Author Topic: Phoenix SSTO Digital model (Read 16297 times)

tea monster · « **on:** 01/01/2015 12:05 pm »

Currently starting a model of the Phoenix SSTO. If anybody here has any input or info, it would be appreciated.
The best blueprint I have is here:

(EDIT) Mods have asked me not to use image tags to outside sites like photobucket, so I've reposted the pics as attachments. Sorry about that!

HMXHMX · « **Reply #1 on:** 01/01/2015 04:24 pm »

There were quite a few variations on a theme of these concepts. I'll look at my files and see what might be available.

tea monster · « **Reply #2 on:** 01/01/2015 10:59 pm »

Cheers!

This is the one I'm actually working off of. It's got a bit more detail and shows a more 'filled out' version of the craft. I have no idea what point in the development cycle of the vehicle it sits in.

I'd hate to be in that thing after reentry and find that the engine doors wouldn't open!

Here is one of my latest renders. This one has some colour and panel lines (but still WIP).

HMXHMX · « **Reply #3 on:** 01/02/2015 03:40 am »

Quote from: tea monster on 01/01/2015 10:59 pm

Cheers!

This is the one I'm actually working off of. It's got a bit more detail and shows a more 'filled out' version of the craft. I have no idea what point in the development cycle of the vehicle it sits in.

I'd hate to be in that thing after reentry and find that the engine doors wouldn't open!

Here is one of my latest renders. This one has some colour and panel lines (but still WIP).

One quick observation. The landing gear pads are actually rectangular, to close the bottom end of the gear blisters. They aren't round. They hinge in the middle of the pad.

Regarding your comment about doors failing to open…if the engine lights, the door will open, no question about it. We assumed the door would be blown off. Another interesting factoid is that the landing is survivable (from a deceleration standpoint) if the engines don't light. We computed the deceleration on the crew in the event of a vertical crash with no side component and found it to be within human tolerance. The issue that wasn't resolved was a post-crash fire. Our other solution for engine failure to light was a ballistic parachute on the crew cabin portion.

HMXHMX · « **Reply #4 on:** 01/02/2015 03:44 am »

I forgot to add that the B&W line drawing is a very early sketch; the color painting is much more definitive for the final Phoenix C/E configuration, dating to about 1982. Several iterations were subsequently done about 1988 in support of the Aerospace Corporation analysis of the idea that lead to the establishment of the DC-X program. After about 1990, I abandoned work on the effort since there was no sense in competing with SDIO and later, NASA.

tea monster · « **Reply #5 on:** 01/02/2015 09:08 pm »

Wow! I'm new to the forum and I had no idea that someone who actually worked on this ship would come along and offer me advice on the model! Thank you!

I might make a later version of the ship now that I know that was closer to the 'finished' design. I'm loathe to get rid of what I've got as it's pretty much complete now with animated engine hatches and aeroshell clam on the bow.

I'll make the changes to the landing gear.

Can I ask you, on the later version, how did the engine hatches work? Did they retract into the hull, were they on hinges or what? I don't pretend to be any kind of rocket engineer, but from what I saw, I thought that the ship would lift with the doors open and they would stay that way till reentry when they would shut to protect the motors from reentry. After deceleration, they would swing open again so that the craft could make a powered landing. Is this right?

I've always been fascinated by these vehicles and followed the 'progress' of the various concepts and X-craft throughout the 90's. I remember thinking at the time that we were only a few years away from what I thought of as "The REAL space age". Sigh.

Thank you again so much for your input.

Here are two renders showing the doors, motors and the aeroshell clam (legs haven't been fixed yet).

HMXHMX · « **Reply #6 on:** 01/03/2015 04:12 am »

Quote from: tea monster on 01/02/2015 09:08 pm

Wow! I'm new to the forum and I had no idea that someone who actually worked on this ship would come along and offer me advice on the model! Thank you!

I might make a later version of the ship now that I know that was closer to the 'finished' design. I'm loathe to get rid of what I've got as it's pretty much complete now with animated engine hatches and aeroshell clam on the bow.

I'll make the changes to the landing gear.

Can I ask you, on the later version, how did the engine hatches work? Did they retract into the hull, were they on hinges or what? I don't pretend to be any kind of rocket engineer, but from what I saw, I thought that the ship would lift with the doors open and they would stay that way till reentry when they would shut to protect the motors from reentry. After deceleration, they would swing open again so that the craft could make a powered landing. Is this right?

I've always been fascinated by these vehicles and followed the 'progress' of the various concepts and X-craft throughout the 90's. I remember thinking at the time that we were only a few years away from what I thought of as "The REAL space age". Sigh.

Thank you again so much for your input.

Here are two renders showing the doors, motors and the aeroshell clam (legs haven't been fixed yet).

The engine doors in the concept you are modeling would be latched open at launch and closed as soon as the vehicle reaches orbit (after a short outgassing period). After reentry a few doors (probably 4-8 open for landing retro impulse.

I copied the door approach from the Chrysler SERV concept of 1971. You can get more details here: http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=6006, with an enlargement of the images here: http://up-ship.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/art31ani.jpg

The nose door was planned to be a single cover, not split, but either way works.

Dalhousie · « **Reply #7 on:** 01/04/2015 07:44 pm »

If I have read what little I have found on Phoenix correctly, what's shown is the Mars lander version, is that correct?

tea monster · « **Reply #8 on:** 01/04/2015 11:13 pm »

Mars? I was going to do a render of her touching down on the moon. I didn't know there was a Mars version of this! More colourful renders if that is the case

The only real info I have on the Phoenix was what I found on a few other websites and some stuff that Jerry Pournelle wrote about the vehicle. This was wayyyyyyyy before I found out about this place.

I've fixed the gear and the doors. The knobbly bits are the bones for animating the motor covers.

*phssshht... vvvrrrrrmmmmmmm... cladunk!*

Dalhousie · « **Reply #9 on:** 01/05/2015 01:22 am »

Quote from: tea monster on 01/04/2015 11:13 pm

Mars? I was going to do a render of her touching down on the moon. I didn't know there was a Mars version of this! More colourful renders if that is the case

I have have misread the souces, but I thought that the Phoenix E have enough dV to land on both the moon and Mars Could be wrong, and probably am though.

Keep up the good work!

QuantumG · « **Reply #10 on:** 01/05/2015 01:25 am »

Quote from: Dalhousie on 01/05/2015 01:22 am

Quote from: tea monster on 01/04/2015 11:13 pm
Mars? I was going to do a render of her touching down on the moon. I didn't know there was a Mars version of this! More colourful renders if that is the case

I have have misread the sources, but I thought that the Phoenix E have enough dV to land on both the Moon and Mars. Could be wrong, and probably am though.

You're right. See http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36161.msg1293661#msg1293661

Dalhousie · « **Reply #11 on:** 01/05/2015 09:40 am »

Thanks!

tea monster · « **Reply #12 on:** 01/10/2015 04:28 pm »

Work is keeping up! I just wish I could

Model is pretty much complete and the cargo bay doors and motor covers and legs all animate.

Started on texturing. Still very WIP.

roma847 · « **Reply #13 on:** 01/10/2015 05:01 pm »

Very interesting project so far, keep on!

Dalhousie · « **Reply #14 on:** 01/11/2015 01:02 am »

I would be very interested in any specifications for the interior of the Phoenix E - diameter, volume, deck height, life support, how the crew were intended to egress, etc.

tea monster · « **Reply #15 on:** 01/19/2015 09:05 pm »

Same here

HMXHMX · « **Reply #16 on:** 01/21/2015 04:29 pm »

Quote from: Dalhousie on 01/11/2015 01:02 am

I would be very interested in any specifications for the interior of the Phoenix E - diameter, volume, deck height, life support, how the crew were intended to egress, etc.

I don't recall much and haven't been able to find the large format drawings. But the max base exterior was 10M dia and I believe the cabin base was 25 foot. The illustration below shows the boarding and servicing arrangement.

tea monster · « **Reply #17 on:** 01/21/2015 10:26 pm »

Cool! Thank you! If you do find them, I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd love to see them.

Progress on the texturing and I've tried to put a scene together. Rocket exhaust needs a bit of work, but I'm happy with it for now.

RanulfC · « **Reply #18 on:** 01/22/2015 01:25 pm »

Quote from: HMXHMX on 01/03/2015 04:12 am

I copied the door approach from the Chrysler SERV concept of 1971. You can get more details here: http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=6006, with an enlargement of the images here: http://up-ship.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/art31ani.jpg

As I recall the SERV folks found early on that the doors were not in fact needed. I suspect the Phoenix being smaller would still need them though?

Randy

HMXHMX · « **Reply #19 on:** 01/25/2015 04:30 am »

Quote from: RanulfC on 01/22/2015 01:25 pm

Quote from: HMXHMX on 01/03/2015 04:12 am
I copied the door approach from the Chrysler SERV concept of 1971. You can get more details here: http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=6006, with an enlargement of the images here: http://up-ship.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/art31ani.jpg

As I recall the SERV folks found early on that the doors were not in fact needed. I suspect the Phoenix being smaller would still need them though?

Randy

SERV used the doors to protect an aerospike while I was using them to protect a Beichel-type dual expander nozzle.