Aircraft Carrier Launched Atlas Concept

[PMN1]

[Jim]

That was before Boomers were fully developed

[lbiderman]

Most likely a Navy´s proposal to capture some of the space activities of those days and not let the Air Force take all of it: they did the same with nuclear delivery methods, when before the SLBM the Navy wanted to build some "supercarriers" that could take strategic bombers into the Soviet Union (ultimately, they lost that "competition" to the Air Force ICBMs). Still, pretty cool, almost like a Sea Launch early proposal.

[dwmzmm]

They "did" launch a captured V-2 off the deck of an aircraft carrier early in our country's rocketry development era....

[dwmzmm]

dwmzmm - 6/2/2008  5:30 AM

They "did" launch a captured V-2 off the deck of an aircraft carrier early in our country's rocketry development era....

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/03files/Space_Weapons_02_V2_Midway.html

[William Barton]

Phil Bono's old "Frontiers of Space" book has an illustration of a Hyperion aerospike vehicle lifting off from a carrier as well. I think it was represented as a rapid deployment suborbital troop transport.

[simonbp]

That looks like an Atlas-Agena, though I'm not quite sure why the ship is under way during the launch!

Simon

[edkyle99]

simonbp - 6/2/2008  10:42 AM

That looks like an Atlas-Agena, though I'm not quite sure why the ship is under way during the launch!

Simon

Pointed into the wind, of course!  

 - Ed Kyle

[PMN1]

simonbp - 6/2/2008  10:42 AM

That looks like an Atlas-Agena, though I'm not quite sure why the ship is under way during the launch!

Adding 30 knots....

 

[Namechange User]

This is the same concept as Sea Launch.  Float to the area you need to launch from to gain best performance for your vehicle using the Earth itself.

[Rusty_Barton]

It could launch a Mercury capsule and then recover it. Who needs the Cape?

[simonbp]

Rusty_Barton - 6/2/2008  2:07 PM

It could launch a Mercury capsule and then recover it. Who needs the Cape?

Ooo, don't say that around the KSC folks, that's blasphemy!

Speaking of which, from a KSC 1963 "Future Projects" document:

Simon

[dwmzmm]

simonbp - 7/2/2008  12:30 AM

Rusty_Barton - 6/2/2008  2:07 PM

It could launch a Mercury capsule and then recover it. Who needs the Cape?

Ooo, don't say that around the KSC folks, that's blasphemy!

Speaking of which, from a KSC 1963 "Future Projects" document:

Simon

Cool!  But that looks like a Saturn 1 on the pad.

[Sid454]

The origin of sea launch also I agree with simonbp that looks like an Atlas Agena it's launching.
This idea was taken even farther with concepts such as floating launch. Traux did a lot of study with this most famous being the seadragon booster.
http://neverworld.net/truax/

[Sid454]

Rusty_Barton - 6/2/2008  3:07 PM

It could launch a Mercury capsule and then recover it. Who needs the Cape?

Technically sealaunch could actually do that in real life with a soyuz or dragon capsule barring issues such as man rating Zenit.

Umm could Falcon 9 be made to work with sea launch that would solve the manrating issue.

[Sid454]

The KSC future projects platform is pretty cool was it anchored in shallow water or was it a floating platform?
Also have any stuff on Rombus which is sorta on topic?

[Jim]

Sid454 - 12/2/2008  1:18 AM

The KSC future projects platform is pretty cool was it anchored in shallow water or was it a floating platform?
Also have any stuff on Rombus which is sorta on topic?

It was anchored like oil wells of the time

[JayWee]

Never heard of this one before:

https://twitter.com/thegeneralboard/status/1501594527920168972

As an aircraft carrier, the Essex class are known for their impressive arsenal of aircraft.

However, some Essex class carriers might have gone a step further as rocket carriers and launch platforms!
Early rockets, through a combination of lack of power and less advanced guidance, had difficulty placing satellites in certain orbits from the available launch installations in the United States.

During the early 1960s, the @USNavy developed a plan to modify an Essex class carrier into a ocean-going rocket launch platform. The carrier could operate from the most optimal launch zones, along rockets to reach orbit more easily and with larger payloads.
The design would see the installation of the launch pad at the stern. Depending on the side of the rockets, up to three could be carried by the carrier.

The stern would be modified to better support the rockets as well as safely vent the exhaust away from the ship.
A modified Atlas type rocket was expected to be used.

However, the design remained a concept. Improving technology allowed rockets to better access their intended orbits even from less than ideal launch areas.

Though the Essex class would never get to launch rockets into space, they did provide vital support to Space Exploration. Several of the Essex class served as recovery ships for Astronauts as they returned to Earth.

[Jim]

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=11769.0

[zubenelgenubi]

Moderator:
Old thread + new thread = merged thread!

Also noting a post in the older thread by OV-105 = Namechange User.

[Jim]

It could launch a Mercury capsule and then recover it. Who needs the Cape?

Good seeing you posting again!

That was 2008 and he hasn't been on this forum since 2009

[Blackstar]

Never heard of this one before:

That's a new one to me too. The Navy did fire one or two V-2 rockets off the stern of the USS Midway for tests. But the Navy was really wary of liquid fueled missiles on ships.

As a sidenote, the Navy did consider mounting Polaris missiles on surface ships. The cruiser USS Long Beach was supposed to carry several, and there was an Italian cruiser that was actually equipped with silos (or more probably, the holes for silos) to carry the missiles. This was when there was a policy to include NATO members in the nuclear force.

[libra]

Never heard of this one before:

That's a new one to me too. The Navy did fire one or two V-2 rockets off the stern of the USS Midway for tests. But the Navy was really wary of liquid fueled missiles on ships.

As a sidenote, the Navy did consider mounting Polaris missiles on surface ships. The cruiser USS Long Beach was supposed to carry several, and there was an Italian cruiser that was actually equipped with silos (or more probably, the holes for silos) to carry the missiles. This was when there was a policy to include NATO members in the nuclear force.

That NATO MLF. They picked surface ships as Polaris platforms because nuclear submarines were just too expensive and complex for any European navy bar perhaps France and Great Britain. Even with NATO full support.
Of course surface ships would have been giant targets, but the MLF concept in the first place hardly made any sense, so...

[Blackstar]

Of course surface ships would have been giant targets, but the MLF concept in the first place hardly made any sense, so...

Yeah, it didn't make much sense. When you start to consider the operational and command and control details, it gets really dicey. A tactical asset like a cruiser is supposed to be able to go anywhere you want it to go, where you need it. But once you put strategic weapons on it, it becomes a strategic platform, and then you are not going to risk it for missions like shore bombardment or protecting convoys. You're going to want to keep it safe and protected and in specific areas.

Anyway, back to the topic, there were many proposals for ship-launched rockets. They didn't progress because of lots of reasons, including the fact that oceans are bad environments for rockets.

[Zed_Noir]

<snip>
Yeah, it didn't make much sense. When you start to consider the operational and command and control details, it gets really dicey. A tactical asset like a cruiser is supposed to be able to go anywhere you want it to go, where you need it. But once you put strategic weapons on it, it becomes a strategic platform, and then you are not going to risk it for missions like shore bombardment or protecting convoys. You're going to want to keep it safe and protected and in specific areas.
<snip>

The USN disagree with you. AIUI all USN surface combatants and attack submarines with VLS vertical silo launchers can hosted Tomahawk cruise missiles with the W80 nuclear warhead. So all USN major combatants become strategic assets since there is no way for the opposing force to be ascertain if a combatant is carrying nukes or not. The nuke payloads was phased out of active service post cold war.

[Proponent]

Of course surface ships would have been giant targets, but the MLF concept in the first place hardly made any sense, so...

Rather like highly vulnerable liquid-fueled nuclear-armed IRBMs deployed in Europe circa 1960....

[Blackstar]

I gotta say, this is a rather poor rendering of an Essex-class carrier.

There were, however, plenty of them around at this time, including ones held in reserve. I'd have to look at a cutaway of the ships to see if that exhaust venting area was in a particularly important part of the ship, like the engines.

And I don't know why you would launch the rocket while the ship was moving.

[Zed_Noir]

I gotta say, this is a rather poor rendering of an Essex-class carrier.

There were, however, plenty of them around at this time, including ones held in reserve. I'd have to look at a cutaway of the ships to see if that exhaust venting area was in a particularly important part of the ship, like the engines.

And I don't know why you would launch the rocket while the ship was moving.

IIRC where the exhaust venting area is in the rendering was hangar space and later engine test area for jet aircraft in the top internal deck. The boilers for the Essex class is near the ship's Island in the lower decks with the ship's machinery (steam turbines & prop shafts) behind them.

The ship has to be underway for stability like when they launched and recovered aircraft.

[Vahe231991]

Of course surface ships would have been giant targets, but the MLF concept in the first place hardly made any sense, so...

Rather like highly vulnerable liquid-fueled nuclear-armed IRBMs deployed in Europe circa 1960....

It's arguable whether the USAF and NASA expressed interest in partnering with the US Navy to develop the carrier-launched Atlas, because Convair would have had to develop an orbital Atlas variant that could launch from a large carrier with minimal damage to the carrier deck.

[Jim]

Of course surface ships would have been giant targets, but the MLF concept in the first place hardly made any sense, so...

Rather like highly vulnerable liquid-fueled nuclear-armed IRBMs deployed in Europe circa 1960....

It's arguable whether the USAF and NASA expressed interest in partnering with the US Navy to develop the carrier-launched Atlas, because Convair would have had to develop an orbital Atlas variant that could launch from a large carrier with minimal damage to the carrier deck.

NASA was not involved in any early Atlas development

[Blackstar]

IIRC where the exhaust venting area is in the rendering was hangar space and later engine test area for jet aircraft in the top internal deck. The boilers for the Essex class is near the ship's Island in the lower decks with the ship's machinery (steam turbines & prop shafts) behind them.

The ship has to be underway for stability like when they launched and recovered aircraft.

Nope. Look at the graphic. Hangar deck is right below the flight deck, which is removed in the image. So the missile is mounted on the hangar deck, if not below.

And carriers are stable even when not moving. They kinda have to be or they would capsize at the pier.

[libra]

There were 24 Essex carriers, of which two tokk very severe beating in 1945 at the hands of kamikazes - Franklin and Bunker Hill. They stuck in mothballs for the next 20 years with hopes to rebuild them - to no avail.

[Blackstar]

There were 24 Essex carriers, of which two tokk very severe beating in 1945 at the hands of kamikazes - Franklin and Bunker Hill. They stuck in mothballs for the next 20 years with hopes to rebuild them - to no avail.

That's not quite correct. They were both fully repaired. However, they were maintained in mothball status. The Navy had enough carriers, and I think part of the problem was that the longer those two stayed in mothballs, the more obsolete they became. The Navy could have modernized them like the rest of the fleet, but they just were not needed.

[libra]

D'oh ! I knew about that part, but I forget to mention it. Slipped through my keyboard. Yes they were more than patched - fully repaired, in the sense the damage was zeroed out. And then they sat in storage. There were plans for massive upgrades well beyond SBC-125 as applied to the in-service Essex but as you said - there were plenty others Essex plus larger Midways plus all the even larger supercarriers after them, from Forrestal onwards.

According to Friedman the fully-repaired Franklin and Bunker Hill were held in reserve for an "ultimate rebuild" that never came.

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22essex%22%22bunker+hill%22%22ultimate%22%22flush%22%22SCB%22&client=firefox-b-d&sxsrf=APq-WBsnWIsfycSW2B3BtMm3r8sL1jyeGw%3A1647157663840&ei=n6EtYuuBM4eLlwTKwJjQAg&ved=0ahUKEwirzcS7zML2AhWHxYUKHUogBioQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22essex%22%22bunker+hill%22%22ultimate%22%22flush%22%22SCB%22&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EANKBAhBGAFKBAhGGABQqAVY_Qlg8Q1oAXAAeACAAYEBiAHFApIBAzMuMZgBAKABAcABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz

Note that both British and Australian navies were proposed pairs of refurbished Essex carriers in the 1960's but declined the offer.

(Yes, I love aircraft carriers too. And one of them will soon launch rockets for real: the italian "Harrier carrier" Garibaldi.)

[LittleBird]

The KSC future projects platform is pretty cool was it anchored in shallow water or was it a floating platform?
Also have any stuff on Rombus which is sorta on topic?

Old post I know but I do love the twin ROMBUS or similar plug nozzle designs deployed on this carrier. [Edit: sorry, I see it was mentioned further up thread as well, as Hyperion, but in fact it is Ithacus, which always had a bit of a retrieval problem: "After transfer from the interior, empty vehicle is taken by barge to a convenient coastal spaceport for reconditioning and relaunch." --- see nice collection here https://e05.code.blog/tag/philip-bono/ ]

[Jodie Peeler]

Friedman's book also indicates that the more the Essex-class ships were modernized, the more marginal their stability became, and they were reaching the envelope of what they could reasonably expect from those ships anyway. They were also wearing out by the 1960s, especially the wartime-built units, and funding for upgrades and modernization got squeezed by the increasing costs of the Vietnam War (among other things, I seem to recall an anticipated SCB-125 refit for Lake Champlain was one such casualty). With newer and larger carriers showing how much they could do, and with the budgets being what they were, the rest explains itself.

Franklin and Bunker Hill were indeed repaired (there are some spectacular photos of Franklin being rebuilt from the hangar deck up) and held in reserve. Franklin gradually became a parts source to support the remaining fleet and was finally sold for scrap in 1966 or so, and Bunker Hill lingered on a few more years as a moored electronics test-bed. It would have been interesting to see one of them converted to a missile launch ship, though as others have noted, the development of other concepts would have made it a short-lived program.

(Sorry for going on about this. The Essex-class ships are a longtime favorite subject, especially with their involvement in the space program.)

[Blackstar]

I'm a fan of the Essex-class ships as well. And certainly those two could have been adapted for a special project like this--if it made any sense at all.

On the more general subject of the Essex ships in Navy service, the basic problem was that jets were getting bigger and heavier and needed bigger carriers.

[libra]

I'm a fan of the Essex-class ships as well. And certainly those two could have been adapted for a special project like this--if it made any sense at all.

On the more general subject of the Essex ships in Navy service, the basic problem was that jets were getting bigger and heavier and needed bigger carriers.

I know of a 200 page long (!) speculative thread on a forum somewhere, discussing Essex carriers staying in service into the 1970's and 1980's... (and you thought SpaceX discussion threads were never-ending ?)

[Blackstar]

I know of a 200 page long (!) speculative thread on a forum somewhere, discussing Essex carriers staying in service into the 1970's and 1980's... (and you thought SpaceX discussion threads were never-ending ?)

A number of them were retired in the early 1970s. I think Oriskany was retired in the mid-1970s, but there was an early 1980s proposal to put her back in service. And Lexington served as a training carrier into the 1990s. But other than that, it made no sense.

[Jodie Peeler]

Oriskany was decommissioned in 1976. Oriskany and Bon Homme Richard (decommissioned in 1971) were retained in reserve at Bremerton until 1989, along with Bennington and Hornet (both decommissioned in 1970). Shangri-La (decommissioned in 1971, stricken in 1982) was retained at Philadelphia until 1988 as a parts source for Lexington (decommissioned in 1991). The four at Bremerton were finally stricken from the Navy List and designated for disposal in 1989.

In the early 1980s there was a proposal to recommission Oriskany or Bon Homme Richard, IIRC as a light attack carrier with Marine A-4s embarked. I have the report around here somewhere and it's fascinating. Working from (fallible) memory, the conclusion was that while Bon Homme Richard was in better condition than Oriskany, it would take less effort to modernize Oriskany because that ship had somewhat more recent updates. If I also recall correctly, much of what sank the proposal was that it would divert funds and shipyard effort from other projects the Navy wanted, so it never went anywhere. Bon Homme Richard went to the scrapyard in the early '90s and Oriskany lingered on, dying a thousand deaths, it seemed, until finally getting scuttled as a reef. 

I don't recall seeing any proposals regarding Hornet and Bennington. They were never converted to steam catapults, which made them of limited utility except as large VTOL/helicopter carriers. OTOH, it sort of paved the way for Hornet to eventually become a museum ship, dodging the scrapper's torch after an initial effort to save the ship fell through, and an unusual set of circumstances unfolded in the eleventh hour. 

From a practical standpoint, it's probably a good thing none of them were returned to service. Those ships were worn out when they were retired, and Oriskany was especially tired after so many demanding deployments off Vietnam. The book Moon Men Return spends some time detailing the efforts Hornet's engineering division spent trying to keep an aging engineering plant functional during the Apollo 11 recovery deployment. They were great, great ships, but no ship can escape time (well, except for Nimitz in "The Final Countdown," perhaps).

[Bob Shaw]

Has anyone else noticed that there appear to be people standing on the flight-deck in the B&W illustration of a (two-engined) Atlas being launched at sea?

[Blackstar]

Has anyone else noticed that there appear to be people standing on the flight-deck in the B&W illustration of a (two-engined) Atlas being launched at sea?

You're right.

[edzieba]

And that the sustainer engine has failed to ignite.

[Jim]

And that the sustainer engine has failed to ignite.

Atlas A had no sustainer

[LittleBird]

Has anyone else noticed that there appear to be people standing on the flight-deck in the B&W illustration of a (two-engined) Atlas being launched at sea?

You're right.

Mark you, I'm not sure that those below decks are a whole lot safer ...

Wanting to check that Sea Launch evacuated its crew to a safe distance before launch I came across some more launch-ship examples here at Anatoly Zak's pages: One of the earliest studies of a sea-based launch site was pioneered by the US Navy's Bureau of Ships around 1963. It considered a 17,700-ton, 565-feet vessel, capable of carrying up to three space launchers. Erected on the edge of the ship's stern, the rockets would lift off vertically, carrying satellites to a geostationary orbit. The main rationale for building a space-launching ship was its ability to be deployed in the equatorial regions of the Earth, where access to the geostationary orbit would be more energy efficient and cheaper compared to missions originating from Cape Canaveral. (263) https://www.russianspaceweb.com/sealaunch.html

ref is 263. Popular Science, Navy Designs Seagoing Pad to Launch Satellites at Sea, May 1963, p. 64 

[edzieba]

And that the sustainer engine has failed to ignite.

Atlas A had no sustainer

Though with the double-cranked nose it looks more like an SLV-3 with an incongruous LES or other pylon stuck on top (like the proposed Atlas Vega Mercury thing).