STSprog_v_c_o_AKP (McDonnell Douglas Corp photo no. D4C-78237, JAN 6 1971)
“The other shuttle Phase-B design team -- McDonnell-Douglas and Martin Marietta -- presented its final design on June 30, 1971. The Martin Marietta booster was derived from an alternative “Spacemaster” booster concept. All landing jet engines were installed inside the forward canard wing to improve the center of gravity, to compensate for the huge mass of the ascent propulsion system which consisted of thirteen Space Shuttle Main Engines. [I count twelve] The high-mounted aft wing with wing tips was chosen to provide the least interference with the orbiter at launch while still producing adequate stability for the booster. The Martin Marietta booster was expected to provide a higher degree of directional stability, except during the subsonic part of the flight and during landing, when the General Dynamics low-wing design would be less sensitive to crosswinds.”
Above per the excellent PMView Pro website, at the following links:
www.pmview.com/spaceodysseytwo/spacelvs/sld031.htm
With the image, and its associated description/caption: “McDonnell-Douglas/Martin Marietta shuttle flight plan. The staging maneuver was at 63.8km altitude. The booster's engines would have to burn 1,378.3t of LOX/LH₂ propellants to accelerate the vehicle to a velocity of 3300m/s. The orbiter's twin engines would have used another 241,648kg of propellants to reach orbit”:
sites.google.com/site/spaceodysseytwo/stg1969/stsmd71p.jpg
8.5" x 11". Not resolved in the online image, but seen in this photograph, is the opened/hinged trailing edge of the forward canard – visible in the “landing” phase – revealing the air-breathing engines housed within. I suppose the opened coverings served as elevons at this point?
The flaws, strokes, 'smudges', etc., are NOT surface flaws or dirt. They're within the image, and may very well have been on the canvas/board, or whatever it was, that the artist used.
Also...always excellent:
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/blog/?s=McDonnell-Douglas...
Credit: Aerospace Projects Review website
Finally, while the third & fourth diagrams are the ones directly pertinent to the image, an overall excellent article, as one might expect, from the National Space Society. At:
space.nss.org/the-space-shuttle-decision-chapter-8/
The artist is unknown. Spencer Taylor & Don Lauer are reasonable candidates, with H. Wynn as a dark horse.
STSprog_v_c_o_AKP (McDonnell Douglas Corp photo no. D4C-78237, JAN 6 1971)
“The other shuttle Phase-B design team -- McDonnell-Douglas and Martin Marietta -- presented its final design on June 30, 1971. The Martin Marietta booster was derived from an alternative “Spacemaster” booster concept. All landing jet engines were installed inside the forward canard wing to improve the center of gravity, to compensate for the huge mass of the ascent propulsion system which consisted of thirteen Space Shuttle Main Engines. [I count twelve] The high-mounted aft wing with wing tips was chosen to provide the least interference with the orbiter at launch while still producing adequate stability for the booster. The Martin Marietta booster was expected to provide a higher degree of directional stability, except during the subsonic part of the flight and during landing, when the General Dynamics low-wing design would be less sensitive to crosswinds.”
Above per the excellent PMView Pro website, at the following links:
www.pmview.com/spaceodysseytwo/spacelvs/sld031.htm
With the image, and its associated description/caption: “McDonnell-Douglas/Martin Marietta shuttle flight plan. The staging maneuver was at 63.8km altitude. The booster's engines would have to burn 1,378.3t of LOX/LH₂ propellants to accelerate the vehicle to a velocity of 3300m/s. The orbiter's twin engines would have used another 241,648kg of propellants to reach orbit”:
sites.google.com/site/spaceodysseytwo/stg1969/stsmd71p.jpg
8.5" x 11". Not resolved in the online image, but seen in this photograph, is the opened/hinged trailing edge of the forward canard – visible in the “landing” phase – revealing the air-breathing engines housed within. I suppose the opened coverings served as elevons at this point?
The flaws, strokes, 'smudges', etc., are NOT surface flaws or dirt. They're within the image, and may very well have been on the canvas/board, or whatever it was, that the artist used.
Also...always excellent:
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/blog/?s=McDonnell-Douglas...
Credit: Aerospace Projects Review website
Finally, while the third & fourth diagrams are the ones directly pertinent to the image, an overall excellent article, as one might expect, from the National Space Society. At:
space.nss.org/the-space-shuttle-decision-chapter-8/
The artist is unknown. Spencer Taylor & Don Lauer are reasonable candidates, with H. Wynn as a dark horse.