Page Content (OCR)
Chapter Seven Flying Saucer Spacecraft The flying saucer is often perceived as the ulti- mate design for a space vehicle and since the mid-1960s this shape has been heavily pro- moted by the TV sci-fi series Star Trek, with its various Starship Enterprise configurations ini- tially designed by Matt Jeffries (1921-2003). All versions of this fictional spacecraft have taken the form of a huge saucer-shaped body attached to a fuselage section (NX-01 has two linked booms) with twin tail fins and warp engine nacelles. While these elegant con- cepts are visually very pleasing the disc shape has little obvious value for a vehicle built to undertake deep space operations, although a wheel of sufficient size could be used to cre- ate an artificial gravity environment. Having said that, the lenticular or heel- shaped vehicle is well suited to aerobraking or aerocapture through a planet’s outer atmosphere and controlled descent to the surface. This profile allows a good distribu- tion of heat and stress across the shielded area, making the circular shape preferable to a winged vehicle (like the US Shuttle Orbiter) during re-entry. But there are difficulties launching large circular-shaped spacecraft with conventional rocket boosters that have dissuaded military and civil space agencies from using this shape for manned vehicles, although small aeroshields employed for braking are now a common feature with unmanned planetary probes. The flying saucer is often perceived as the ulti- launching large circular-shaped spacecraft Abe Silverstein had already been responsi- mate design for a space vehicle and since the with conventional rocket boosters that have _ ble for naming the Mercury project and came mid-1960s this shape has been heavily pro- dissuaded military and civil space agencies _ up with Apollo for NASA’s anticipated Moon moted by the TV sci-fi series Star Trek, withits from using this shape for manned vehicles, mission. This proved to be a very popular various Starship Enterprise configurations ini- although small aeroshields employed for choice. NASA’s Space Task Group (STG) was tially designed by Matt Jeffries (1921-2003). All braking are now a common feature with now studying a number of three-crew space- versions of this fictional spacecraft have taken unmanned planetary probes. craft designs for the Apollo project and a the form of a huge saucer-shaped body small spaceplane soon won favour with the attached to a fuselage section (NX-01 has two _NASA’s Lenticular Spacecraft team. The other manned projects like Mer- linked booms) with twin tail fins and warp _ In 1959 NASA began to consider their major — cury and Gemini would use ballistic capsules engine nacelles. While these elegant con- objectives for the coming decade. These _ that evolved from strategic missile warhead cepts are visually very pleasing the disc shape _ stretched from Project Mercury, which would _ designs, but Apollo was anticipated to be a has little obvious value for a vehicle built to put the first American into space, to a Moon _ significant step forward in terms of engineer- undertake deep space operations, although a _ landing by 1970. The lunar mission was given _ ing and functionality. wheel of sufficient size could be used to cre- _ a high priority within the agency and an initial Within the STG it was believed that a small ate an artificial gravity environment. proposal was put to the US Senate Subcom- _ spaceplane offered better handling charac- Having said that, the lenticular or heel- mittee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences _ teristics during re-entry and would allow hor- shaped vehicle is well suited to aerobraking on 10th March 1960. NASA then requested _ izontal landings on a dry lake bed or a proper or aerocapture through a planet’s outer approval of (up to) $15 billion over the next runway. Furthermore, it might be possible to atmosphere and controlled descent to the five years for this project. But man had yet to re-use the vehicle in the same way as the surface. This profile allows a good distribu- _ flyin space and there was little politicalenthu- hypersonic North American X-15 rocket- tion of heat and stress across the shielded _ siasm fora risky multi-billion dollar Moon mis- _ plane. Although a ballistic capsule was under area, making the circular shape preferable to sion. As a consequence, the scheme was_ consideration, three spaceplane configura- a winged vehicle (like the US Shuttle Orbiter) __ shelved, although NASA continued to develop __ tions were given preference. These were the during re-entry. But there are difficulties it and soon gave it a specific name. Ames M2-F1, M1-L half-cone and the Langley Lenticular Body, which was shaped like a RESEARCH CONTRIBUTING TO PROJECT MERCURY ixtirs stinsphere cach iting body design would use the entire underside of the vehicle for braking. It was Alan B Kehlet of the STG who had first proposed a lenticular space- craft, in 1959, and he suggested the use of deployable wings during the final landing approach. In fact Kehlet, and his colleagues Alan B Hasson and William W Petynia, were so convinced that a saucer was the perfect shape for a re-entry vehicle that they filed a patent on behalf of NASA. Several major aerospace contractors were involved in these early Apollo studies and on 12th January 1961, NASA held the first series of technical meetings at the Ames Research Center to discuss progress on various topics Early studies for re-entry vehicles, which led to the Project Mercury capsule design. During the early phase of the Apollo Moon project, NASA scientists gave preference to the lenticular shape, but this was finally abandoned and a more advanced type MISSILE NOSE CONES 1953-1957 MANNED CAPSULE CONCEPT 1957 of basi capsule chosen for reasons of simplicity. NASA NASA’s Lenticular Spacecraft In 1959 NASA began to consider their major objectives for the coming decade. These stretched from Project Mercury, which would put the first American into space, to a Moon landing by 1970. The lunar mission was given a high priority within the agency and an initial proposal was put to the US Senate Subcom- mittee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences on 10th March 1960. NASA then requested approval of (up to) $15 billion over the next five years for this project. But man had yet to fly in space and there was little political enthu- siasm for a risky multi-billion dollar Moon mis- sion. As a consequence, the scheme was shelved, although NASA continued to develop it and soon gave it a specific name. INITIAL CONCEPT —— MISSILE NOSE CONES 1953-1957 120 BLUNT BODY CONCEPT 1953 MANNED CAPSULE CONCEPT 1957 Secret Projects: Flying Saucer Aircraft