Shipbucket

That's pretty cool.

To me it looks like a stealthier version of the F-15SE Silent Eagle, and yes it is preferred to use weapons carried internally in FAST packs like the F-15SE.

When words like "subtlety" are unnecessary:



You can replace either Sparrows or Agiles with Mavericks, it's cleared for LAU-88.

Kattsun wrote:

eshelon wrote:

Kattsun wrote: The French version is mounted on the AMX-30 main battle tank chassis and is designated the Char AMX-30 lance missiles AC 3G.

The United Kingdom version is mounted on the Vickers Defence Challenger 2 chassis, incorporating Special Armour protection, and additionally features a 15.5mm light automatic cannon as a backup weapon/ranging device. It is called the FV4036 Caernafron by the British military.

All versions feature the same elevating mast and incorporate the PARS 3 LR/AC 3G/TRIGAT missile system, as well as the Matra Mistral, Stinger/Fliegerfaust 2, and Shorts Starstreak. Export models feature downgraded electronics and integration with the Euromissile HOT 3.

The United States equivalent is the Delco Systems M153 Elevated LOSAT Launcher, featuring an eight round MGM-166 LOSAT launcher mounted on an M60 Patton chassis. This system is capable of elevating only 10 meters, but features a far more potent anti-armour system. The M153 ELL is also capable of accepting launcher magazines featuring 24 2" Mk 80 SPIKE hypervelocity rockets for anti-aircraft purposes.

Please tell me, Kattsun, this information is true (source?) or just a your fantasy (This is very important for me because I am a collector of information about "giraffe tanks" -> http://eshelon.wordpress.com/2011/05/26 ... we-czolgi/)

I inserted factual information only to give a sense of verisimilitude.

To be more specific, everything after Raktenjagdpanzer 1/2 being replaced is made up.

I'm not entirely sure if the manufacturers are even accurate though.

Judah14 wrote:To me it looks like a stealthier version of the F-15SE Silent Eagle, and yes it is preferred to use weapons carried internally in FAST packs like the F-15SE.

The thing I copied it from predates F-15SE by about twenty years.

The Navy Mark 8 Mod 1 or SJU-1270, as designated by either the United States Solar Fleet or United States Air Force, is the primary NATO escape capsule for intrastellar vessels. It is modified from the B-58 escape crew capsule, and built by the Martin Marietta Space Systems company. Other manufacturers of the SJU-1270 include Lockheed, McDonnell Douglas, Saab, and British Aerospace. The system is rated for Earth reentry, and can be used in the modified form SJU-1270A for Martian operations using supersonic parachutes and air cushions. It can recover one individual, and the capsule is fully pressurised, dispensing with the need for a pressure suit.

The Martin Marietta EGRESS system was chosen by NATO as the next-generation atmospheric reentry capsule for the 1980s (NGARC-80) and went into service aboard the HMS Vixen of the Royal Air Force on March 2002.

It is currently operated by NASA, USAF, USSF, RAF, Gallan Royal Navy, Swedish Air Force, Luftwaffe, French Armee de l'espace as an escape recovery platform, and is used by the United States Marine Corps, British Royal Marines, Gallan Royal Marines, French Troupes de marine, NASA Astronaut Corps, 2e Régiment Étranger de Parachutistes, and the European Astronaut Corps as assault landing craft.

The USAF spaceship USS Curtis E. LeMay and her six sister ships can carry an assault force of one company of Marines and their equipment to Mars, the French ship Intrépide is the Sixth Republic's largest solar cruiser and can deliver three hundred Legionnaires along a similar journey. Intrépide is the largest cruiser available to NATO Solar Command, although the American LeMay class and British Type 72/Vivacious-class feature superior armament.

Pictured is the Gallan variant, the Type 82, featuring a Royal Marine and his .60" rocket rifle.

The Soviet equivalent is used by the Leonid Brezhnev and both Project 1492 cruisers, all three of which can transport approximately 40 VDV troopers.

Hi Kattsun,

The drawing looks really great, but I'm dubious about how a capsule intended for bailout at ~700m/s will survive a ~7,000m/s re-entry, however heavily modified it is. That's a terrific amount of heat to absorb ... but, if you changed it to some sort of lifeboat pod rather than a re-entry pod, it might have sufficient endurance to await pickup, possibly? Or, possibly, some sort of ablative coating on the forward side to dump the heat to (I'm assuming it re-enters in the direction of the clamshell doors, or are the rockets dumped prior to re-entry, changing the aft side into the heat shield - that would probably work better, actually)

Ad

I don't think there's much of a difference between supersonic wind blast and supersonic wind blast.

Considering I drew the heatshield, quite obviously I'd thought, I don't why you would think it goes into the atmosphere backwards. The shape alone should give it away, anyway.

Orbital lifeboats make zero sense for a space warship. The delta-v expenditure for orbital rescue would be absurd and probably cause more problems than not even for something relatively close like LEO. The only place they'd find a use would be on space stations which are regularly visited and in predictable orbits.

the only part I can see which could be the heatshield is the back?
and although I do not know what the shockwaves do, if we go for the pressure formula's of bernouiili we see that speed is in it square ( P=1/2 rho v^2 ) so the pressures will be 100 times bigger 10 times higher speeds. seems to me that that would warrant somewhat heavier construction, not to speak of the heatshield. seeing that your unit seems to be near the exact design of that of the B-58 (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_pPsuc9rvU4Y/S ... egress.jpg) I think there is some refining to do.

aren't heat shields quite thick as well, btw?

one question, is this thing circular or egg shaped? the B-58's are egg shaped but I think an heat shield should best be entirely round.

Hi Kattsun,

The problem I had was, yes, you've drawn a heat shield. You've drawn it with a requirement to drill holes through it to fit the thrusters. This usually impairs the efficient functioning of a heat shield. That was why I asked the question.

As to differences in speed, well, as I stated, the main concern I had was the heat load you're dumping into the pod. That little v-squared in the KE equation means you now have to try and find a home for one hundred times the energy and it's mostly going to be coming at you in the form of heat. The space shuttle manages it with a freon coolant loop, apollo and earlier tended to use ablative coatings and just let bits of the ship burn away on re-entry. What's your solution?

I suggested orbital life pod because I'd figured, with a space navy, you might well have other, functioning, warships in the vicinity able to effect pick-up with minimal delta-v required. Do the ships only deploy solo?

Ad

acelanceloet wrote:the only part I can see which could be the heatshield is the back?
and although I do not know what the shockwaves do, if we go for the pressure formula's of bernouiili we see that speed is in it square ( P=1/2 rho v^2 ) so the pressures will be 100 times bigger 10 times higher speeds. seems to me that that would warrant somewhat heavier construction, not to speak of the heatshield. seeing that your unit seems to be near the exact design of that of the B-58 (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_pPsuc9rvU4Y/S ... egress.jpg) I think there is some refining to do.

aren't heat shields quite thick as well, btw?

one question, is this thing circular or egg shaped? the B-58's are egg shaped but I think an heat shield should best be entirely round.

Yes, you found the Thing I drew. Good job, lad.

The heatshield is circular. The capsule is egg shaped.

apdsmith wrote:Hi Kattsun,

The problem I had was, yes, you've drawn a heat shield. You've drawn it with a requirement to drill holes through it to fit the thrusters. This usually impairs the efficient functioning of a heat shield. That was why I asked the question.

As to differences in speed, well, as I stated, the main concern I had was the heat load you're dumping into the pod. That little v-squared in the KE equation means you now have to try and find a home for one hundred times the energy and it's mostly going to be coming at you in the form of heat. The space shuttle manages it with a freon coolant loop, apollo and earlier tended to use ablative coatings and just let bits of the ship burn away on re-entry. What's your solution?

I suggested orbital life pod because I'd figured, with a space navy, you might well have other, functioning, warships in the vicinity able to effect pick-up with minimal delta-v required. Do the ships only deploy solo?

Ad

Obviously there's no room for active coolant, what do you think the solution is? It's not my solution, it's Martin Marietta's. Who knows/cares why they put thrusters on the back? Possibly so the pilot could perform deorbit burns? That seems most sensible. I can't imagine any reason you would send multiple space warships on the same journey, or how you'd manage to perform any sort of rescue with twice the crew weight. That would be a fairly tricky thing to plan for and still have any useable mass leftover. I imagine it would just be more sensible to either have everyone resign to death and shoot themselves, or futilely await rescue in the sole working compartment.

How would they deal with the reentry and having obnoxious thrusters on the back? Who knows? Who cares? Considering EGRESS never went beyond "this is a neat idea" and what someone sketched on a napkin (sounds like Orion, but at least they had a vague idea of what space reentry was like since they'd been to the Moon by now), it's probably hard to figure that out. Maybe you ask the ninety year old engineer who thought of it, provided he isn't dead/senile?

There are better orbital life pods that aren't 400 kg or whatever. Why would you even have maneuvering equipment in any sort of "life pod", that seems counter-intuitive to something that is supposed to expect orbital rescue.

It makes sense, but not for this specific pod, which is much too heavy for the purpose of serving as any sort of "lifeboat". A PRE would be better.

Overall, you're putting too much thought into something that was about as hopeful as LESA or SBS only on a much smaller scale. Seems to be rather typical on this forum.

I can spell it out for you how I imagine EGRESS would have reentered if it helps:

1) Pilot gets inside and closes clamshell.
2) Capsule is spit out of space station by the bottom, square-shaped thruster.
3) Pilot guides capsule on a retrograde burn for reentry, probably guided by some vacuum tube computer or w/e.
4) Thrusters are ejected when reentry burn is completed by the computer, and the capsule aligns itself using the reaction control system on the ends.
5) It reenters the atmosphere, the heatshield being ablated constantly.
6) At a predetermined altitude it ejects the heatshield and opens a parachute.
7) Pilot lands and gets out, takes out flare gun, and signals helicopter.

I hope this is sensible enough for you.