who later worked on the concept, Hart was concerned about the Air Force’s lack of responsive launch capability at the time. The Space Sortie System had three major parts: a launch platform, drop tanks, and a space vehicle. General Dynamics performed a basic assessment of the concept for the Air Force.

The launch platform was defined as a 747 that not only carried the space vehicle and drop tanks on its back, but also had liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen storage tanks inside its fuselage. The tanks would be low boil-off dewars and the propellants would be pumped into the drop tanks just before separation of the vehicle and drop tanks.

This would be no ordinary 747. Not only would it have the internal tanks, but the hydrogen would also be pumped into afterburners on the 747’s large turbofan engines, providing up to 400 percent thrust augmentation. The 747 would fly a zoom parabola, with vehicle separation at 15,200–16,800 meters (50,000–55,000 feet) altitude. As jumbo jets go, it would have been a real hot rod.

The space vehicle would have two attached drop tanks based upon design, materials, tooling, and fabrication techniques for the Atlas launch vehicle. The tanks would be covered with the Space Shuttle’s spray-on insulation if necessary. The tanks would form an aerodynamically-shaped nose for a lifting ascent trajectory and be released from the space vehicle shortly before it reached orbit, to burn up on reentry. If necessary, they would be explosively blown into pieces. Unlike more traditional launch vehicles but like the Space Shuttle, each tank would have three inner tanks, with hydrogen in the front, oxygen in the middle, and hydrogen at the rear to control the center of gravity for a lifting ascent. Overall, the vehicle would be approximately 10.7 meters (35 feet) wide and 15.2 meters (50 feet) long.

The space vehicle would be reusable, making a runway landing after return from orbit. The vehicle’s shape would be derived from several flown or heavily-studied lifting body type vehicles such as the FDL-5, FDL-8, or X-24C. The vehicle would be powered by ten modified RL10 engines arranged in a 2 x 5 array. The turbomachinery and injector would be the same as the standard RL10, but the thrust chamber would be slightly longer, the expansion ratio slightly less, and there would be upper and lower expansion plates for better performance in vacuum. The backside of the expansion plates would also provide vehicle pitch control. During reentry, the plates would close completely, forming a boattail over the rear of the vehicle.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16048
  • Liked: 8892
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #6 on: 03/29/2024 06:27 pm »
The report I have, which I used for much of my ALSV article posted above, detailed three different concepts in the early 1980s. They were:

-747-launched spaceplane/ALSV---the least expensive option
-rocket-sled horizontally-launched spaceplane--medium expensive option
-all-new launch vehicle and air-launched spaceplane--most expensive option

Now where those studies fit into the overall series of studies in the late 1970s and then into the 1980s (including the Trans-Atmospheric Vehicle/TAV) I don't know. It seems like USAF was funding some studies, and then the big aerospace companies were putting their own R&D funding into similar studies. It does not seem like any of this stuff went anywhere, but there are people who believe that classified vehicles may have been built. I don't believe that anything even made it to the prototype stage. The physics and economics just don't add up.

There are websites that go into some of this stuff and occasionally speculate wildly. And the Secret Projects Forum has some additional links.

« Last Edit: 03/31/2024 01:54 pm by Blackstar »

Offline leovinus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1225
  • Porto, Portugal
  • Liked: 966
  • Likes Given: 1872
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #7 on: 03/30/2024 10:51 am »
[snip
]If someone can search and list them here, then that would be of great assistance. 👍

Thank you. 😊

Below a list of some NSF threads I found on the quick. To help my head around "What concept, when and by whom?" I tried to put them in a historical context with limited success. The list of NSF threads is not complete by any means so please add more. Many threads where very general "SSTO" or titled confusingly such that relevant materials are hard to place in context.

From my side, I'd love to learn more about 70s VTOHL, HTOHL, ANY-Orbital concepts plus military, Shuttle, and Cocorde-like relations. A visual family tree of studies, contractors, sources would be very helpful.

PS: As background, I started sleuthing for documents about two years ago on these concepts. There are many questions like "What did SAC want to do with these? Just another Sānger Silbervogel?", "The military vs NASA vs Shuttle vs human spaceflight discussion.", "USA vs UK and Europe and the Concorde", NASP, X33, "SSTO vs TSTO", "Any orginal documents surviving for further study and where do we find more?" etc.

So far, I have more than a dozen original and deeper documents so far. The trawling for original materials and relevant NAS study numbers on NTRS was a slow start. There is a bunch of TAV material at NASA HQ history but not always clear which of the projects below it relates to. There is a bunch of NASP and X-33 at NARA as well. I haven't had much time to digest and report but I am happy to collaborate to build and discuss the wider picture :)

"The Military Transatmospheric Aerospace Plane", Ramon L. Chase, 1996, attached as 965565.pdf on NSF at
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=60227.msg2564401#msg2564401

The pointers to NSF threads and a few other materials is based on Figure 2 in 965565.pdf.

Quote
Figure 2 presents a history of SSTO interest in the United States during the past 30 years. While the list is not complete, it does indicate the scope of concepts considered and a continued interest in SSTO launch vehicles in this country. In addition to those shown, advanced transatmospheric aerospace plane concepts, called Black Horse and Black Colt, have been looked at by the Air Force.

* 1960s
- AIR FORCE NASP (HTOHL)
- CHRYSLER (VTOVL) SPACE SHUTTLE OPTION

* 1970s
- L. CORMIER (HTOHL) SLED ASSISTED SSTO
   https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/boeing-north-american-rockwell-windjammer-ssto.33764/

- G. HUDSON (VTOVL) PHOENIX
- BOEING (HTOHL) RASV
   Boeing "Reusable Aerodynamic Space Vehicle" (RASV) 
   https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48542.0

   RASV
   Technology requirements for advanced earth orbital transportation system. Volume 1: Executive summary
   Technology requirements for advanced earth orbital transportation systems. Volume 2: Summary report
   Technology requirements for advanced earth orbital transportation systems. Volume 3: Summary report - dual mode propulsion
   https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46795.msg1884047#msg1884047

   BOEING /U.S.A.F.“AIR-LAUNCHED SORTIE VEHICLE” [ALSV] [1979-82] 
   https://web.archive.org/web/20131225010025/http://www.pmview.com/spaceodysseytwo/spacelvs/sld053.htm

   FINAL REPORT ON BOEING TRANSATMOSPHERIC VEHICLE (TAV) CONCEPTS DEFINITION (PHASE I)
   Boeing Report  D180-27669-4
   https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADB216503.pdf
   
   Higher burning: The Air Launched Sortie Vehicle of the 1980s
   https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4161/1
      
- MARTIN (VOTHL) AMSC OPTION

° 1980s
- ANSER(VTOHL) AMSC OPTION
- BOEING (HTOHL) SCIENCE DAWN
- LOCKHEED (HROHL) SCIENCE DAWN
- MCDONNEL DOUGLAS (VTOHL) SCIENCE DAWN
- TONY DUPONT/DARPA (HTOHL) COPPER CANYON
- ROCKWELL (HTOHL) NASP
   ROCKWELL / U.S.A.F. “TRANS-ATMOSPHERIC VEHICLES” [1980-84]
   Rockwell International MRCC (Multi Role Common Core) spaceplane
   https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=58576.0
   
   Re: NASP X-30
   https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20183.0
   
   https://web.archive.org/web/20131225010025/http://www.pmview.com/spaceodysseytwo/spacelvs/sld054.htm
   
- BOEING (HTOHL) NASP
- MCDONNELL DOUGLAS (HTOHL) NASP
   McDONNELL-DOUGLAS “TRANS-ATMOSPHERIC VEHICLE”  [1984]
   https://web.archive.org/web/20131225010025/http://www.pmview.com/spaceodysseytwo/spacelvs/sld057.htm
   
   McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane  (new thread)
   https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=60623.0

   McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane (locked)
   https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=59416.0

- GENERAL DYNAMICS (HTOHL) NASP
   GENERAL DYNAMICS  “TRANS-ATMOSPHERIC VEHICLES”  [1982]
   https://web.archive.org/web/20131225010025/http://www.pmview.com/spaceodysseytwo/spacelvs/sld055.htm
   
- LOCKHEED (HTOHL) NASP
   LOCKHEED / U.S.A.F. “TRANS-ATMOSPHERIC VEHICLES”  [1984]
   https://web.archive.org/web/20131225010025/http://www.pmview.com/spaceodysseytwo/spacelvs/sld056.htm
   
* 1990s
- MAX HUNTER (VTOVL) BMDO
- BOEING (VTOVL) SDIO
- ROCKWELL (VTOVL) SDIO
- GENERAL DYNAMICS (VTOVL) SDIO
- MCDONNELL DOUGLAS (VTOVL) BMDO (SDIO)
- ROCKWELL (VTOHL) COMPANY SPONSORED
- LOCKHEED (VTOHL) COMPANY SPONSORED
- BOEING (HTOHL) COMPANY SPONSORED
- ANSER (HTOHL)LOW COST CONCEPTUAL SSTO
- ANSER (HTOHL) HIGH PERFORMANCE CONCEPTUAL
- NASA (VTOHL, VTOVL, HTOHL) EXCESS TO SPACE

Boeing's DC-X competitor
>Boeing's main proposal for the DC-X competitor was the HTOHL "RASV." However, they also studied VTOHL versions of the RASV as well as VTOVL vehicles that looked like tubby Delta Clippers or like Gary Hudsons "Phoenix."
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12548.0

General Discussion of Winged Flyback First Stages 
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48118.0

U.S. Air Force Reusable Space Shuttle: The Triamese by Convair
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=57198.0

Phoenix Rocket Glider
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45024.0

Hazegrayart - Hypersonic Lifting Body To Space: The FDL-5 
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=58183.0

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-2006-4702/Section4.pdf p310 Access to Space
>the Air Force ordered two classified studies of single stage to orbit technologies, “Science dawn” (1983–1985) and “Have region” (1986–1989), conducted by industry partners Boeing, Lockheed, and Mcdonnell douglas. they interpreted the study results as demonstrating the technological feasibility of the RASV for SAC

- NASA (2) SSTO DEMONSTRATOR
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160321-the-american-concordes-that-never-flew

And from NTRS and as well on archive.org (just search based on the number)
19850006478, Aerodynamic characteristics of some lifting reentry concepts applicable to transatmospheric vehicle design studies, "1984-12-01", archive.org
19870004884, An overview of the British Aerospace HOTOL transatmospheric vehicle, "1986-10-01", archive.org
19900016654, "Transatmospheric vehicle research, 1990-06-01, archive.org
19910007821, "JTEC panel report on space and transatmospheric propulsion technology, 1990-08-01, archive.org
19940031540, "Space and transatmospheric propulsion technology, 1994-03-01, archive.org
20010021224, "Optimization of the SHX Fusion Powered Transatmospheric Propulsion Concept, 2001-01-01, archive.org
20040100776, "Enhanced Control Effector Designs for Airbreathing Transatmospheric Vehicles, 1997-01-01, archive.org

Offline leovinus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1225
  • Porto, Portugal
  • Liked: 966
  • Likes Given: 1872
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #8 on: 03/30/2024 04:41 pm »
This is my article from three years ago about the ALSV. I've always loved this concept, but I never really thought it was practical.

https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4161/1

On the note "Was this practical?", I thought this quote trom "Solving the commercial passenger spaceflight puzzle (part 3)" at TheSpaceReview by Mike Snead was interesting.

Quote
The takeaway is that, in 1985, industry was judged ready to begin developing a fully-reusable TSTO system, possibly becoming operational prior to 2001. The very public emergence of the National Aerospace Plane program in late 1985, followed in early 1986 by the loss of the Space Shuttle Challenger, rapidly swept aside the TAV study results. Very little about this effort was recorded in permanent Air Force historical reports. While Boeing had filed for a patent while the TAV study was underway, this would not be published until 1989. Unaware of the patent filing, for 20 years I assumed the concept was proprietary until I found the patent around 2007. Government employees are not permitted to divulge company proprietary information.

It makes you wonder whether without Challenger catastrophe, the concept would have been developed further.

The reference to a Boeing patent
Quote
From a design perspective, it was a “sweet” design. In 1984, Boeing filed for and, in 1989, received U.S. patent 4,802,639 for this concept.
is attached.
 
The same article also gives the origin for the name TAV (as in "not a spaceplane") as
Quote
After the name sensitivity became apparent, the name “Transatmospheric Vehicle” or TAV was invented. It did not use space, spaceplane, or shuttle, but it correctly identified the intended operational characteristics of the system much as do the generic names “bomber” and “fighter.

Offline LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1301
  • UK
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 659
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #9 on: 03/31/2024 05:44 am »
[snip
]If someone can search and list them here, then that would be of great assistance. 👍

Thank you. 😊

Below a list of some NSF threads I found on the quick. To help my head around "What concept, when and by whom?" I tried to put them in a historical context with limited success. The list of NSF threads is not complete by any means so please add more. Many threads where very general "SSTO" or titled confusingly such that relevant materials are hard to place in context.

From my side, I'd love to learn more about 70s VTOHL, HTOHL, ANY-Orbital concepts plus military, Shuttle, and Cocorde-like relations. A visual family tree of studies, contractors, sources would be very helpful.

PS: As background, I started sleuthing for documents about two years ago on these concepts. There are many questions like "What did SAC want to do with these? Just another Sānger Silbervogel?", "The military vs NASA vs Shuttle vs human spaceflight discussion.", "USA vs UK and Europe and the Concorde", NASP, X33, "SSTO vs TSTO", "Any orginal documents surviving for further study and where do we find more?" etc.

<snip>
 

For completeness I append the cover and a relevant page from the sampler of the OP's original (secondary) book  reference which indeed looks worthwhile: Butrica, A.J., 2003. Single Stage to Orbit: Politics, Space Technology, and the Quest for Reusable Rocketry. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press. [Link](https://www.google.com/books/edition/Single_Stage_to_Orbit/v6eTVBEDA54C?hl=en&gbpv=0)

To me the most intriguing question is one you list  "What did SAC want to do with these? Just another Sānger Silbervogel?".

One reason it's intriguing because if it was indeed "another Sānger Silbervogel" the same ambition would be seen quite differently by the government and DoD in different eras:

i) Fifties, when "satelloids" like X-15 and Dynasoar were a clear public military aspiration.

ii) Late 60s when various treaties had been signed and the other guy was being reproved for developing a FOBS

iii) Carter era when the government was trying  to get SALT II signed and ratified.

iv) The early part of the Reagan era, from which the GRM-29 study comes. I don't think testing it would have broken the letter of any existing treaties ,though, but it adds to the context for things like Buran and what the Soviets thought the US was doing.

But I have a few drafts of my own that I should really finish, so I'll wish you luck rather than participate.
« Last Edit: 03/31/2024 05:48 am by LittleBird »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16048
  • Liked: 8892
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #10 on: 03/31/2024 12:35 pm »

To me the most intriguing question is one you list  "What did SAC want to do with these?


I don't think that's all that hard to answer. They did not know what they wanted to do. There was no clearly-defined requirement. They just wanted to know if a spaceplane was possible, and presumably they would figure out what to do with it later.

It turned out to not be possible (or at least not possible to do anything useful for a reasonable cost). So it was abandoned.

Offline LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1301
  • UK
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 659
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #11 on: 03/31/2024 01:37 pm »

To me the most intriguing question is one you list  "What did SAC want to do with these?


I don't think that's all that hard to answer. They did not know what they wanted to do. There was no clearly-defined requirement. They just wanted to know if a spaceplane was possible, and presumably they would figure out what to do with it later.

It turned out to not be possible (or at least not possible to do anything useful for a reasonable cost). So it was abandoned.

I take your points, in the sense of an absence of a top level requirement. I'd be curious though as to

i)  what the "operational need" mentioned on page 372  of this document is (from leovinus' long list above):

 FINAL REPORT ON BOEING TRANSATMOSPHERIC VEHICLE (TAV) CONCEPTS DEFINITION (PHASE I)
   Boeing Report  D180-27669-4
   https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADB216503.pdfare

(first grab)

and

ii) what led DARPA to think NASP would be feasible, at end of its Phase I in 1985 (second grab, from a 1992 GAO report on NASP here: https://www.gao.gov/assets/nsiad-93-71.pdf). Was it just pure technological enthusiasm (there was plenty in the air right about then, for sure). It's interesting that Copper Canyon was running at more or less same time as the Boeing
study above.
« Last Edit: 03/31/2024 01:39 pm by LittleBird »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16048
  • Liked: 8892
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #12 on: 03/31/2024 01:53 pm »
i)  what the "operational need" mentioned on page 372  of this document is (from leovinus' long list above):

Nothing. It was imaginary. If it was real, they would have built something.

The best way to understand this is that SAC was an airplane organization trying to understand space. That was also true of Boeing coming up with these designs.
« Last Edit: 03/31/2024 03:24 pm by Blackstar »

Offline LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1301
  • UK
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 659
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #13 on: 03/31/2024 04:16 pm »
i)  what the "operational need" mentioned on page 372  of this document is (from leovinus' long list above):

Nothing. It was imaginary. If it was real, they would have built something.

The best way to understand this is that SAC was an airplane organization trying to understand space. That was also true of Boeing coming up with these designs.


At least in theory the contract teams were supposed to have linked the military aviation and space divisions of the relevant companies (in case of Boeing, GD and Rockwell for example)-see 1984 Aviation Week item below from their  hypersonics through the years feature https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/hypersonics-through-years . However I accept that may not really have happened, and the clipping does indeed suggest the relatively small scale of the contracts: Phase 1 was $600 000 split between half a dozen or so companies. 


Offline Emmettvonbrown

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 349
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 886
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #14 on: 03/31/2024 04:22 pm »
Thanks for the link to Mike Snead The Space Review entries. He makes a very interesting case about human spaceflight needing airworthiness, that is: being a logical extension of air transportation... with HTOHL spaceliners.
(blatant self promotion: suborbital refueling can achieve that, as a logical extension of aerial refueling).


Offline tuomasn81

  • Member
  • Posts: 9
  • Finland
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #15 on: 04/01/2024 01:05 pm »
One also needs to be careful since "TAV" is used both as a generic term and in reference to this specific 1982-1984 USAF ASD program. Attached is a graph showing what are the actual 14 concepts that companies submitted to this original USAF program in 1983. There is sometimes confusion created by labelling all kinds of 1980s projects as "TAV" when actually using the term in a generic meaning instead of referring to this particular program.

What can be seen is that companies submitted several designs they had worked on in different programs earlier - Boeing had the RASV and ALSV designs as already noted, General Dynamics and Rockwell their AMSC designs and Rockwell also their MRCC. Note the Boeing design numbers match what is in this report (which I highly recommend if you haven't read it already, seems to be an important source for Blackstar's article too):

   FINAL REPORT ON BOEING TRANSATMOSPHERIC VEHICLE (TAV) CONCEPTS DEFINITION (PHASE I)
   Boeing Report  D180-27669-4
   https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADB216503.pdf

What would be most interesting would be the final TAV reports of the other contractors.

Offline leovinus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1225
  • Porto, Portugal
  • Liked: 966
  • Likes Given: 1872
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #16 on: 04/01/2024 08:45 pm »
One also needs to be careful since "TAV" is used both as a generic term and in reference to this specific 1982-1984 USAF ASD program. Attached is a graph showing what are the actual 14 concepts that companies submitted to this original USAF program in 1983. There is sometimes confusion created by labelling all kinds of 1980s projects as "TAV" when actually using the term in a generic meaning instead of referring to this particular program.

[snip]

What would be most interesting would be the final TAV reports of the other contractors.
While we probably all agree that it would be great to read the other TAV contractor reports, some homework is required to find them first :) As least, to my knowledge, we do not even know the titles, report numbers, etc for the 14 or so studies [1], page 649. For the example Boeing report we have, it has some project number, AirForce project number and contract, etc. It seems to be public because of a FOIA mentioned on first two pages. Based on what we know, a FOIA to at least get a list of contractor reports, titles, report numbers, study numbers etc to AF Wright Patterson base should be possible because that is where the TAV office was based.

[1] https://media.defense.gov/2010/Sep/27/2001329812/-1/-1/0/AFD-100927-035.pdf
AFD-100927-035.pdf roughly page 644 to 698
THE HYPERSONIC REVOLUTION - Case Studies in the History of Hypersonic Technology
Volume II - From Scramjet to the National Aero-Space Plane (1964-1986)
edt. Dr. Richard P. Hallion
Case VII: The Piloted Lifting Body Demonstrators: Supersonic Predecessors ot Hypersonic Lifting Reentry
which includes TAV for ~50 pages

PS: @LittleBird, you'll like the SAC discussion I would think.

Offline LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1301
  • UK
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 659
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #17 on: 04/02/2024 07:21 am »
One also needs to be careful since "TAV" is used both as a generic term and in reference to this specific 1982-1984 USAF ASD program. Attached is a graph showing what are the actual 14 concepts that companies submitted to this original USAF program in 1983. There is sometimes confusion created by labelling all kinds of 1980s projects as "TAV" when actually using the term in a generic meaning instead of referring to this particular program.

I think one thing that I certainly didn't realise, having never really taken an interest  in the topic, is the big shift from the primarily rocket powered studies of the mid 70s to early 80s, which include the TAV/RASV studies, to the at that time highly classified DARPA COPPER CANYON, which in contrast was air breathing. The latter started at about 6 million dollars (The releavnt budgets are in the GAO report I linked upthread) and rapidly shot upwards in funding and began the public NASP programme, into which the TAV efforts merged.

This seems to have been due to beliefs that new technology had made revisiting the air breathing idea, which had been around at least since  early 60s, newly viable. It seems to have been  a crucial step in the story and explains some of the remarks about TAV being overtaken by NASP in the Mike Snead article. The GAO report also says NASP then increased in complexity by taking on military requirements-though to what extent these were imposed and to what extent they were simply necessary to get support, or even volunteered I don't know.

From a v quick skim of the Hallion Vol 2 history (thanks for this) there seems to have been a tension throughout NASP/X-30 era between the expectations engendered by the Orient Express rhetoric and the limitations of current technology. By the time the GAO report came out it was being  generally realised that the tech wasn't really sufficiently ready, and moreover the Cold War and SDI incentives weren't really there any more-the Hallion report cautions against too strong a linkage of NASP with SDI anyway.

Offline LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1301
  • UK
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 659
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #18 on: 04/02/2024 07:24 am »

[1] https://media.defense.gov/2010/Sep/27/2001329812/-1/-1/0/AFD-100927-035.pdf
AFD-100927-035.pdf roughly page 644 to 698
THE HYPERSONIC REVOLUTION - Case Studies in the History of Hypersonic Technology
Volume II - From Scramjet to the National Aero-Space Plane (1964-1986)
edt. Dr. Richard P. Hallion
Case VII: The Piloted Lifting Body Demonstrators: Supersonic Predecessors ot Hypersonic Lifting Reentry
which includes TAV for ~50 pages

PS: @LittleBird, you'll like the SAC discussion I would think.

Thanks @leovinus. Pages 644 to 698 of the pdf indeed look v interesting at a quick skim but I can't see SAC there. What did you see ?

Offline leovinus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1225
  • Porto, Portugal
  • Liked: 966
  • Likes Given: 1872
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #19 on: 04/02/2024 10:48 am »

[1] https://media.defense.gov/2010/Sep/27/2001329812/-1/-1/0/AFD-100927-035.pdf
AFD-100927-035.pdf roughly page 644 to 698
THE HYPERSONIC REVOLUTION - Case Studies in the History of Hypersonic Technology
Volume II - From Scramjet to the National Aero-Space Plane (1964-1986)
edt. Dr. Richard P. Hallion
Case VII: The Piloted Lifting Body Demonstrators: Supersonic Predecessors ot Hypersonic Lifting Reentry
which includes TAV for ~50 pages

PS: @LittleBird, you'll like the SAC discussion I would think.

Thanks @leovinus. Pages 644 to 698 of the pdf indeed look v interesting at a quick skim but I can't see SAC there. What did you see ?
One question we wondered about was what SAC was going to do with a spaceplane/TAV with a 15,000 lbs payload. Some of the military thinking is on image 653-655. It even refers to a payload of 10,000 to 20,000 lbs and 15,000 is smack in the middle. 

The four envisioned missions were Force enhancement, Space support, Space control, Force application. Simplified mission preparation is addressed e.g. on image 655 as quoted below. There was a quote somewhere that such a TAV should be on "alert" 24/7 like B-52s just in case.

With a smile, I noticed the observation in the first quote on "strained scholasticism" ;)

image 653 / page 1341
Quote
TAV Phase II's emphasis upon determining military effectiveness resulted in a contract from ASD's Deputy for Development Planning in August 1984 to Science Applications, Inc. of Dayton for a twelve-month effectiveness investigation. For its part, Air Force Space Command envisioned the TAV fulfilling four key military space missions: Force enhancement (including global reconnaissance, surveillance, and C3), Space support (including satellite insertion, rendezvous, inspection, servicing, repair, retrieval, recovery, support of space stations including resupply and space rescue, and acting as a small space platform for scientific and military research), Space control (including protection of U.S. space assets, satellite attack warning, satellite defense, and anti-satellite operations), and, finally, Force application (combat operations including strategic offense, strategic defense of North America including ballistic missile defense, interdiction in theater conflicts, and "surgical application of force" to protect U.S. interests and avoid crisis escalation). "Force application," one Space Command TAV paper stated, "does not infer the 'weaponization of space'; simply the use of the high altitude flight regime for the operation of military aerospace vehicles," though such a distinction smacked of strained scholasticism.27

image 654 / page 1342
Quote
(Though this conclusion, as will be seen, quickly changed). Planners envisioned the TAV to be the size of a small airliner, with a 1,000-2,000 cu. ft. payload bay having a capacity of between 10,000-20,000 lbs, and having a gross liftoff weight of approximately 1 to 1.5 million lbs.

image 655 / page 1343
Quote
For example, in contrast to the estimated 200,000 man hours per launch required of the Shuttle, the TAV would be able to be mated with a payload within one day. Launch preparations would be simple enough so that the TAV could be launched under warning of a ballistic missile attack.

Offline LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1301
  • UK
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 659
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #20 on: 04/02/2024 12:20 pm »

[1] https://media.defense.gov/2010/Sep/27/2001329812/-1/-1/0/AFD-100927-035.pdf
AFD-100927-035.pdf roughly page 644 to 698
THE HYPERSONIC REVOLUTION - Case Studies in the History of Hypersonic Technology
Volume II - From Scramjet to the National Aero-Space Plane (1964-1986)
edt. Dr. Richard P. Hallion
Case VII: The Piloted Lifting Body Demonstrators: Supersonic Predecessors ot Hypersonic Lifting Reentry
which includes TAV for ~50 pages

PS: @LittleBird, you'll like the SAC discussion I would think.

Thanks @leovinus. Pages 644 to 698 of the pdf indeed look v interesting at a quick skim but I can't see SAC there. What did you see ?
One question we wondered about was what SAC was going to do with a spaceplane/TAV with a 15,000 lbs payload. Some of the military thinking is on image 653-655. It even refers to a payload of 10,000 to 20,000 lbs and 15,000 is smack in the middle. 

The four envisioned missions were Force enhancement, Space support, Space control, Force application. Simplified mission preparation is addressed e.g. on image 655 as quoted below. There was a quote somewhere that such a TAV should be on "alert" 24/7 like B-52s just in case.

With a smile, I noticed the observation in the first quote on "strained scholasticism" ;)

image 653 / page 1341
Quote
TAV Phase II's emphasis upon determining military effectiveness resulted in a contract from ASD's Deputy for Development Planning in August 1984 to Science Applications, Inc. of Dayton for a twelve-month effectiveness investigation. For its part, Air Force Space Command envisioned the TAV fulfilling four key military space missions: Force enhancement (including global reconnaissance, surveillance, and C3), Space support (including satellite insertion, rendezvous, inspection, servicing, repair, retrieval, recovery, support of space stations including resupply and space rescue, and acting as a small space platform for scientific and military research), Space control (including protection of U.S. space assets, satellite attack warning, satellite defense, and anti-satellite operations), and, finally, Force application (combat operations including strategic offense, strategic defense of North America including ballistic missile defense, interdiction in theater conflicts, and "surgical application of force" to protect U.S. interests and avoid crisis escalation). "Force application," one Space Command TAV paper stated, "does not infer the 'weaponization of space'; simply the use of the high altitude flight regime for the operation of military aerospace vehicles," though such a distinction smacked of strained scholasticism.27

<snip>
 

Many thanks for looking @leovinus but that rather reinforces the point Blackstar was making to me above. This wasn't necessarily SAC, who may well have been indifferent to spaceplanes-it was the fairly newly created (Sep 1985) AF Space Command.

I would be curious nonetheless to see the  Systems Operational Need doc (grab below) from 1979, even it was extracted from SAC rather than actually reflecting any real need on their part. Clearly spaceplanes did have some champions in the USAF system, and the Hallion report names a fewe-there was also goodwill from Hans Mark who I think was secretary of the AF at the time  he wrote the supportive memo that Hallion quotes (no time to check right now).

And yes indeed I did like the "strained scholasticism" line ... though the distinction may be all important. A TAV is not, in international law, a satellite and thus it is not clear to me whether it is prohibited in any way.
« Last Edit: 04/02/2024 12:23 pm by LittleBird »

Offline Emmettvonbrown

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 349
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 886
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #21 on: 04/02/2024 12:30 pm »
About SAC and RASV. Butrica's book mentions "Grand Forks AFB" as part of RASV requirements. What is interesting is that the said base was part of Safeguard ABM system... (if not its one and only base).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Forks_Air_Force_Base

I often wondered whether this meant RASV would be used (one way or another, don't ask me how exactly) for some kind of ABM mission. While Safeguard was ground based, the coming SDI was space based. And the early seeds of SDI started a few years before 1983: as early as 1978...
« Last Edit: 04/02/2024 04:31 pm by Emmettvonbrown »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16048
  • Liked: 8892
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #22 on: 04/02/2024 01:10 pm »
One question we wondered about was what SAC was going to do with a spaceplane/TAV with a 15,000 lbs payload. Some of the military thinking is on image 653-655. It even refers to a payload of 10,000 to 20,000 lbs and 15,000 is smack in the middle. 

The four envisioned missions were Force enhancement, Space support, Space control, Force application. Simplified mission preparation is addressed e.g. on image 655 as quoted below. There was a quote somewhere that such a TAV should be on "alert" 24/7 like B-52s just in case.

With a smile, I noticed the observation in the first quote on "strained scholasticism" ;)


After you read through these things for a bit, you really see how this was an airplane organization that was thinking in airplane terms, but didn't really know much about space. Set aside the issue of the technology limitations--for instance, that a satellite could not just sit in a warehouse waiting, like a bomb or missile, until it was needed--but there's also the operational issues. What kind of satellite would only be needed during a war? Why would it be better to have it sitting in a warehouse than in orbit? Wouldn't it be more cost effective to have it in orbit before a war?

You get the sense that the SAC people working on this stuff were not talking to the people in the USAF that actually operated the satellites. All they knew was that this was a cool idea. And there was probably also some institutional interest there as well--they wanted that mission, even if they did not know what the mission really was.

Offline LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1301
  • UK
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 659
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #23 on: 04/02/2024 01:48 pm »
One question we wondered about was what SAC was going to do with a spaceplane/TAV with a 15,000 lbs payload. Some of the military thinking is on image 653-655. It even refers to a payload of 10,000 to 20,000 lbs and 15,000 is smack in the middle. 

The four envisioned missions were Force enhancement, Space support, Space control, Force application. Simplified mission preparation is addressed e.g. on image 655 as quoted below. There was a quote somewhere that such a TAV should be on "alert" 24/7 like B-52s just in case.

With a smile, I noticed the observation in the first quote on "strained scholasticism" ;)


After you read through these things for a bit, you really see how this was an airplane organization that was thinking in airplane terms, but didn't really know much about space. Set aside the issue of the technology limitations--for instance, that a satellite could not just sit in a warehouse waiting, like a bomb or missile, until it was needed--but there's also the operational issues. What kind of satellite would only be needed during a war?

The facetious answer is this (a more serious answer to follow):

Offline LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1301
  • UK
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 659
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #24 on: 04/02/2024 02:24 pm »
One question we wondered about was what SAC was going to do with a spaceplane/TAV with a 15,000 lbs payload. Some of the military thinking is on image 653-655. It even refers to a payload of 10,000 to 20,000 lbs and 15,000 is smack in the middle. 

The four envisioned missions were Force enhancement, Space support, Space control, Force application. Simplified mission preparation is addressed e.g. on image 655 as quoted below. There was a quote somewhere that such a TAV should be on "alert" 24/7 like B-52s just in case.

With a smile, I noticed the observation in the first quote on "strained scholasticism" ;)


After you read through these things for a bit, you really see how this was an airplane organization that was thinking in airplane terms, but didn't really know much about space. Set aside the issue of the technology limitations--for instance, that a satellite could not just sit in a warehouse waiting, like a bomb or missile, until it was needed--but there's also the operational issues. What kind of satellite would only be needed during a war? Why would it be better to have it sitting in a warehouse than in orbit? Wouldn't it be more cost effective to have it in orbit before a war?

There are a few possible sort-of-answers, depending on where the proposal came from (which is why I am really curious to "deconvolve" whatever SAC may have actually said from what the various commands sponsoring the studies wanted to hear).

One might be a pop up ABM or ASAT system. If orbital and nuclear this would be prohibited (I think) by the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, but if non nuclear and/or not executing a full orbit it is not so clear to me. These issues must have been done to death in the SDI era, surely, and presumably are talked about in the good SDI histories ?

Another would be a FOBS-like system, or FOPS as Aerospace SSD called it in late 60s (see grabs below) ... This was not oviously illegal under the treaty, but would obviously have been seen as destabilising by the other side, which is why I am curious as to how such studies would have looked to the Carter era DoD of Perry et al, and the Reagan era DoD, as well as those in State responsible for negotiating SALT II etc.

I appreciate these are not satellites either, so in the end I guess I share your puzzlement. But some of the docs like the Boeing ALSV one did also discuss once around suborbital missions as well as satellites.

Quote
You get the sense that the SAC people working on this stuff were not talking to the people in the USAF that actually operated the satellites. All they knew was that this was a cool idea. And there was probably also some institutional interest there as well--they wanted that mission, even if they did not know what the mission really was.

Well yes and no. As you know this was not quite LeMay's SAC, by mid 70s it was responsible for 1000-odd Minutemen and  about 50 Titan IIs if memory serves. Admittedly these were in silos not in orbit, and SAMSO developed and procured them for SAC, but there must have been some institutional relevant knowledge surely ?
« Last Edit: 04/03/2024 09:12 am by LittleBird »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16048
  • Liked: 8892
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #25 on: 04/02/2024 03:22 pm »
Well yes and no. As you know this was not quite LeMay's SAC, by mid 70s it was responsible for 1000-odd Minutemen and  about 50 Titan IIs if memory serves. Admittedly these were in silos not in orbit, and SAMSO developed and procured them for SAC, but there must have been some institutional relevant knowledge surely ?

But again, SAC did not operate satellites. They only received data from satellites operated by others. These documents indicate a desire by SAC to get into the satellite business, but without a real understanding of what that meant. It's a throw-stuff-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks approach.


Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37994
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22332
  • Likes Given: 432
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #26 on: 04/02/2024 04:27 pm »

Well yes and no. As you know this was not quite LeMay's SAC, by mid 70s it was responsible for 1000-odd Minutemen and  about 50 Titan IIs if memory serves. Admittedly these were in silos not in orbit, and SAMSO developed and procured them for SAC, but there must have been some institutional relevant knowledge surely ?

SAMSO missile work was done at Norton AFB, away from LAAFS were space systems were procured.  No real cross over.

Offline Emmettvonbrown

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 349
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 886
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #27 on: 04/02/2024 04:34 pm »
Early proposals for SDI (circa 1978)  split into three opposite factions
-spaceborne, kinetic interceptors (smart rocks: Daniel Graham)
-spaceborne chemical lasers (Maxwell Hunter)
-nuclear-pumped lasers (Teller and his Livermore gang)

All three of them would welcome something like RASV to haul them, and support them, in orbit... maybe out of Grand Forks AFB, since they had experience with ABM - Safeguard. Or maybe as a spaceborne complement of it.


Offline LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1301
  • UK
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 659
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #28 on: 04/03/2024 06:26 am »
Early proposals for SDI (circa 1978)  split into three opposite factions
-spaceborne, kinetic interceptors (smart rocks: Daniel Graham)
-spaceborne chemical lasers (Maxwell Hunter)
-nuclear-pumped lasers (Teller and his Livermore gang)

All three of them would welcome something like RASV to haul them, and support them, in orbit... maybe out of Grand Forks AFB, since they had experience with ABM - Safeguard. Or maybe as a spaceborne complement of it.

I don't doubt that if it had worked such a spaceplane would have been an asset  to SDI-though in the resource constrained real world they would have been competitors for R&D money in short term ? Interestingly, somewhere (I think in one of the reports cited above) I saw a note saying that DARPA had actually turned down the chance to manage SDI, not wanting to become an SDI-dominated agency.

The more pedantic historian in me does need to ask, though, did any of the 3 efforts you list interact with any of the TAV or similar programmes ? It's interesting that the Boeing doc from '83 doesn't mention SDI or similar ideas iirc.

There's a nice and readable online article at The High Frontier blog https://thehighfrontier.blog/2016/01/02/reagans-impossible-dream-the-x-30-national-aerospace-plane/ that is perhaps typical of such secondary literature in linking TAV, NASP and SDI:

Quote
The concept of a new space based system for missile defence, capable of nullifying the Soviet threat, became popular within the National Security Council and over the coming years this concept developed into the Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI) announced by Reagan in 1983 and more commonly known as Star Wars.

Clearly any such system would require regular and reliable orbital access. Initial estimates suggested at least 100 new items vehicles would be placed in orbit although this was seen as highly conservative with some commentators claiming over 2000 new satellites could be required. Concurrently, some within the DoD were beginning to question the Air Force’s commitment to the Shuttle. While Air Force payloads and involvement had been vital in making the case to develop the Shuttle, by 1982 it was becoming clear that it was not going to provide the routine easily maintainable transportation system that had originally been pitched. There were also concerns about the safety of the system with a damaging 1982 study by the RAND corporation predicting that up to 3 of the Shuttle fleet may be lost during the operational life of the programme.

<snip>

Against this backdrop the DoD began to cast around for potential alternatives including a spaceplane of their own. The Air Force Aeronautical Systems Division (ASD) started work on an initiative for a Shuttle replacement that became known as the Trans Atmospheric Vehicle (TAV) programme, but elsewhere the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) was also showing an interest.

However Vol 2 of the Hallion history, page 1363 (page 6777 of pdf)  explicitly reminds the reader that NASP was not, despite the publicity surrounding it, critical to SDI (grab below), but was, rather, a study programme intended to lead to a multi billion dollar R&D programme.
« Last Edit: 04/03/2024 06:29 am by LittleBird »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16048
  • Liked: 8892
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #29 on: 04/03/2024 12:09 pm »
This work on TAV/whatever started before SDI. It was looking for a requirement, not fulfilling one.

Offline LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1301
  • UK
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 659
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #30 on: 04/03/2024 12:23 pm »
This work on TAV/whatever started before SDI. It was looking for a requirement, not fulfilling one.

Sure, but it started at same time as the reexamination of missile defence that preceded SDI, see grabs below from Donald R. Baucom's ( former SDIO staff historian) book that has an interesting looking chapter [6] on this 1977-81 period. Book is at archive.org https://archive.org/details/originsofsdi19440000bauc/page/n14/mode/1up

The proto-SDI community and the spaceplane enthusiast community would seem in some ways to be natural allies-did they not, in fact, talk to each other ?

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16048
  • Liked: 8892
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #31 on: 04/03/2024 01:07 pm »
Sure, but it started at same time as the reexamination of missile defence that preceded SDI, see grabs below from Donald R. Baucom's ( former SDIO staff historian) book that has an interesting looking chapter [6] on this 1977-81 period. Book is at archive.org https://archive.org/details/originsofsdi19440000bauc/page/n14/mode/1up

The proto-SDI community and the spaceplane enthusiast community would seem in some ways to be natural allies-did they not, in fact, talk to each other ?

Missile defense was not a SAC mission.

I think this was just some people in USAF seeing the space shuttle and asking if that technology could be applied in new ways to military missions. There was no clear requirement for it.

Offline LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1301
  • UK
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 659
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #32 on: 04/03/2024 01:41 pm »
Sure, but it started at same time as the reexamination of missile defence that preceded SDI, see grabs below from Donald R. Baucom's ( former SDIO staff historian) book that has an interesting looking chapter [6] on this 1977-81 period. Book is at archive.org https://archive.org/details/originsofsdi19440000bauc/page/n14/mode/1up

The proto-SDI community and the spaceplane enthusiast community would seem in some ways to be natural allies-did they not, in fact, talk to each other ?

Missile defense was not a SAC mission.

I think this was just some people in USAF seeing the space shuttle and asking if that technology could be applied in new ways to military missions. There was no clear requirement for it.

OK. I realised belatedly that there was also a presentational problem for the pre-SDI people like Max Hunter, in that they had to argue that shuttle would already suffice for building their first tranche of laser battle stations etc, whereas the TAV people had a much more direct incentive to play up the shuttle's limitations-essentially seeing it as an X-plane to be improved on. 

Meanwhile-and to offer a more factual contribution than mine above-I found an interesting set of slides at SlidePlayer.com by Jess Sponable of DARPA (and earlier of DC-X fame amung other roles). The talk is from 2014 and is called "DARPA Space: Access to and through Space". It's unclassified, though some slides have been removed. It seems to be legit, and some slides look like those in a later talk by him about the  XS-1  hosted at L2 https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/07/darpa-pushing-experimental-spaceplane-xs-1/ , but it's not clear to me how safe the site is-my most risk-averse browser refused to download the powerpoint-so I am not linking to it or uploading whole doc. Screen grabs below are directly relevant to thread topic  insofar as they help to show where the spaceplanes fit in.

[Edit: I see the first two grabs below  are also in Sponable's XS-1 talk at  faa.gov: https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/advisory_committee/meeting_news/media/2014/sep/Jess_Sponable.pdf and I notice that the chronology confirms SAC SON 7-79 was indeed in 1979, though of course we don't know much about what it actually said. Not a lot of hits to it on the web.]
« Last Edit: 04/03/2024 02:48 pm by LittleBird »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16048
  • Liked: 8892
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #33 on: 04/03/2024 05:26 pm »

OK. I realised belatedly that there was also a presentational problem for the pre-SDI people like Max Hunter, in that they had to argue that shuttle would already suffice for building their first tranche of laser battle stations etc, whereas the TAV people had a much more direct incentive to play up the shuttle's limitations-essentially seeing it as an X-plane to be improved on. 


Don't get me wrong: I don't think that this was inherently a bad thing. Somebody (organization) has to generate new ideas and push for applications of new technologies.

My point is that it looks like these TAV/whatever proposals did not originate in the part of the USAF (or DoD) that traditionally operated and developed space programs. And there does not appear to be any requirement that was established at the top levels that then led somebody to conclude "We should develop a space transportation system to meet that requirement."

I still think this TAV stuff is kinda cool. But understanding what I wrote above helps explain why it never really went into development.
« Last Edit: 04/03/2024 05:26 pm by Blackstar »

Offline leovinus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1225
  • Porto, Portugal
  • Liked: 966
  • Likes Given: 1872
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #34 on: 04/04/2024 05:39 pm »
One also needs to be careful since "TAV" is used both as a generic term and in reference to this specific 1982-1984 USAF ASD program. Attached is a graph showing what are the actual 14 concepts that companies submitted to this original USAF program in 1983. There is sometimes confusion created by labelling all kinds of 1980s projects as "TAV" when actually using the term in a generic meaning instead of referring to this particular program.

[snip]

What would be most interesting would be the final TAV reports of the other contractors.
While we probably all agree that it would be great to read the other TAV contractor reports, some homework is required to find them first :) As least, to my knowledge, we do not even know the titles, report numbers, etc for the 14 or so studies [1], page 649. For the example Boeing report we have, it has some project number, AirForce project number and contract, etc. It seems to be public because of a FOIA mentioned on first two pages. Based on what we know, a FOIA to at least get a list of contractor reports, titles, report numbers, study numbers etc to AF Wright Patterson base should be possible because that is where the TAV office was based.

[snip]
Filed a new FOIA for the 14 Phase I  plus any Phase II study titles and all relevant descriptions and contract numbers. Not for the document contents, just the descriptions. As deliverable, I would expect a spreadsheet with two dozen document descriptions.  In case you wonder, why just for the titles et al, not the documents themselves? From my experience, full document reviews takes 10x longer, not to mention the budget. Nothing left but waiting a year till they get around to it.

Offline LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1301
  • UK
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 659
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #35 on: 04/04/2024 06:03 pm »
One also needs to be careful since "TAV" is used both as a generic term and in reference to this specific 1982-1984 USAF ASD program. Attached is a graph showing what are the actual 14 concepts that companies submitted to this original USAF program in 1983. There is sometimes confusion created by labelling all kinds of 1980s projects as "TAV" when actually using the term in a generic meaning instead of referring to this particular program.

[snip]

What would be most interesting would be the final TAV reports of the other contractors.
While we probably all agree that it would be great to read the other TAV contractor reports, some homework is required to find them first :) As least, to my knowledge, we do not even know the titles, report numbers, etc for the 14 or so studies [1], page 649. For the example Boeing report we have, it has some project number, AirForce project number and contract, etc. It seems to be public because of a FOIA mentioned on first two pages. Based on what we know, a FOIA to at least get a list of contractor reports, titles, report numbers, study numbers etc to AF Wright Patterson base should be possible because that is where the TAV office was based.

[snip]
Filed a new FOIA for the 14 Phase I  plus any Phase II study titles and all relevant descriptions and contract numbers. Not for the document contents, just the descriptions. As deliverable, I would expect a spreadsheet with two dozen document descriptions.  In case you wonder, why just for the titles et al, not the documents themselves? From my experience, full document reviews takes 10x longer, not to mention the budget. Nothing left but waiting a year till they get around to it.

Great. Meanwhile, have you or others any idea if  "SAC SON 7-79" could be FOIA'd ? I don't even really know the difference between a SON and a GOR (some of you will recall GOR 80 for example, e.g  https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA950165.pdf ) and I don't know if one would have to FOIA the successor agency to SAC as opposed to DoD.

Fact that it appears on Sponable's slides, though doesn't predate all the RASV work, suggests that it may indeed be worth a look  sometime.
« Last Edit: 04/04/2024 06:04 pm by LittleBird »

Offline leovinus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1225
  • Porto, Portugal
  • Liked: 966
  • Likes Given: 1872
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #36 on: 04/04/2024 06:29 pm »
Sure, but it started at same time as the reexamination of missile defence that preceded SDI, see grabs below from Donald R. Baucom's ( former SDIO staff historian) book that has an interesting looking chapter [6] on this 1977-81 period. Book is at archive.org https://archive.org/details/originsofsdi19440000bauc/page/n14/mode/1up

The proto-SDI community and the spaceplane enthusiast community would seem in some ways to be natural allies-did they not, in fact, talk to each other ?

Missile defense was not a SAC mission.

I think this was just some people in USAF seeing the space shuttle and asking if that technology could be applied in new ways to military missions. There was no clear requirement for it.

OK. I realised belatedly that there was also a presentational problem for the pre-SDI people like Max Hunter, in that they had to argue that shuttle would already suffice for building their first tranche of laser battle stations etc, whereas the TAV people had a much more direct incentive to play up the shuttle's limitations-essentially seeing it as an X-plane to be improved on. 

Meanwhile-and to offer a more factual contribution than mine above-I found an interesting set of slides at SlidePlayer.com by Jess Sponable of DARPA (and earlier of DC-X fame amung other roles). The talk is from 2014 and is called "DARPA Space: Access to and through Space". It's unclassified, though some slides have been removed. It seems to be legit, and some slides look like those in a later talk by him about the  XS-1  hosted at L2 https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/07/darpa-pushing-experimental-spaceplane-xs-1/ , but it's not clear to me how safe the site is-my most risk-averse browser refused to download the powerpoint-so I am not linking to it or uploading whole doc. Screen grabs below are directly relevant to thread topic  insofar as they help to show where the spaceplanes fit in.

[Edit: I see the first two grabs below  are also in Sponable's XS-1 talk at  faa.gov: https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/advisory_committee/meeting_news/media/2014/sep/Jess_Sponable.pdf and I notice that the chronology confirms SAC SON 7-79 was indeed in 1979, though of course we don't know much about what it actually said. Not a lot of hits to it on the web.]
The last slide "SponableSlideplayer10.png " has a phrase "Weights within 3% of budget". That one sentence begs so many questions. The question is really which model or concept this refers to. The weight of a simplified concept or a full-fledged engineering model including undercarriage, wheels, attitude correction jets, etc etc? If this was for a simplified model, and the stuff to be added later is more that 3% of the weight then you loose.

In Vol III of the "Hypersonic revolution" publication about the NASP history, the first chapter is about those challenges and questions. From memory, there was a weight model used to sell the project but other project partners could not reproduce it. The design "never closed". The missing undercarriage weight was mentioned explicitly.

Offline Emmettvonbrown

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 349
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 886
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #37 on: 04/04/2024 07:50 pm »
Tony Dupont numbers were outrageously optimistic - and false. But he got the two Roberts at DARPA (Cooper and another one) falling to his hype. Then NASA then the military. And then it went up to Ronnie Raygun himself.
NASP was a ridiculous scam from day one.
Scramjet airbreathing to orbit ? Seriously ?
Recently found Ramon L. Chase papers. He noted that airbreathing to orbit has so much drag it pushed ascent delta-v from the classic 30000 fps to 45000 if not 60000 fps !

Offline LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1301
  • UK
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 659
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #38 on: 04/05/2024 05:29 am »
Sure, but it started at same time as the reexamination of missile defence that preceded SDI, see grabs below from Donald R. Baucom's ( former SDIO staff historian) book that has an interesting looking chapter [6] on this 1977-81 period. Book is at archive.org https://archive.org/details/originsofsdi19440000bauc/page/n14/mode/1up

The proto-SDI community and the spaceplane enthusiast community would seem in some ways to be natural allies-did they not, in fact, talk to each other ?

Missile defense was not a SAC mission.

I think this was just some people in USAF seeing the space shuttle and asking if that technology could be applied in new ways to military missions. There was no clear requirement for it.

OK. I realised belatedly that there was also a presentational problem for the pre-SDI people like Max Hunter, in that they had to argue that shuttle would already suffice for building their first tranche of laser battle stations etc, whereas the TAV people had a much more direct incentive to play up the shuttle's limitations-essentially seeing it as an X-plane to be improved on. 

Meanwhile-and to offer a more factual contribution than mine above-I found an interesting set of slides at SlidePlayer.com by Jess Sponable of DARPA (and earlier of DC-X fame amung other roles). The talk is from 2014 and is called "DARPA Space: Access to and through Space". It's unclassified, though some slides have been removed. It seems to be legit, and some slides look like those in a later talk by him about the  XS-1  hosted at L2 https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/07/darpa-pushing-experimental-spaceplane-xs-1/ , but it's not clear to me how safe the site is-my most risk-averse browser refused to download the powerpoint-so I am not linking to it or uploading whole doc. Screen grabs below are directly relevant to thread topic  insofar as they help to show where the spaceplanes fit in.

[Edit: I see the first two grabs below  are also in Sponable's XS-1 talk at  faa.gov: https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/advisory_committee/meeting_news/media/2014/sep/Jess_Sponable.pdf and I notice that the chronology confirms SAC SON 7-79 was indeed in 1979, though of course we don't know much about what it actually said. Not a lot of hits to it on the web.]
The last slide "SponableSlideplayer10.png " has a phrase "Weights within 3% of budget". That one sentence begs so many questions. The question is really which model or concept this refers to. The weight of a simplified concept or a full-fledged engineering model including undercarriage, wheels, attitude correction jets, etc etc? If this was for a simplified model, and the stuff to be added later is more that 3% of the weight then you loose.
Apologies if this was obvious to you, but the slide is about USAF HAVE REGION, which as far as I can see was separate from NASP even when the TAV efforts had been folded in, see the chart in immediately prececeding  slide of Sponable's, enlarged below (this time it's directly from pdf of the Powerpoint so a bit easier to read). I'd say it is reasonable to assume  this was separately managed from NASP, unless you have evidence to the contrary. It is also interesting that as HAVE REGION  ends, DC-X begins almost immediately afterwards.

Quote
In Vol III of the "Hypersonic revolution" publication about the NASP history, the first chapter is about those challenges and questions. From memory, there was a weight model used to sell the project but other project partners could not reproduce it. The design "never closed". The missing undercarriage weight was mentioned explicitly.

Thanks for pointing to this report, official US government release of Vol III is available via  Stanford https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/4029551 which points to https://permanent.fdlp.gov/websites/dodandmilitaryejournals/www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/Publications/fulltext/hypersonic_revolution3.pdf The grabs below from pp28to 30 are an example of what you've remembered.

At first glance it looks to be  one of the most remarkably frank self-examinations that US govt agencies have ever sponsored and then published, and something I will have to read properly for the lessons that it contains. I am reminded of Feynman's commencement speech where he says that in science the first thing is not fooling yourself, but that unfortunately you are always the easiest person to fool.  And an even earlier sage noted that "hope springs eternal in the human breast", after all, who wouldn't want a hypersonic air breathing spaceplane, or a ticket from London to LA in a couple of hours or less ?

Although mainly about NASP there are some insights into which bits of USAF managed TAV and preceding efforts, interestingly not all same part. I'll add those in a separate post.
« Last Edit: 04/05/2024 06:09 am by LittleBird »

Offline LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1301
  • UK
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 659
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #39 on: 04/05/2024 05:57 am »
Tony Dupont numbers were outrageously optimistic - and false. But he got the two Roberts at DARPA (Cooper and another one) falling to his hype. Then NASA then the military. And then it went up to Ronnie Raygun himself.
NASP was a ridiculous scam from day one.
Scramjet airbreathing to orbit ? Seriously ?
Recently found Ramon L. Chase papers. He noted that airbreathing to orbit has so much drag it pushed ascent delta-v from the classic 30000 fps to 45000 if not 60000 fps !

Yes but if you have to double the delta V required, but don't need to carry most of the molecular weight of the fuel and oxidiser, just the fuel (H20 is 18 whereas H2 is 2, right ?) one might think you have effectively raised the the specific impulse substantially ? One can see how this would have appealed. The figure below by Kashkan from Wikipedia's page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_impulse on specific impulse suggests that in the hydrocarbon case the scramjet  isn't a dramatic  advantage over a rocket, but of course NASP was intended to be H2 powered and thus the upper curve might conceivably apply as relevant theoretical maximum limiting case-this was obviously quite alluring. I can't unfortunately see where they have taken the data from and another or better source would be welcome. One of those Chase papers was linked above but if you have any other links please do post, they look very interesting.

 Part of DARPA's brief is surely to find seeds, so the first task would be to see if there was a kernel of possibility in the idea-others can always test an idea to its destruction, or not.

And i'd suggest the word scam implies intent to deceive-if you believe it yourself it's not strictly speaking a scam. To quote Bruce Springsteen "Is a dream a lie if it don't come true, Or is it something worse, That sends me down to the river, Though I know the river is dry" --- I am indebted to Oliver Morton for his use of this in a book review of Marina Benjamin's "Rocket Dreams" in the Guardian.
« Last Edit: 04/05/2024 06:10 am by LittleBird »

Offline LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1301
  • UK
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 659
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #40 on: 04/05/2024 06:57 am »

OK. I realised belatedly that there was also a presentational problem for the pre-SDI people like Max Hunter, in that they had to argue that shuttle would already suffice for building their first tranche of laser battle stations etc, whereas the TAV people had a much more direct incentive to play up the shuttle's limitations-essentially seeing it as an X-plane to be improved on. 


Don't get me wrong: I don't think that this was inherently a bad thing. Somebody (organization) has to generate new ideas and push for applications of new technologies.

My point is that it looks like these TAV/whatever proposals did not originate in the part of the USAF (or DoD) that traditionally operated and developed space programs. And there does not appear to be any requirement that was established at the top levels that then led somebody to conclude "We should develop a space transportation system to meet that requirement."

I still think this TAV stuff is kinda cool. But understanding what I wrote above helps explain why it never really went into development.

I think the grabs below from Schweikart's Vol III of the Hypersonic Revolution largely substantiate your impression.

It seems that

1. [Edit: correction, sorry, it seems there was a McDonnell Douglas TAV proposal as well as the Science Dawn one that kicked off this thread. It was a company funded addition to the other bidders to the 83-84 era TAV study]. The note on this is not in grabs below but is somewhere in grabs from Schweikart immediately upthread.

2. At least one RASV study, in late 70s, _was_ for  AF  Space Division,

but

3. The 1980s TAV studies were  largely for the Aeronautical Systems Division (ASD, part of Systems Command) and catalysed by one person's enthusiasm, Gen. Lawrence Skentze.  It sounds as if TAV grew quite fast but that  AF space in particular was not particularly interested, which Schweikart suggests may be one reason why DARPA got NASP to run.
« Last Edit: 04/05/2024 11:47 am by LittleBird »

Offline tuomasn81

  • Member
  • Posts: 9
  • Finland
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #41 on: 04/05/2024 09:36 am »
For the record there's an useful article about the TAV program from the June 1984 Air Force Magazine available online https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/0684bold/. Shows some of the thinking behind this at the time.

Offline LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1301
  • UK
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 659
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #42 on: 04/05/2024 10:12 am »
For the record there's an useful article about the TAV program from the June 1984 Air Force Magazine available online https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/0684bold/. Shows some of the thinking behind this at the time.

Thanks for that. Certainly shows what people would say to sympathetic journalists ;-)

 e.g:

Quote
“Wouldn’t it be great,” postulates Mr. Tremaine [Deputy for Development Planning at Air Force Systems Command’s Aeronautical Systems Division (ASD)]  , “if the Soviet Union suddenly found itself faced with the US Air Force having a machine that could operate on its own, totally free from counteraction, capable of rapidly delivering weapons anywhere on the globe?”

and

Quote
McDonnell Douglas’s [TAV program manager] Czysz disclaims any nuclear-attack notions or intentions for the TAV. “With it,” he says, “we would be able to go completely conventional. We could do what every linebacker does: Sack the quarterback without destroying him — hit his throwing arm in many different ways.”

Which ways For example, by embedding needle-like kinetic projectiles into enemy tracking and fire-control radars, thus overwhelming their antennae, or by pranging titanium spikes into runways, along which no aircraft could thenceforth take off or land.

“We could avoid annihilating things — simply cause them not to function,” Mr. Czysz declares. “We would deny the enemy the ability to launch an attack.”

etc etc etc.
« Last Edit: 04/05/2024 10:17 am by LittleBird »

Offline leovinus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1225
  • Porto, Portugal
  • Liked: 966
  • Likes Given: 1872
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #43 on: 04/05/2024 02:23 pm »
A couple of observations about this thread:

-The subject line really isn't accurate anymore. It should be more general, maybe something like "American spaceplane concepts of the 1980s and 90s." Or maybe somebody has a better suggestion?

Agreed. If the thread is renamed then with a throwback to post #9 we probably should include "transatmospheric" in the title such that it will be more easily searchable in future. Maybe "American spaceplane and transatmospheric (TAV) concepts of the 1980s and 90s."?

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16048
  • Liked: 8892
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #44 on: 04/05/2024 03:57 pm »
Maybe "American spaceplane and transatmospheric (TAV) concepts of the 1980s and 90s."?

Okay, so here's something that puzzles me. Maybe it has already been answered up-thread, but why "transatmospheric"? That means in and out of the atmosphere. But when was that term invented, and has it ever been applied to anything other than these 1980s proposals?


Online TheKutKu

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 331
  • France
  • Liked: 352
  • Likes Given: 532
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #45 on: 04/05/2024 04:30 pm »
Maybe "American spaceplane and transatmospheric (TAV) concepts of the 1980s and 90s."?

Okay, so here's something that puzzles me. Maybe it has already been answered up-thread, but why "transatmospheric"? That means in and out of the atmosphere. But when was that term invented, and has it ever been applied to anything other than these 1980s proposals?

India's DRDO AVATAR concept has (had?) Transatmospheric in its name, it was later, however.
« Last Edit: 04/05/2024 04:32 pm by TheKutKu »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10450
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2496
  • Likes Given: 13785
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #46 on: 04/05/2024 05:03 pm »
Okay, so here's something that puzzles me. Maybe it has already been answered up-thread, but why "transatmospheric"? That means in and out of the atmosphere. But when was that term invented, and has it ever been applied to anything other than these 1980s proposals?
You don't know either?  :)

I dimly recall reading something in "Spaceflight." I think it was the one with the Alan Bond interview in it. It was mentioned that the US repeated attempts to build strategic BMD systems suggested the idea "What if you could build something like an ICBM warhead" but without needing the whole ICBM to get it up to speed. Something reusable.

Since ICBM's do leave the atmosphere before the warhead re-enters, as opposed to any kind of more conventional (IE air-breathing) aircraft it would probably also be a trans-atmospheric vehicle.

TBH I've always thought it a bit of an odd term as well. When I looked at the SCramjet designs that came up I could square the term with the engines. Were they going to flame out, then re-start back inside the atmosphere? It made no sense.  :(
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 2027?. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6699
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 5453
  • Likes Given: 2269
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #47 on: 04/05/2024 05:06 pm »
Maybe "American spaceplane and transatmospheric (TAV) concepts of the 1980s and 90s."?

Okay, so here's something that puzzles me. Maybe it has already been answered up-thread, but why "transatmospheric"? That means in and out of the atmosphere. But when was that term invented, and has it ever been applied to anything other than these 1980s proposals?
Was that term used for the X-15?

Offline LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1301
  • UK
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 659
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #48 on: 04/05/2024 05:13 pm »
Maybe "American spaceplane and transatmospheric (TAV) concepts of the 1980s and 90s."?

Okay, so here's something that puzzles me. Maybe it has already been answered up-thread, but why "transatmospheric"? That means in and out of the atmosphere. But when was that term invented, and has it ever been applied to anything other than these 1980s proposals?
Was that term used for the X-15?

I was delighted to discover a few years ago that in those days there was (also?) an even better term ... satelloid c.f. this kit box (but also more official places).

« Last Edit: 04/05/2024 05:14 pm by LittleBird »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16048
  • Liked: 8892
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #49 on: 04/05/2024 06:02 pm »
Since ICBM's do leave the atmosphere before the warhead re-enters, as opposed to any kind of more conventional (IE air-breathing) aircraft it would probably also be a trans-atmospheric vehicle.

TBH I've always thought it a bit of an odd term as well. When I looked at the SCramjet designs that came up I could square the term with the engines. Were they going to flame out, then re-start back inside the atmosphere? It made no sense.  :(

Okay, I guess there are two ways to split that issue:

-why fly like this at all? (This requires a bit of squinting, because arguably an ICBM is transatmospheric, so presumably the term transatmospheric means just barely above the atmosphere, not up and then down.)

-who, when, why invented the term "transatmospheric"?

Offline leovinus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1225
  • Porto, Portugal
  • Liked: 966
  • Likes Given: 1872
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #50 on: 04/05/2024 06:18 pm »
Maybe "American spaceplane and transatmospheric (TAV) concepts of the 1980s and 90s."?

Okay, so here's something that puzzles me. Maybe it has already been answered up-thread, but why "transatmospheric"? That means in and out of the atmosphere. But when was that term invented, and has it ever been applied to anything other than these 1980s proposals?
The impression is that it goes back to a military turf battle. A name was needed which was not "spaceplane". They invented a new term and came up with "transatmospheric vehicle". It was mentioned upthread in post #9 and in this TheSpaceReview article - Solving the commercial passenger spaceflight puzzle (part 3) where it says
Quote
In early 1983, as ASD was about to issue short-term study contracts to define useful solutions, SD’s sensitivity to ASD’s focus on space access became apparent and a political hot potato. Especially, they opposed any use of “space” in the title such as in “spaceplane”. After the name sensitivity became apparent, the name “Transatmospheric Vehicle” or TAV was invented. It did not use space, spaceplane, or shuttle, but it correctly identified the intended operational characteristics of the system much as do the generic names “bomber” and “fighter.” In late 1983, ASD’s Deputy for Development Planning wrote:
As this TAV term/name/designation was a political work-around, it would explain why the term was dropped in 90s and the NASP became a spaceplane again.
« Last Edit: 04/05/2024 06:18 pm by leovinus »

Offline leovinus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1225
  • Porto, Portugal
  • Liked: 966
  • Likes Given: 1872
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #51 on: 04/05/2024 07:00 pm »
Maybe "American spaceplane and transatmospheric (TAV) concepts of the 1980s and 90s."?

Okay, so here's something that puzzles me. Maybe it has already been answered up-thread, but why "transatmospheric"? That means in and out of the atmosphere. But when was that term invented, and has it ever been applied to anything other than these 1980s proposals?
Was that term used for the X-15?

I was delighted to discover a few years ago that in those days there was (also?) an even better term ... satelloid c.f. this kit box (but also more official places).
As a small detour, the term Satelloid has a whole other history btw. It originates from Krafft Ehricke who wrote an article in 1955 titled "The Satelloid", published at IAF 6th International Astronautical Congress, Copenhagen, 1–6 August 1955, published in Astronautica Acta, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1956, pp. 63–100 and Aero Digest, Vol. 73, pp 46-48,50,52,54, July 1956. Front page attached.

It designates a powered vehicle—half airplane, half spaceship—with sustained thrust that operates in circular orbits roughly between 100 to 200 kilometers. There was talk of high-altitude satelloids between 150 and 200 miles and low-altitude satelloids between 80 and 120 miles. Based on Ehricke's definition, the X-15 is not actually a Satelloid as it does not enter a circular orbit :) Semantics aside, I like Ehricke's definition for clarity.

There is at least one book, which title escapes me at the moment, but I have a screenshot attached, where Ehricke's definition is force wrangled into describing planes which fly to orbits to repair satellites. The X-15 is mentioned as one project. While I prefer Ehricke's clear distinction between satellites from satelloids, I can see where the model makers picked up the idea that a X-15 is a satelloid.

Back to the TAVs.

PS: I had one of those model kits too :)

Offline leovinus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1225
  • Porto, Portugal
  • Liked: 966
  • Likes Given: 1872
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #52 on: 04/05/2024 07:16 pm »
Work by Ramon Chase at ANSER was mentioned earlier in the thread as he wrote the paper "The Military Transatmospheric Aerospace Plane", Ramon L. Chase, 1996, attached as 965565.pdf on NSF at
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=60227.msg2564401#msg2564401

Therefore, I checked out some more articles by him. ANSER btw seems to stand for ANalytical SERvices it seems, a fascinating outfit to produce studies for the government. Like RAND but on the East Coast next to the Pentagon.

The point being that he also wrote an article in 2002

The Quest for Single Stage Earth-to-Orbit: TAV, NASP, DC-X and X-33 Accomplishments, Deficiencies, and Why They Did Not Fly
Ramon Chase and Ming Tang, 2002
Session: HY-7: Propulsion Concepts I
https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2002-5143

The article is as fascinating at it sounds. There is even a link between earlier high speed work Isinglass and the TAV work at Wright-Patterson. Attached a quote from page 4. The article mentions that some TAV thermal protection work learned from an Isinglass test article which I never heard about. In other words, this thread's 80s TAV studies seem well founded on earlier work.

Offline LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1301
  • UK
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 659
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #53 on: 04/05/2024 08:31 pm »
PS: I had one of those model kits too :)

You are one up on me, I had to go and find a picture ... not mine, alas.

However , Blackstar may be amused to see what happens when  Google Ngram is put to work on the word "transatmospheric". I'm genuinely surprised, before this thread I'd have thought it was a 70s coinage-one of many new things I've learned here.

Offline tuomasn81

  • Member
  • Posts: 9
  • Finland
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #54 on: 04/05/2024 11:57 pm »
[1] https://media.defense.gov/2010/Sep/27/2001329812/-1/-1/0/AFD-100927-035.pdf
AFD-100927-035.pdf roughly page 644 to 698
THE HYPERSONIC REVOLUTION - Case Studies in the History of Hypersonic Technology
Volume II - From Scramjet to the National Aero-Space Plane (1964-1986)
edt. Dr. Richard P. Hallion

According to this

Quote
McMullen launched a major planning effort under the overall direction of Stanley Tremaine, then ASD's Deputy for Development Planning, for such craft. Tremaine subsequently dubbed these "Transatmospheric Vehicles" (TAV), since they hopefully could operate with equal efficiency both within the atmosphere and within space.
(page 1336 [648 of pdf])

I remember reading also elsewhere that Tremaine was the person who coined the term TAV. And that a distinguishing feature of a "true" TAV would be the ability to perform atmospheric plane change manouvers, as indirectly descriebed in page 1341 (653) of the above source.

Offline tuomasn81

  • Member
  • Posts: 9
  • Finland
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #55 on: 04/06/2024 12:01 pm »
A couple of observations about this thread:

-The subject line really isn't accurate anymore. It should be more general, maybe something like "American spaceplane concepts of the 1980s and 90s." Or maybe somebody has a better suggestion?

Regarding the thread title, my wish would be something like "American 1970s and 1980s  pre-NASP spaceplane concepts (ALSV, AMSC, TAV etc.)".

Since there is a clear lineage how these various rocket propelled concepts beginning from the late 1970s eventually got soaked up by the airbreathing NASP program. And perhaps have a separate thread for "1990s and 2000s spaceplane concepts" if necessary since later projects are again quite distinct both from a political and technical perspective. Also we have already discussed basically just the 1980s projects for almost three pages, might not make sence to lump many more programs here :)
« Last Edit: 04/06/2024 12:02 pm by tuomasn81 »

Online edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6783
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 10389
  • Likes Given: 46
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #56 on: 04/06/2024 12:41 pm »
A "Trans-Atmospheric Vehicle" sounds like a vehicle that operates primarily in, or spends a meaningful amount of its time within, the interface between atmospheric flight and exoatmospheric flight. The Shuttle Orbiter and 'regular' spaceplanes like the X-37B and Dream Chaser would not be TAVs, as whilst they perform that transit twice that is merely incidental to their normal in-space operations. Silbervogel-like skip-glide and boost-glide vehicles would be TAVs, as transitioning in and out of the atmosphere is one of their primary defining features.

Offline LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1301
  • UK
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 659
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #57 on: 04/06/2024 01:14 pm »
Maybe "American spaceplane and transatmospheric (TAV) concepts of the 1980s and 90s."?

Okay, so here's something that puzzles me. Maybe it has already been answered up-thread, but why "transatmospheric"? That means in and out of the atmosphere. But when was that term invented, and has it ever been applied to anything other than these 1980s proposals?
The impression is that it goes back to a military turf battle. A name was needed which was not "spaceplane". They invented a new term and came up with "transatmospheric vehicle". It was mentioned upthread in post #9 and in this TheSpaceReview article - Solving the commercial passenger spaceflight puzzle (part 3) where it says
Quote
In early 1983, as ASD was about to issue short-term study contracts to define useful solutions, SD’s sensitivity to ASD’s focus on space access became apparent and a political hot potato. Especially, they opposed any use of “space” in the title such as in “spaceplane”. After the name sensitivity became apparent, the name “Transatmospheric Vehicle” or TAV was invented. It did not use space, spaceplane, or shuttle, but it correctly identified the intended operational characteristics of the system much as do the generic names “bomber” and “fighter.” In late 1983, ASD’s Deputy for Development Planning wrote:
As this TAV term/name/designation was a political work-around, it would explain why the term was dropped in 90s and the NASP became a spaceplane again.


I think that as well as turf it was about presentation in a Cold War context. Satellites were covered by the Outer Space treaty, and ICBMs were covered by SALT I if not II. TAVs on the other hand were legally a new thing, especially if used for conventional weapons as per the MD manager I quoted unthread. There is an intriguing (at least to me) story here-Bill Perry’s Carter era emphasis on non nuclear weapons and high tech evolving in the rather freewheeling early Reagan era of SDI and other schemes.

Offline leovinus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1225
  • Porto, Portugal
  • Liked: 966
  • Likes Given: 1872
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #58 on: 04/11/2024 05:46 pm »
PS: Regarding the thread title, I asked the moderators to help and sent them a suggestion.

Offline Emmettvonbrown

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 349
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 886
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #59 on: 04/12/2024 09:59 am »
Posting a few Ramon L. Chase papers. I'll try to add more of them.

« Last Edit: 04/12/2024 10:04 am by Emmettvonbrown »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16048
  • Liked: 8892
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #60 on: 04/12/2024 01:23 pm »
Just saw this, which is slightly relevant:


🚀📚 Attention space enthusiasts! - pre orders starting now 📚🚀
🔥 Get ready to embark on a journey through the fascinating world of space exploration with "HOTOL: Britain's Spaceplane" by Dan Sharp! 🔥
🖊️ Be one of the lucky few to own a signed copy by the author himself! 🖊️
The story of HOTOL is one of innovation, ambition, and the pursuit of the extraordinary. From its inception to its untimely end, this book delves deep into the history of a revolutionary concept that captured the imagination of a nation.
But here's the catch – only the first 150 copies will be signed by Dan Sharp 🖋️ Don't miss out on this exclusive opportunity to own a piece of space history.
Secure your copy now: 🌐 www.mortonsbooks.co.uk/product/view/productCode/15822📞 Call 01507 529 529
Don't let this chance slip away into the cosmos! Grab your copy today and join us on a voyage through the incredible story of HOTOL. 🌌✨



Offline Emmettvonbrown

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 349
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 886
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #61 on: 04/12/2024 07:06 pm »
I have Dan Sharp book about the BAC MUSTARD (triamese, 1966) and it is a very good reading.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16048
  • Liked: 8892
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #62 on: 04/14/2024 11:43 pm »
For the record there's an useful article about the TAV program from the June 1984 Air Force Magazine available online https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/0684bold/. Shows some of the thinking behind this at the time.

I just read this article and it is... interesting. (Sidenote: "interesting" is such a useless word when you really think about it. Does it mean anything at all?)

While reading it, it is worth keeping in mind that it was written 40 years ago. In that article, some people talk as if space warfare, including shooting down from space to destroy stuff on Earth, is imminent. It was going to happen really soon. And then there are descriptions of things that sound really cool, but which still have not happened four decades later. For instance, the description of taking out radars with high-velocity needles. Nope, not really. Even today we pretty much smack them with an explosive, although that explosive may be surrounded by tungsten balls.

But the article also includes some notes of caution where people say that implementing stuff like the TAV will probably be really expensive, so it may not happen, and if it does, it won't happen until sometime in the 1990s. And the thought-provoking aspect of that is: we can ask ourselves, if the Cold War continued, would the TAV have happened? The answer is probably no.

Overall, I found that the article seemed to confirm my existing puzzlement and skepticism about the whole TAV idea. It seemed like a concept in search of a purpose. It was not going to be clearly superior to existing systems, or alternatives, nor would it necessarily be all that useful. After all, even a handful of TAVs would not carry enough weapons to be decisive, and they would be really expensive.

One other thing that was in the back of my head while reading the article was stealth. When the article was written, the stealth program was top secret. I think this was even before the leaks about the F-117. If stealth had been public at that time, it would have made that conversation a lot different. One could ask "Why do we need the TAV when we have aircraft that are mostly invisible to radar?"


Offline Emmettvonbrown

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 349
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 886
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #63 on: 04/15/2024 09:10 am »
Stealth versus speed has been a perenial debate since the late 1960's at least. When the spooks considered ISINGLASS RHEINBERRY while developing the semi-stealth D-21 and AQM-91 drones.

Then there is the case of the SR-71 successor. Everybody and his dog has been fantasizing about Aurora or Blackstar, but the "official" SR-71 successor black project in the 1980's was actually that: a super stealth drone... not manned, not hypersonic.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/aars-lockheed-quartz-tier-iii-frontier-systems-w570-arrow-shadow.511/

Which was then much scaled down into this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_RQ-3_DarkStar

The attached document has a good summary of AARS.
Long story short, from 1974 the Soviets fielded road and rail mobile ICBMs (SS-16, SS-20, SS-24, SS-25) which were a true nightmare to search and destroy inside the Warsaw Pact and even more inside USSR. SR-71 was fast but lacked endurance and survivability. Satellites were chained to their orbits. What was needed was a stealth drone with dozen hours of endurance, that could fly ahead of B-2s and help them destroying the elusive missiles - through a satellite downlink.

The program ended "gold-plated" and eye-watering expensive: somewhat like the B-2 and Lacrosse satellite.
« Last Edit: 04/15/2024 09:19 am by Emmettvonbrown »

Offline LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1301
  • UK
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 659
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #64 on: 04/15/2024 10:19 am »
For the record there's an useful article about the TAV program from the June 1984 Air Force Magazine available online https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/0684bold/. Shows some of the thinking behind this at the time.

I just read this article and it is... interesting. (Sidenote: "interesting" is such a useless word when you really think about it. Does it mean anything at all?)

While reading it, it is worth keeping in mind that it was written 40 years ago. In that article, some people talk as if space warfare, including shooting down from space to destroy stuff on Earth, is imminent. It was going to happen really soon.


The enthusiasts seems to come from Systems command and the contractor companies, and seems to divide into those advocating satellite protection, essentially ASAT:

Quote
For example, Gen. Robert T. Marsh, Commander of AFSC, had long asserted that USAF “should move into warfighting capabilities in space — that is, ground-to-space, space-to-space, and space-to-ground capabilities.”


Space Plan lays the doctrinal groundwork for all that. In its acknowledgment of USAF’s need to be able to fight not only in but from space, it goes well beyond the 1982 long-range planning document, “Air Force 2000.” The new Space Plan (in its unclassified version) has this to say:

“To prevail in theater conflict, the Air Force must seize the initiative and quickly achieve both air and space superiority.

“Air Superiority will require the capability to effectively attack and neutralize enemy airfields, destroy aircraft before they can employ their weapons, and destroy surface-to-air weapons.

“Space superiority is required to ensure that our space-based assets are available to support theater forces. Superiority in space will require a robust force structure and the capability to destroy hostile space systems.”

and those advocating conventional strike from orbit (or at least from space to ground, leaving as an exercise for the wargamers an explanation of how this would avoid a Soviet response):

Quote
Protecting such space assets and many others on benign but classified missions against the amply demonstrated Soviet antisatellite (ASAT) capability is the goal of USAF’s ASAT program. Arms-control developments or political pressures may slow or undo that program. From philosophical and national security standpoints, however, the safeguarding of US satellites seems to have widespread acceptance as a justifiable, solely defensive measure.

There is a big difference, however, between using force only to protect space assets and applying force from space to shoot down bombers or ballistic missiles and even to shoot up runways and armor. This distinction is drawn — and thus inferentially underscored — in USAF’s Space Plan.

It subdivides its candidly outlines “combat” category into tow parts: “space control” and “force application.” As defined by Maj. Gen. Neil Beer, Space Command’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans: “Space control is synonymous with space superiority.” Under this heading fall such strictly defensive weapons as USAF’s F-15-launched, rocket-boosted, heat-seeking Miniature Vehicle (MV) ASAT weapon, now in the very early testing phase, and whatever directed-energy or other ASAT devices may ensue from AFSC-Space Command technology programs.

Force application is something else again, something far more portentous. Whereas space control means “counterspace operations” and “space interdiction,” as state in USAF’s Space Plan, force application means “ballistic missile defense” and — strikingly — “space-to-earth weapons.” And that, in turn, strongly implies future strategic and tactical missions from space.


Quote from: Blackstar
And then there are descriptions of things that sound really cool, but which still have not happened four decades later. For instance, the description of taking out radars with high-velocity needles. Nope, not really. Even today we pretty much smack them with an explosive, although that explosive may be surrounded by tungsten balls.

But the article also includes some notes of caution where people say that implementing stuff like the TAV will probably be really expensive, so it may not happen, and if it does, it won't happen until sometime in the 1990s. And the thought-provoking aspect of that is: we can ask ourselves, if the Cold War continued, would the TAV have happened? The answer is probably no.

The main note of caution comes from a rather important voice, the AF under secreatary Pete Aldridge who as DNRO at that moment. He is thus speaking directly to extant policy, and the need perceived by calmer heads to avoid endangering the existing crucial White AF and NRO assets:

Quote
“Let me add a word of caution.” Says Secretary Aldridge. “There are lots of implications here, in putting vehicles into space that can attack targets on the ground, that we haven’t thought through as part of national policy and national security objectives.

Quote from: Blackstar
Overall, I found that the article seemed to confirm my existing puzzlement and skepticism about the whole TAV idea. It seemed like a concept in search of a purpose. It was not going to be clearly superior to existing systems, or alternatives, nor would it necessarily be all that useful. After all, even a handful of TAVs would not carry enough weapons to be decisive, and they would be really expensive.

One other thing that was in the back of my head while reading the article was stealth. When the article was written, the stealth program was top secret. I think this was even before the leaks about the F-117. If stealth had been public at that time, it would have made that conversation a lot different. One could ask "Why do we need the TAV when we have aircraft that are mostly invisible to radar?"

It's interesting that one of the articles EvonB has uploaded, from Ramon Chase at ANSER in the late 90s, explicitly  uses the Nighthawk analogy. The TAV Chase studied [see grabs Below] is compared to a Nighthawk but with a US base. Make of that what you will.

PS was also interested to see that the ANSER study was for an uncrewed TAV, if I read it correctly
« Last Edit: 06/26/2024 09:32 am by LittleBird »

Offline LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1301
  • UK
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 659
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #65 on: 06/25/2024 11:06 am »
Interesting unclassified report "Space Access .. where we've been and where we could  go" on, among other things, the MDAC TAVs discussed upthread, attached via dia.mil reading room. [Edit: First grab is one of the most intriguing pages, I've added the cover, redacted author, and TOC pages as well. Having read it now I think many of you will find it worthwhile... though it's in a series that can be undeniably a bit far out at times.]
« Last Edit: 06/26/2024 01:48 pm by LittleBird »

Offline LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1301
  • UK
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 659
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #66 on: 06/26/2024 01:44 pm »
Seems that the above report is from a series https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/the-advanced-aerospace-weapon-system-applications-program-aawsap-documentation/ well known to UAP/exotic propulsion people, but which I knew nothing of, and that it has been identified as being by the late Paul Czysz https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/stltoday/name/paul-czysz-obituary?id=2991829&fhid=16840 , described as the Chief Scientist for NASP. I _don't_ want to go down those particular rabbit holes, not least because there are threads and sites for them, but I _do_ think Czysz's reminiscence here https://medium.com/@timventura/paul-czysz-on-hypersonic-aircraft-suborbital-spaceplanes-92ed10537ee6  on how a NASP vehicle could be used by SAC, and what NASP's goals were, is on topic-even if viewed as a memoir of the irrational exuberance of that moment in time:

Quote
[Interviewer] Well, wasn’t the larger vehicle design closer to the goals of the National Aerospace Plane (NASP) project that you worked on later in the 1980’s, for hypersonic passenger & cargo transport?

[Paul Czysz]Well, it’s hard to say what NASP was aimed at. Between about ’76 and ’83, I was involved with some special programs at McDonnell. On the last day in July in 1983, I was out there on Thursday and I was supposed to leave the next morning to be home for the weekend.

Anyhow, I got a call from one of the Directors who said, “I happen to be out here for something — you’re not going home yet, you’re going to meet me at the Air Force station tomorrow for lunch over by the Aerospace Corporation on Sepulveda. Maybe you’ll make it home by Monday — we’ll see.”

So I show up for lunch over at the Air Force station, and Harold Ostroff was sitting down at this table with a big group of military & civilian guys in business suits, and as I walked up to the table, he turns to the other guys sitting there and says, “I’d like to introduce you all to the new head of McDonnell’s Advanced Aerospace Program.” Anyhow, I didn’t know anything about this beforehand, and when he said it I looked around a bit for the person he was talking about — and after a second I guess that it finally sunk in that he was talking about me.

So that was how I found out about it — I had a deputy program manager from Huntington Beach, and there was a group there from Aerojet — Don Kissinger, Mike Hamel, and Ron Samborski — that were there to talk about the air-turbo ramjet work that they’d patented back in 1946.

I went out to Aerojet the next couple of days for briefings on their engine designs, and when I came back home, we did a proposal for the Air Force TAV program, but the main thrust was a proposal that we put together with the people from Huntington Beach on a 2-stage to orbit vehicle. The first stage would fly with air-turbo ramjets to about Mach 6 or 7, and then it would stage with a scramjet vehicle a rocket that would deploy up into orbit.

We had several different concepts for this, depending on how soon we wanted we wanted the thing to fly. One of the people out at Huntington Beach named Joe Shergi had a concept for what he called a “toss-back booster”, that looked like an Apollo capsule with engines mounted in what looked like the heat-shield. After you separated the upper-stage, this thing would turn around and retrofire to toss back to the launch site, making everything recoverable.

We had 2 or 3 concepts that we were briefing as 2-stage to orbit vehicles. The first one that we could build quickly, based on all the hardware that was available, was a hypersonic FDL-7C glider on top of a toss-back booster. Then we went to an air-turbo ramjet first stage which went to about Mach 7 to 8, and later we went to a scramjet first stage that went to about Mach 12.

We hired a guy named Larry Fogel from the Titan Corporation, and he actually toured all of the SAC bases that had operational B-52 squadrons and asked them what they would do if they had one of these NASP vehicles — how they use it, maintain it, and stuff like that. We built an entire database on what the Strategic Air Command estimated these vehicles would cost to operate. We’d given them all the numbers that we had at the outset — how much thrust we had, how much propellant we needed, how many times the engines could be re-used, etc — and they gave us back operational cost estimates compared to a traditional B-52 squadron. It was quite interesting…

We took this information and used it for briefings in Washington DC, which is where I met Scotty Crossfield, who was working with Dan Glickman — and what we ended up with was the first stage vehicle, which was a large, Mach-6 vehicle. This led to the development of a prototype that we created as a demonstrator to validate the technology.

So the prototype was built to show how the NASP vehicle could fulfill 3 primary mission roles. The first was simply as a Mach-6 transport for passengers, the second was a Mach-8 strategic strike-aircraft for the Air Force, and the third involved combining the vehicle with an upper-stage rocket to go into Low-Earth Orbit.

« Last Edit: 06/26/2024 01:47 pm by LittleBird »

Online Spiceman

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 182
  • e/ass
  • Liked: 79
  • Likes Given: 533
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #67 on: 06/26/2024 02:17 pm »
The 2000's papers of Paul Czysz are many, and they often overlapped. I have a few of them on my HD. See attached.

Offline LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1301
  • UK
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 659
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #68 on: 06/27/2024 04:54 pm »
The 2000's papers of Paul Czysz are many, and they often overlapped. I have a few of them on my HD. See attached.

Thanks v much for those-colour diagrams and pics in particular fill in for the rather poorly produced ones in the report I posted.

Clearly an interesting character and on the face of it a key player in the TAV/NASP story, his role at McDonnell Douglas clearly overlapped both TAV and NASP and helps explain where they linked up in reality. Hadn't immediately linked him to the quotes in the Air Force magazine article posted upthread.


Offline leovinus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1225
  • Porto, Portugal
  • Liked: 966
  • Likes Given: 1872
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #69 on: 09/27/2024 04:40 pm »
One also needs to be careful since "TAV" is used both as a generic term and in reference to this specific 1982-1984 USAF ASD program. Attached is a graph showing what are the actual 14 concepts that companies submitted to this original USAF program in 1983. There is sometimes confusion created by labelling all kinds of 1980s projects as "TAV" when actually using the term in a generic meaning instead of referring to this particular program.

[snip]

What would be most interesting would be the final TAV reports of the other contractors.
While we probably all agree that it would be great to read the other TAV contractor reports, some homework is required to find them first :) As least, to my knowledge, we do not even know the titles, report numbers, etc for the 14 or so studies [1], page 649. For the example Boeing report we have, it has some project number, AirForce project number and contract, etc. It seems to be public because of a FOIA mentioned on first two pages. Based on what we know, a FOIA to at least get a list of contractor reports, titles, report numbers, study numbers etc to AF Wright Patterson base should be possible because that is where the TAV office was based.

[snip]
Filed a new FOIA for the 14 Phase I  plus any Phase II study titles and all relevant descriptions and contract numbers. Not for the document contents, just the descriptions. As deliverable, I would expect a spreadsheet with two dozen document descriptions.  In case you wonder, why just for the titles et al, not the documents themselves? From my experience, full document reviews takes 10x longer, not to mention the budget. Nothing left but waiting a year till they get around to it.
Just a note that this FOIA is still "in progress" with no ETA. I would not expect anything in the next year of so as the Air Force seems swamped with requests.

Offline leovinus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1225
  • Porto, Portugal
  • Liked: 966
  • Likes Given: 1872
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #70 on: 09/27/2024 05:23 pm »
The 2000's papers of Paul Czysz are many, and they often overlapped. I have a few of them on my HD. See attached.
Did you notice that 6.2004-5888.pdf titled "An Essential Element in Affordable Space Access is the Return Vehicle. A Historical Perspective Based on Support Vehicles for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory, circa 1964" has lots of interesting cross references? To MOL, to logistics.

Need to read it again but there was a reference to
Quote
“Manned Hypersonic Test Vehicle Study” McDonnell Aircraft Company Report A9727 for United States Force, contract AF(33)600-2751, August 1964
The "AF" contract number looked familiar as "AF 33(600)" is the same for all MTSS contracts which start with that prefix in 1959.

I was also reminded of the five SLOMAR SR-79814 contractors in roughly 1961. SLOMAR stands for Space Logistics, Maintenance and Rescue Systems and contemporary with the MTSS. SLOMAR studied gliding reentry vehicles as well. The exact SLOMAR contractors were:
AF 33(600)-42014 Douglas Aircraft Co., Santa Monica, Calif.
AF 33(600)-42015 Northrop Corp., Norair division, Hawthorne, Calif.
AF 33(600)-42016 Martin Co., Denver Colo.
AF 33(600)-42017 General Dynamics/Astronautics (GD/A), San Diego, Calif.
AF 33(600)-42018 Lockheed Aircraft Corp, Burbank, Calif.
 
Hence I wondered about the relation of the quoted MAC (McDonnell Aircraft Company) Report A9727 to SLOMAR et al where they also studied lifting body and DynaSoar as well. I guess Douglas was not starting from scratch with the 1964 report.

Offline LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1301
  • UK
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 659
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #71 on: 09/27/2024 05:41 pm »
The 2000's papers of Paul Czysz are many, and they often overlapped. I have a few of them on my HD. See attached.
Did you notice that 6.2004-5888.pdf titled "An Essential Element in Affordable Space Access is the Return Vehicle. A Historical Perspective Based on Support Vehicles for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory, circa 1964" has lots of interesting cross references? To MOL, to logistics.

Need to read it again but there was a reference to
Quote
“Manned Hypersonic Test Vehicle Study” McDonnell Aircraft Company Report A9727 for United States Force, contract AF(33)600-2751, August 1964
The "AF" contract number looked familiar as "AF 33(600)" is the same for all MTSS contracts which start with that prefix in 1959.

I was also reminded of the five SLOMAR SR-79814 contractors in roughly 1961. SLOMAR stands for Space Logistics, Maintenance and Rescue Systems and contemporary with the MTSS. SLOMAR studied gliding reentry vehicles as well. The exact SLOMAR contractors were:
AF 33(600)-42014 Douglas Aircraft Co., Santa Monica, Calif.
AF 33(600)-42015 Northrop Corp., Norair division, Hawthorne, Calif.
AF 33(600)-42016 Martin Co., Denver Colo.
AF 33(600)-42017 General Dynamics/Astronautics (GD/A), San Diego, Calif.
AF 33(600)-42018 Lockheed Aircraft Corp, Burbank, Calif.
 
Hence I wondered about the relation of the quoted MAC (McDonnell Aircraft Company) Report A9727 to SLOMAR et al where they also studied lifting body and DynaSoar as well. I guess Douglas was not starting from scratch with the 1964 report.

Note that the 2010 DIA report linked to here https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=60623.msg2603571#msg2603571 has a couple of  pages summarising this era's reports-at least from Csysz's pov-see grabs below:

« Last Edit: 09/27/2024 05:44 pm by LittleBird »

Offline leovinus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1225
  • Porto, Portugal
  • Liked: 966
  • Likes Given: 1872
Re: McDonnell Douglas GRM-29 SSTO global strike spaceplane
« Reply #72 on: 09/27/2024 05:57 pm »
The 2000's papers of Paul Czysz are many, and they often overlapped. I have a few of them on my HD. See attached.
Did you notice that 6.2004-5888.pdf titled "An Essential Element in Affordable Space Access is the Return Vehicle. A Historical Perspective Based on Support Vehicles for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory, circa 1964" has lots of interesting cross references? To MOL, to logistics.

Need to read it again but there was a reference to
Quote
“Manned Hypersonic Test Vehicle Study” McDonnell Aircraft Company Report A9727 for United States Force, contract AF(33)600-2751, August 1964
The "AF" contract number looked familiar as "AF 33(600)" is the same for all MTSS contracts which start with that prefix in 1959.

I was also reminded of the five SLOMAR SR-79814 contractors in roughly 1961. SLOMAR stands for Space Logistics, Maintenance and Rescue Systems and contemporary with the MTSS. SLOMAR studied gliding reentry vehicles as well. The exact SLOMAR contractors were:
AF 33(600)-42014 Douglas Aircraft Co., Santa Monica, Calif.
AF 33(600)-42015 Northrop Corp., Norair division, Hawthorne, Calif.
AF 33(600)-42016 Martin Co., Denver Colo.
AF 33(600)-42017 General Dynamics/Astronautics (GD/A), San Diego, Calif.
AF 33(600)-42018 Lockheed Aircraft Corp, Burbank, Calif.
 
Hence I wondered about the relation of the quoted MAC (McDonnell Aircraft Company) Report A9727 to SLOMAR et al where they also studied lifting body and DynaSoar as well. I guess Douglas was not starting from scratch with the 1964 report.

Note that the 2010 DIA report linked to here https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=60623.msg2603571#msg2603571 has a couple of  pages summarising this era's reports-at least from Csysz's pov-see grabs below:
I had forgotten about that :) In any case, if someone wants to read the originals, my best guess would be that they are on NTRS. These seem to be non-public and there are about a dozen related reports on operating and engineering aspects. Nice FOIA project.

Quote
Robert R. Stephens; "Mission Requirements of Lifting Systems-Engineering Aspects"; Volume I Condensed Summary; McDonnell Aircraft Company Report B831 for NASA
Manned Spacecraft Center; contract NAS-9-3562; August 1965.
19660069836 ,Mission requirements of lifting systems-engineering aspects. Volume I - Condensed summary, 1965,

Quote
• Robert R. Stephens; "Mission Requirements of Lifting Systems-Engineering Aspects";
Volume II Mission Analysis - Spacecraft Selection - Performance Analysis; McDonnell Aircraft Company Report B831 for NASA Manned Spacecraft Center; contract NAS-9-3562; August 1965.
19660076403 ,"Mission Requirements of Lifting Systems - Engineering Aspects, Volume II (U)", 1965,

Quote
* Robert R. Stephens; "Study of the Engineering Aspects, Mission Requirements of Lifting Systems"; Summary of Significant Results and Figures from Report MAC- B831; McDonnell Aircraft Company Report B947 for NASA Manned Spacecraft Center; contract NAS-9-3562; August 1965.
19660076262 ,Study of Engineering Aspects - Mission Requirements of Lifting Systems. Summary of Significant Results and Figures (U), 1965,

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0