STSprog-fut_v_bw_o_n (1970, Boeing (Lockheed) photo no. P 45935, 70-H-1071 & 70-HC-774 eq)
“Boeing/Lockheed Phase B delta-wing shuttle concept.
The booster would be 64m long and powered by 11 rocket engines while the 352.9-tonne delta-wing orbiter would be 50.3m long with a cross-range capability of 2,400km. The Air Force regarded Maxime Faget's straight-wing orbiter as outright dangerous since its flight plan called for a stall maneuver at 12.2km altitude followed by a controlled dive to 7.6km to pick up speed again. This was necessary because the shuttle would be reentering nose-high and it would be travelling too slowly for the wings to provide any lift when the nose finally gets pushed down. The Air Force (and leading NASA/MSFC officials such as Dale Myers) preferred a delta wing which would permit a normal gliding reentry. The delta provides better trim and drag across the entire flight path, from hypersonic reentry to subsonic flight, although the landing speed will be higher than for a straight wing. Faget objected that the delta would be heavier, although it did offer more room for the landing gear. What settled the argument in the end was the USAF cross-range requirement since the shuttle would have to capable of overflying the Soviet Union and return to base after a single orbit, only 90 minutes later. Due to the Earth's rotation, the base would have moved by 2000km in 90 minutes so this defined the shuttle's cross-range requirement. But NASA paid a heavy price for this, since the resulting additional weight and complexity added well over 20% to both development and operations costs of the shuttle. To the Air Force, the only shuttle capability that seemed really valuable was the ability to inspect and retrieve satellites in space as well as deploy 18,144kg military spy satellites. NASA had no choice, though, since it badly needed the considerable US Air Force space traffic to boost the shuttle “market” -- the basic justification for the extremely high initial investment of the system. As the space station project was postponed indefinitely in mid-1970, it became increasingly clear that one-third of the shuttle payloads would be military satellites. NASA also needed USAF political support in Congress, where influential Senators and Representatives were adamantly opposed to Paine's grandiose and expensive post-Apollo space exploration plan. The Department of Defense was, at best, a lukewarm shuttle supporter and there was little military interest in a low-cost space transportation system since the existing Titan and Atlas rockets were quite sufficient for USAF needs. It was not even interested in sharing the cost with NASA.”
Per the official NASA caption:
One of the most beautifully depicted shuttle concepts ever. Hence, possibly by Ted Brown. Although it has a very Henry Lozano Jr. look to it as well, I don't believe he ever worked for either Boeing or Lockheed. That said, it also has a Manuel E. Alvarez look to it, although again, not employed (to my knowledge) by the aforementioned. Ugh...it's probably none of them.
Above, with the image at/per:
www.pmview.com/spaceodysseytwo/spacelvs/sld028.htm
Credit: PMView Pro website
I think this is it, inverted:
airandspace.si.edu/collection-media/NASM-A19760778000_PS01
Credit: NASM website
Also. Good eyes/nice catch (I think):
www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/boeing-lockheed-space-sh...
Credit: user "RAP"/SECRET PROJECTS Forum website
What I originally thought to be the same image, except in color…has some subtle/not so subtle differences, most notably the retracted, slightly re-positioned, air-breathing engines – which would make sense – as the vehicles are depicted during ascent. The payload bay door configurations are also different. At:
i1.wp.com/thehighfrontier.blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/07...
Along with an excellent article:
thehighfrontier.blog/2016/07/27/the-sunnyvale-shuttle-loc...
Both above credit: “The High Frontier” blog
However, here is the same configuration, after separation:
www.lifethoughts.com/photos/photo.cgi?id=1126
Credit: David Hamilton/"Lifethoughts" website
Hmm...no windows.
Finally, compare/contrast:
kssunews.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/space-shuttle-28429.jpg
Credit: Sacramento State/Associated Students, Inc. blogsite
STSprog-fut_v_bw_o_n (1970, Boeing (Lockheed) photo no. P 45935, 70-H-1071 & 70-HC-774 eq)
“Boeing/Lockheed Phase B delta-wing shuttle concept.
The booster would be 64m long and powered by 11 rocket engines while the 352.9-tonne delta-wing orbiter would be 50.3m long with a cross-range capability of 2,400km. The Air Force regarded Maxime Faget's straight-wing orbiter as outright dangerous since its flight plan called for a stall maneuver at 12.2km altitude followed by a controlled dive to 7.6km to pick up speed again. This was necessary because the shuttle would be reentering nose-high and it would be travelling too slowly for the wings to provide any lift when the nose finally gets pushed down. The Air Force (and leading NASA/MSFC officials such as Dale Myers) preferred a delta wing which would permit a normal gliding reentry. The delta provides better trim and drag across the entire flight path, from hypersonic reentry to subsonic flight, although the landing speed will be higher than for a straight wing. Faget objected that the delta would be heavier, although it did offer more room for the landing gear. What settled the argument in the end was the USAF cross-range requirement since the shuttle would have to capable of overflying the Soviet Union and return to base after a single orbit, only 90 minutes later. Due to the Earth's rotation, the base would have moved by 2000km in 90 minutes so this defined the shuttle's cross-range requirement. But NASA paid a heavy price for this, since the resulting additional weight and complexity added well over 20% to both development and operations costs of the shuttle. To the Air Force, the only shuttle capability that seemed really valuable was the ability to inspect and retrieve satellites in space as well as deploy 18,144kg military spy satellites. NASA had no choice, though, since it badly needed the considerable US Air Force space traffic to boost the shuttle “market” -- the basic justification for the extremely high initial investment of the system. As the space station project was postponed indefinitely in mid-1970, it became increasingly clear that one-third of the shuttle payloads would be military satellites. NASA also needed USAF political support in Congress, where influential Senators and Representatives were adamantly opposed to Paine's grandiose and expensive post-Apollo space exploration plan. The Department of Defense was, at best, a lukewarm shuttle supporter and there was little military interest in a low-cost space transportation system since the existing Titan and Atlas rockets were quite sufficient for USAF needs. It was not even interested in sharing the cost with NASA.”
Per the official NASA caption:
One of the most beautifully depicted shuttle concepts ever. Hence, possibly by Ted Brown. Although it has a very Henry Lozano Jr. look to it as well, I don't believe he ever worked for either Boeing or Lockheed. That said, it also has a Manuel E. Alvarez look to it, although again, not employed (to my knowledge) by the aforementioned. Ugh...it's probably none of them.
Above, with the image at/per:
www.pmview.com/spaceodysseytwo/spacelvs/sld028.htm
Credit: PMView Pro website
I think this is it, inverted:
airandspace.si.edu/collection-media/NASM-A19760778000_PS01
Credit: NASM website
Also. Good eyes/nice catch (I think):
www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/boeing-lockheed-space-sh...
Credit: user "RAP"/SECRET PROJECTS Forum website
What I originally thought to be the same image, except in color…has some subtle/not so subtle differences, most notably the retracted, slightly re-positioned, air-breathing engines – which would make sense – as the vehicles are depicted during ascent. The payload bay door configurations are also different. At:
i1.wp.com/thehighfrontier.blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/07...
Along with an excellent article:
thehighfrontier.blog/2016/07/27/the-sunnyvale-shuttle-loc...
Both above credit: “The High Frontier” blog
However, here is the same configuration, after separation:
www.lifethoughts.com/photos/photo.cgi?id=1126
Credit: David Hamilton/"Lifethoughts" website
Hmm...no windows.
Finally, compare/contrast:
kssunews.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/space-shuttle-28429.jpg
Credit: Sacramento State/Associated Students, Inc. blogsite