Unknown Spacecraft Painting- Goddard SFC

[magnus_augustus]

Hi everyone! Long time lurker, first time poster. Please feel free to move if necessary.

My wife found an original painting at Goodwill which she purchased for $1.99. It's a beautiful rendering of a spacecraft in Earth orbit. Unfortunately, there is no marking that we have been able to ascertain which shows the name or purpose of the spacecraft or even the date or artist. The back is marked thusly:
VISUAL ARTS BRANCH
Technical Information Division
Goddard Space Flight Center
Reverse image search brought up the Orbiting Solar Observatory series of spacecraft, but none of the pictures of those spacecraft (or the AOSO engineering model) seem to resemble this painting. I'd appreciate any pointers.

[JulesVerneATV]

no hidden signature in blue or black among that cloud of stars? or have you tried one of those newer chatbot AI Dupli-check sites Reverse Imagery Search websites?
it seems a little M. Alvarez but I think those were space station illustrations
https://www.dailyartmagazine.com/artemis-generation-nasa-art-program-relaunch/
'NASA Art Program’s collection currently has over 3000 pieces'
Davis Paul Meltzer
https://gizmodo.com/the-forgotten-space-artist-who-envisioned-the-end-of-th-1668805954
Pat Rawlings
https://amazingstories.com/2013/06/iaaa-gallery-pat-rawlings/
Norman Rockwell
https://www.howwegettonext.com/the-improbable-bold-history-of-space-concept-art/

If I could guess where to look, it seems to be somewhat in the style of Julian Baum,  Lawson David is another who makes similar art, but there are many artists Don Davis, Rick Guidice. I think some of those AI Chatbots can help you find artists or the bots can see the brushwork style these days. After the mid 1990s many artists started using CGI so images became computerized and old school classic paints with water color and oil painting stopped being a thing.

However the satellite looks a little 'too perfect' almost too smooth like a Computer Rendering compared with the background which seems paint-like or scratchy or to have color brush strokes, there are artists who began to mix both mediums of computer with traditional painting. The Earth and Starfield look like a real painting but I wonder if the satellite pic is somehow a computer generated image super imposed. During the 90s movie scene illustration changes and you sometimes had more than one artist work on a commission, there could be a team of 2 or 3 working as Inker, Painter, Penciller, Colorist etc  people who would work on the original pencil drawing to define the colors and line or add paint, the first artist would sketch and later other artists would come in and enhance a black and white sketched picture


https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/the-men-who-made-space-colonies-look-like-home
,
https://mindseyemag.com/magazine/space-colonies-of-the-future-as-imagined-by-nasa-in-the-1970s/
,
https://www.labocine.com/spotlights/visions-of-the-future-the-artist-depiction-series


David A. Hardy is another but he seemed to illustrate mostly visions of exoplanets

https://novaspace.com/product-category/space-art/david-hardy/
,
http://www.outer-space-art-gallery.com/david-hardy.html

links to other artists
http://www.outer-space-art-gallery.com/Links.html

another artist page 'Pierre Mion '
https://www.illustrationhistory.org/artists/pierre-mion

is it created using a print, a copy? a photocopy

if the painting does not have physical texture it might be 'scanned in' and a 'print', after scanning the satellite image could be touched up on computer and made into a more 'finished' illustration state https://bueskenart.com/rendering-digital-art/

I'm not sure the satellite is digital but it just almost looks like a different artist hand compared to the background

It's a beautiful rendering of a spacecraft in Earth orbit

the word 'rendering' suggests use of computer software, so maybe its possible the background is paint like a human artist traditionally paints but the satellite itself was done on computer, photo-shopped as they call it, image manipulation or image alteration the modification of an otherwise genuine painting which is an artistic skill in itself, but there might be a debate about such style like digital music vs real music.

Rendering

https://academyofanimatedart.com/computer-recommendations-for-rendering-and-modeling/
,
https://www.cadcrowd.com/blog/what-is-cgi-and-how-do-3d-rendering-services-use-it/


Advanced Orbiting Solar Observatory?
https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/satellite-aoso-advanced-orbiting-solar-observatory-flight-model/nasm_A19700232000
,

[JulesVerneATV]

AOSO Canceled mis-labeled "OSO-1"
https://rammb.cira.colostate.edu/dev/hillger/OSO_reference.htm
I found a site maintained by Don Hillger US and Garry Toth Quebec Canada.

AdvancedOSO
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraft/display.action?id=AOSO
Mass 125 kg, Discipline Solar Physics

https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/aoso.htm

Republic Aviation Corporation was an American aircraft manufacturer based in Farmingdale, New York, on Long Island. Originally known as the Seversky Aircraft Company


The objectives of this project were to develop and orbit advanced solar observatories and to develop and refine intrumentation for these observatories. These objectives allow the continuing study of solar phenomena which can be measured only above the earth's atmosphere, over a complete cycle of solar activity. This project was satellites. It was cancelled and later replaced by the OSO-I, J, and K series, of which only one, i.e, OSO-I (eye), was launched ( as OSO 8 ).

[Jim]

too early for any CGI

[sdsds]

AOSO Canceled mis-labeled "OSO-1"
https://rammb.cira.colostate.edu/dev/hillger/OSO_reference.htm
I found a site maintained by Don Hillger US and Garry Toth Quebec Canada.

From there: https://rammb.cira.colostate.edu/dev/hillger/AOSO_image2.jpg
Attached below. Pretty clearly this is a photo of the painting, based on the location of the stars in the background.

[LittleBird]

AOSO Canceled mis-labeled "OSO-1"
https://rammb.cira.colostate.edu/dev/hillger/OSO_reference.htm
I found a site maintained by Don Hillger US and Garry Toth Quebec Canada.

From there: https://rammb.cira.colostate.edu/dev/hillger/AOSO_image2.jpg
Attached below. Pretty clearly this is a photo of the painting, based on the location of the stars in the background.

As the OP noted there is an engineering model of Advanced OSO-it’s hanging from the roof at Udvar Hazy.

It looks different from the painting in terms of number of solar panels etc, but it is broadly similar.

Do we have any info at all about why they differ (different proposals, different stages in the process, …) ?

[StraumliBlight]

Do we have any info at all about why they differ (different proposals, different stages in the process, …) ?

This document (on pages 361-379) goes into detail about solar panel (or "paddle" back in 1964) design for the Advanced Orbiting Solar Observatory.

Early Years of GODDARD Space Flight Center [1968]

February 28th, 1963:
GSFC plans for second-generation OSO satellite-known as Advanced Orbiting Solar Observatory, or Helios-were outlined at Philadelphia technical meeting by Goddard's AOSO Project Manager A. J. Cervenka. AOSO would be designed to have a pointing accuracy of 5 seconds of arc and 70 percent overall systems reliability, Cervenka said.

October 22, 1963:
GSFC began negotiations with Republic Aviation Corp. for Phase I dontract for Advanced Orbiting Solar Observatory (AOSO). AOSO would be launched into a 300-mile near-polar orbit for observations of x-rays, gamma rays, and ultraviolet emissions of the sun. Phase I calls for oneyear development of systems engineering and detailed design of the satellite.

The Observatory Generation Of Satellites (page 31-43)

For the Advanced Orbiting SoJar Observatory (Helios), the initial planning was done in the Spring of 1961-with the first launch, hopefully, in 1966.

[...]

The proposed Advanced Orbiting Solar Observatory (Figure 3-4) is a spacecraft about 10 feet long and 40 inches in diameter, weighing about 1000 pounds. Of this weight, 250 pounds is reserved for experiments occupying a cubic volume of more than 45 cubic feet. It will be possible to fly a 20-inch telescope, 10 feet long.

[LittleBird]

Do we have any info at all about why they differ (different proposals, different stages in the process, …) ?

This document (on pages 361-379) goes into detail about solar panel (or "paddle" back in 1964) design for the Advanced Orbiting Solar Observatory.

Early Years of GODDARD Space Flight Center [1968]

February 28th, 1963:
GSFC plans for second-generation OSO satellite-known as Advanced Orbiting Solar Observatory, or Helios-were outlined at Philadelphia technical meeting by Goddard's AOSO Project Manager A. J. Cervenka. AOSO would be designed to have a pointing accuracy of 5 seconds of arc and 70 percent overall systems reliability, Cervenka said.

October 22, 1963:
GSFC began negotiations with Republic Aviation Corp. for Phase I dontract for Advanced Orbiting Solar Observatory (AOSO). AOSO would be launched into a 300-mile near-polar orbit for observations of x-rays, gamma rays, and ultraviolet emissions of the sun. Phase I calls for oneyear development of systems engineering and detailed design of the satellite.

The Observatory Generation Of Satellites (page 31-43)

For the Advanced Orbiting SoJar Observatory (Helios), the initial planning was done in the Spring of 1961-with the first launch, hopefully, in 1966.

[...]

The proposed Advanced Orbiting Solar Observatory (Figure 3-4) is a spacecraft about 10 feet long and 40 inches in diameter, weighing about 1000 pounds. Of this weight, 250 pounds is reserved for experiments occupying a cubic volume of more than 45 cubic feet. It will be possible to fly a 20-inch telescope, 10 feet long.

Thanks. Interesting to see Republic Aviation tendering for a space contract.

Apparently it wasn’t taken over by Fairchild until 1965 so that’s not the explanation.

Did they ever build a satellite (not AOSO)?

[Edit: looking at StraumliBlight's helpful note:

This document (on pages 361-379) goes into detail about solar panel (or "paddle" back in 1964) design for the Advanced Orbiting Solar Observatory." 

it seems that Republic did indeed win the contract, and that the eight paddle design seen in the engineering model at NASM Udvar Hazy https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/satellite-aoso-advanced-orbiting-solar-observatory-flight-model/nasm_A19700232000  had already been settled on by the date of the document (the talks were in October 1964). See grab below. So presumably the 4 paddle painting the OP has is from an earlier stage, maybe while Goddard were still scoping out the design. ]

[LittleBird]

Also fascinated to see that Republic apparently beat STL and Ball Brothers who had earlier done the other study contracts for Goddard on AOSO, unless the latter two weren't interested in bidding for some reason.

[Comga]

Also fascinated to see that Republic apparently beat STL and Ball Brothers who had earlier done the other study contracts for Goddard on AOSO, unless the latter two weren't interested in bidding for some reason.

It seems like "Republic beating STL and Ball Brothers" was some internal Goddard politics.
Ball Brothers Research Corp (BBRC, later Ball Aerospace) went on to build OSO's 2 - 7 and P78-1, over the course of a decade and a half, long after the "Advanced Orbiting Solar Observatory" effort ended.
https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/oso-1.htm
https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/oso-7.htm  (Fails to name Ball Aerospace as contractor)
https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/solwind.htm  (Solwind = P78-1)
The story of Hughes getting the OSO-8 contract is a corporate legend around Ball, now BAE Systems.


PS  Great finds in the archives, people!