If Nixon had not cancelled NERVA,

[Boris_Badenov]

If Nixon had not cancelled NERVA , where would it be now? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[hal9891]

On it's way to Mars to deliver new crew and supplies for Mars base. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div style="text-align:center"><font style="color:#808080" color="#999999"><font size="1">"I predict that within 100 years computers will be twice as powerful, 10000 times larger, and so expensive that only the five richest kings of Europe will own them"</font></font><br /></div> </div>

 

[vogon13]

Our understanding of material science has expanded so much since the seventies that I can't help but think the original NERVA would have been prone to fail due to unforseen difficulties in the properties of materials envisioned for use in the engine.<br /><br />Additionally, Carter would have cancelled NERVA immediately after Three Mile Island, and if he hadn't, Reagan would have right after Chernobyl and/or Challenger.<br /><br /><br />NERVA remains an interesting concept for an upper stage, but realize the improvement in Isp, while significant over LH/LOX, does not approach that of the ion drive being launched on the Dawn spacecraft, shortly.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[vogon13]

A NERVA style booster might be able to replenish it's reaction mass on Titan, Pluto, Triton . . . <br /><br /><br />hmmmmmm,<br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[qso1]

If Nixon had not cancelled NERVA then I think Nixon would also have left the mars plans intact so there would be an application for NERVA. Otherwise, NERVA would have come to an end if any mars programs had ended. That is unless some other program reached a high degree of development and required a NERVA type system. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[kdavis007]

Carter would have canceled Nerva.....

 

[qso1]

The Carter Administration wasn't much when it came to human spaceflight, especially with Walter Mondale as the veep. However, programs build a certain momentum once they get near operational capability.<br /><br />Carter could have canned the shuttle with all the trouble that program encountered in the late 1970s. He would have had justification in the eyes of many folks but he didn't can the shuttle. If NERVA were that far along...he probably could not have canned it even if he wanted to IMO. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

<If Nixon had not cancelled NERVA then I think Nixon would also have left the mars plans intact so there would be an application for NERVA. Otherwise, NERVA would have come to an end if any mars programs had ended. ><br /><br />You almost have it exactly nailed. According to the history recounted in the book, To the End of the Solar System: the story of the nuclear rocket, the final iteration of NERVA was cancelled due to lack of mission. No mission = no NERVA.<br /><br />That final version of NERVA was interesting, it was a scaled down NERVA I propulsion module launched into orbit by the Space Shuttle. Designed to fit inside a Space Shuttle payload bay and with a folding high-expansion ratio nozzle, it would have had a thrust of 20,000 pounds.

 

[lampblack]

Carter wasn't at all adverse, really, to encouraging high-technology programs to come to fruition if he saw a reason for them.<br /><br />Ship-based cruise missiles were developed under his watch. The government also started doing a lot more with space-based spying while he was in office. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[qso1]

I agree. In fact, Carter took a lot of heat for cancelling the B-1 in favor of cruise missiles. Today, cruise missiles have been the mainstay of frontal attack in both gulf wars. The B-1 might well have been cancelled for another reason. The B-2 stealth bomber was probably in early development during the Carter Administration seeing how it became public knowledge in 1988 or 89.<br /><br />For space, the Carter Admin continued rather than cancelled the shuttle. Mondale was the problem IMO but as it turned out. During the Carter years, Mondale didn't really have much of an effect on human spaceflight, much less anything else. When Mondale became Veep, I dreaded it but years later, no effect that I could see. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

<In fact, Carter took a lot of heat for cancelling the B-1 in favor of cruise missiles...The B-1 might well have been cancelled for another reason. The B-2 stealth bomber was probably in early development during the Carter Administration seeing how it became public knowledge in 1988 or 89.><br /><br />As I recall Carter had campaigned in 1976 on cancelling the B-1 bomber. Carter cancelled the bomber in 1977. Regardless of the wisdom of that decision, Carter tried to dodge the political heat by leaking information about the B-2 stealth bomber to the news media during the 1980 election season, even though the stealth bomber was a 'black project'. The leak was made by the under secretary of defense to the magazine Armed Forces Journal.<br /><br />http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj91/fal91/cunn.htm<br /><br />------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />...Of particular interest was testimony by Benjamin Schemmer, then editor of Armed Forces Journal, who withheld publication of an article on stealth in 1978 at the request of the Department of Defense. In August 1980, he was approached by Under Secretaryof Defense for Research and EngineeringWilliam J. Perry, who encouraged him to publish amodified version of the article no later than 21 August, one day before Secretary Brown's press conference on stealth.17 <br /><br />Further damaging testimony was given by Adm Elmo R. Zumwalt, Jr.,former chief of naval operations. Zumwalt testified that the president had decided to deliberately leak information on the stealth program as an excuse to officially announce its existence and take credit for it. Furthermore, Zumwalt named the alleged leaker of the information: Deputy Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs David L. Aaron. Aaron filed an affidavit with the subcommittee which denied that he re

 

[qso1]

How well I recall. August 11, 1980 IIRC. But as the article mentions, it was more a leak about stealth technology in general than on the B-2 in particular. A few years after that, there was rampant speculation of a stealth F-19 fighter. In 1988, the stealth fighter was publically announced and had been designated with an unusually high fighter number...F-117. The B-2 was publically announced later that year.<br /><br />IMO, Carter revealed just enough to try to save his political hide but no real damage to national security was done as evidenced by the fact that the Soviets didn't have any serious counterparts to the stealth planes. The stealth program was one of the best kept secrets in the military and nobody outside the military really knew much about them as evidence by the wild speculations. The F-19 model kit which featured an F-19 that bore little resemblance to the F-117. Speculation on the B-2 was only slightly better in that some speculations accurately projected a flying wing design. But none projected the angled cuts of the F-117 or the peculiar flying wing design of the B-2. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

gunsandrockets:<br />Every one of those programs had problems and were cancelled or cut back because of them. In my opinion the U.S. would have been better off by purchasing B-70's instead of B-1's. B-1's instead of B-1b's. Or B-1b's instead of B-2's.<br /><br />Me:<br />The B-70 was cancelled because it was designed as a high altitude bomber and the Soviet air defenses which brought down the U-2 high altitude recon craft in 1960. That event set forth a quest for a low altitude manned penetrator bomber which eventually became the B-1.<br /><br />The B-1 priced out at somewhere around $250 million per craft by the time it was operational. And that was the subsonic Reagan ressurection B-1. Bad as that seemed to be, the B-2 priced out at $540 million in 1988 and has since ballooned to nearly the cost of a shuttle orbiter. The original B-1 order was for 132 aircraft. IIRC, only 20 have been authorized and probably built by now.<br /><br />I tend to suspect a similar situation would have resulted with an operational B-70 because the DOD has encountered its own cost barrier. The B-70 might not have cost as much but who knows. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[vogon13]

The military numbering system for aircraft has had some quirks over the years.<br /><br />Recall the 'century' series of fighters, the most famous being the F-104 Phantom. The F-117 and F-119 are other examples. I read a detailed explanation of the numbering system some years ago, and am sorry I don't recall it in greater detail.<br /><br />The Atlas missle recieved a 'B' designation, IIRC it was like B-63 or near there numerically. The Atlas being started some time after the B-52. The numbering system was changed (reset) following the B-70, I suspect, to avoid the 'taint' numbers such as B-71, B-72 might have attracted after the failure of the B-70 to enter production.<br /><br />Other missles, IIRC, have 'B-' numbers too. That nomenclature is very rarely used. IIRC, Janes has a nice hardcover book listing all the 'B' series up to 70.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[vogon13]

Correction:<br /><br /><br />Atlas was B-65<br /><br />Rascal was the B-63<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

<F-104 Phantom.><br /><br />F-4 Phantom II<br /><br />F-104 Starfighter

 

[qso1]

vogon13:<br />The military numbering system for aircraft has had some quirks over the years.<br /><br />Me:<br />In the case of the F-117, at one point, the DOD seemed to have decided that every aircraft buff on the planet would figure out the stealth plane was the F-19 and decided to apply a different designation. At least thats what I had heard but couldn't confirm in the late 1980s. There was the FA-18 and the F-20 (A modified F-5 called the Tigershark) in service which made the F-19 designated aircraft obviously missing. I recall the time and even I thought the F-19 was the stealth planes designation.<br /><br />The F-117 number came out and I wondered if they were using engine designations on aircraft but by the time the F-22 came out the return to the standard system had been made.<br /><br />One variation of the F-4 Phantom (Known as the Specter) was designated the F-110 just prior to the DOD numerical recycle in 1962. That recycle simply restarted numerical designations at 1 as in B-1...F-1 etc. I do not recall the F-1 being used on any U.S. fighter aircraft. The Mirage F-1 didn't fly until at least 1965-66 by which time the U.S. system was well in place. The F-2 was the Banshee and the F-3 was the Demon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

The Atlas ICBM was designated the XB-65 in 1955 as you mentioned, and later that year or the next year it was redesignated as the SM-65. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[vogon13]

I worked with quite the bunch of military/aviation geeks at the defense contractor.<br /><br />Wish I retained more of the arcana I was exposed to.<br /><br /><br /><br />{BTW, just something interesting to think about: our company quoted new electrical generators for the Blackbird just before it was retired . . . }<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Looks like you retained quite a bit.<br /><br />I picked up on it during my research for books. I'm not surprised that your company quoted new generators for the Blackbird. Seems the older mil systems get upgraded just before retirement. Sometimes for good reason. When the Titan II was phased out, they rebuilt the missile site access roads so they could make it easier to haul out large pieces of facility hardware such as control room power systems, racks, etc. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[vogon13]

We figured the contract was actually for a follow on Blackbird craft . . . <br /><br />(with no evidence whatsoever)<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[scottb50]

I would think you could take a couple of DC-10's, or 747's, parked in the desert, and convert them into multi-use vehicles pretty easily.<br /><br />If you palletized everything you could roll in cargo, fuel or cruise missiles as needed. A system to launch cruise missiles would be needed, as well as plumbing for fuel, but it would be pretty much like converting a passenger plane into a freighter.<br /><br />Throw in new technology engines, systems and electronics, instead of building airplanes. A 747 with 787 engines and avionics would be nice. <br /><br />You could have a standoff bomber, a freighter, a pure re-fueler or any combination. The bomber could have escort fighters, it re-fuels, for protection to get it in range of dropping cruise missiles. With a pallet of cruise missiles and a few pallets of fuel it would be able to go anywhere. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

vogon13:<br />We figured the contract was actually for a follow on Blackbird craft . . .<br /><br />Me:<br />Possible. Although it would seem easier to me to just leave a couple of unretired Blackbirds in service. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Were getting way off topic here and its probably my fault so...we should get back to Nixon and NERVA. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[Boris_Badenov]

Hey, don't worry about it. I learn a little something from every post. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>