tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6633940777526327846.post4524203954386573858..comments2024-03-21T08:00:48.696-07:00Comments on No Shortage of Dreams: Integral Launch and Reentry Vehicle: Triamese (1968-1969)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6633940777526327846.post-10379044139149450452021-04-24T05:33:51.746-07:002021-04-24T05:33:51.746-07:00Triamese concept was nice
but it had several probl...Triamese concept was nice<br />but it had several problems <br /><br />The variable-geometry wings were a new Technology in end of 1960s <br />and USAF and NASA were not confidence in this <br />in fact GDC build in same time the F-111 <br />It had serious issue with there variable-geometry wings, <br />That GDC took the help of Grumman to fix the issue. <br />in mean time USAF and NASA were in washttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00089303950984529995noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6633940777526327846.post-68133769433918980362021-04-13T19:24:25.296-07:002021-04-13T19:24:25.296-07:00AL:
I generally caution people that I'm an hi...AL:<br /><br />I generally caution people that I'm an historian, not an engineer. Triamese is interesting, and I think it illustrates part of the shift from Shuttle as station ferry to Shuttle as everything. That is, it began with a specialized role and had to grow and change to satisfy a broader range of requirements. I suspect that, even if it had gone ahead as a Station ferry, it would David S. F. Portreehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15818906581595028816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6633940777526327846.post-46703237217565980162021-04-09T04:47:32.121-07:002021-04-09T04:47:32.121-07:00Triamese main issue (basically) is "boosters ...Triamese main issue (basically) is "boosters can't be orbiters, and orbiters can't be boosters". <br />Their flight regimes are just too different. And if the elements are tweaked then commonality is lost and the end result is something akin to the 1969-71 Phase B Shuttle designs. <br /><br />Otherwise it was a pretty smart concept ! <br /><br />One can wonder if it draw archibald librahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18412632761179485736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6633940777526327846.post-18631956114747280802021-03-29T19:01:26.104-07:002021-03-29T19:01:26.104-07:00Capt Steve:
I forgot to mention - when Triamese w...Capt Steve:<br /><br />I forgot to mention - when Triamese was studied, no one was sure how to build an economical reusable vehicle. Triamese was as good a guess as any!<br /><br />dsfpDavid S. F. Portreehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15818906581595028816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6633940777526327846.post-63951174956168903022021-03-29T18:54:51.489-07:002021-03-29T18:54:51.489-07:00Capt Steve:
The Initial Point Design (IPD) Triame...Capt Steve:<br /><br />The Initial Point Design (IPD) Triamese is also called the C configuration in the document I used as my main source (listed at the bottom of the post). There's also a B2 design and some other designations. None is the T-18. There's no FR4 or T-18 in my source document. My goal was to get at the "final" NASA Space Station Triamese design - that's what David S. F. Portreehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15818906581595028816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6633940777526327846.post-10173886659475721642021-03-28T19:10:42.765-07:002021-03-28T19:10:42.765-07:00Perhaps I'm just grouchy, but the Triamese doe...Perhaps I'm just grouchy, but the Triamese doesn't seem like a great idea. You've got to service and maintain 3 vehicles (and 2 of them being identical MIGHT reduce that to servicing the equivalent of 2.5 vehicles instead of 3, at best), the orbiter isn't really optimized for anything other than 2 day cargo runs to the space station, I'm curious about the weight penalty Capt Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10262797376576426403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6633940777526327846.post-30876352817945924082021-03-28T18:56:45.259-07:002021-03-28T18:56:45.259-07:00According to Jenkins "Space Shuttle, the Hist...According to Jenkins "Space Shuttle, the History of Developing the National Space Transportation System", the T-18 vehicle was the result of earlier work General Dynamics had done on the Air Force's reusable orbital vehicle study, which was also confusingly called IRLV (!). The triamese vehicle was designated as the FR4.Capt Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10262797376576426403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6633940777526327846.post-26122015957185712362021-03-27T17:37:35.075-07:002021-03-27T17:37:35.075-07:00Rob:
That's really nifty. The report I have j...Rob:<br /><br />That's really nifty. The report I have just begins looking at possible next steps for Triamese. I don't see any reference to T-18 in it, but that's intriguing, since it implies at least 18 variants! This would be a later version - the IPD Triamese is what emerged from the USAF study in 1967 plus NASA inputs in early 1968, just before the start of the Integral Launch David S. F. Portreehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15818906581595028816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6633940777526327846.post-20020020550611729862021-03-26T16:25:54.120-07:002021-03-26T16:25:54.120-07:00David,
Is the T-18 vehicle the same model, or an ...David,<br /><br />Is the T-18 vehicle the same model, or an earlier/later one?<br /><br />Looking here, the T-18 seems to call out a (very twisting!) crew access tunnel from the side, to the forward crew spaces, and aft to the cargo volume. Perhaps something similar was envisioned, and omitted from the Initial Point Design?<br /><br />https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/293948741818384394/Rob Davidoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13475066017336841058noreply@blogger.com