Ugliest Rocket Survey...
Aaron Gilliland
Alright folks, I've been waiting for this one. In your
opinion, what was the ugliest rocket ever created. And I'm
talking about real NASA, Military, or otherwise commercial or
experimental rockets, not Estes models.
To get the ball rolling, I nominate the Juno 2. One
of the regulars in rocket disaster footage (for those of you
with "Space Flight" on video).
- Bubbis >:-)
Peter Card
Aaron Gilliland wrote:
>
> Alright folks, I've been waiting for this one. In your
> opinion, what was the ugliest rocket ever created.
Has to be the Space Shuttle stack. If you had tried to introduce that
into a 50's SF movie they would have laughed at you.
----------------------------------------------------------
email Peter...@jet.uk || 10001...@compuserve.com
Milk Floats and Stainless Steel Sinks
jeff findley
no-...@sonic.net (Scoop) writes:
> Quoth Aaron Gilliland:
> : In your opinion, what was the ugliest rocket ever created.
>
> Saturn 1B. Too bumpy.
You're kidding, right? The Saturn 1B was one of the most beautiful
rockets ever built! Actually, I don't ever think I've seen an ugly
rocket.
Jeff
--
May 31, 1945: The last of 18,188 B-24 Liberators and Liberator variants
is delivered. This aircraft was produced in larger quantities than any
other American aircraft and was employed in more operational fronts than
any other bomber in WWII.
Mark Herring
In article <5pdq6d$ksu$1...@ultra.sonic.net>, no-...@sonic.net wrote:
>Quoth Aaron Gilliland:
>: Alright folks, I've been waiting for this one. In your
>: opinion, what was the ugliest rocket ever created.
>
>Saturn 1B. Too bumpy.
To quote Billy Crystal in "Running Scared"...."OHHH NOOOOOHHH!"
I've got to say that the Saturn 1B is one of my favorites, but of course,
everyone has their own opinion. I'd go along with Juno II myself. I always
thought of it as garbage cans stacked on one another.
Now, Navaho in it's own way is both beautiful and rather ugly at the
same time, if that counts <g>
Dr. Bruce Dunn
Araine I:
The design is a standard "disintegrating totem pole" type, but the
vehicle has three different diameters. The stack narrows above the
first stage, then swells out again for the payload fairing. The first
stage has semi-circular "fenders" covering the part of each engine which
projects beyond the principal diameter, and the fenders in turn have
stubby fins perched on top of them. The outside of the stack has a
number of obscure protrusions, and a goodly assortment of external
propellant lines and conduits.
--
Dr. Bruce Dunn
General Astronautics Canada, Vancouver B.C.
http://www.genastro.com/ | 800-577-1117 | 604-876-7640
Reliable, low-cost transportation to low Earth orbit and beyond
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
I'd think some of the big package Titans are at least worth a
consideration as ugly beasts. Navaho was more bizzare than ugly. The old
Russian R7 or whatever it is now called was always kind of cool, however.
I've never liked Atlas, but still have a wierd facination with it, maybe
due to a childhood trauma related to it as a child at Vandenburg or Spokane?
PeteAlway
My first reaction is that there is no such thing as an ugly rocket--just
cool wierd-looking rockets.
The Trident missile, looking very much like it was designed to fit into a
cylindrical volume as tightly as possible, it up there on the ugly list.
Thor, Atlas, and Blue Streak look very wrong with the blunt warheads on
top, but with the right nose cones or upper stages, they look more
dignified.
Actually, if I didn't think the Gemini porgram was so cool (I became aware
of the space program during the Gemini program, so Gemini defines cool to
me) I'd have to nominate it for ugliest--sawed off top and no redeeming
gewgaws further down the stack.
Peter Alway
Paul Willett
Aaron Gilliland <bub...@mulberry.com> wrote:
>Alright folks, I've been waiting for this one. In your
>opinion, what was the ugliest rocket ever created. And I'm
>talking about real NASA, Military, or otherwise commercial or
>experimental rockets, not Estes models.
An "ugly" rocket is one that can't or won't get off the ground. By my
definition, any vehicle that will let you see the planet in your rear
view mirror is beautiful.
---------------
"Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read" -- Groucho Marx
---------------
For non-spammers, please remove the "*SPOILER* from my e-mail address to respond.
For spammers, please find a short pier and take a long hike.
Robert Casey
How about the lunar landers? Very un-rocket-looking rockets. But they
worked great on and near the Moon....
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
In article <die-spammer-02...@port44.annex4.radix.net>,
mike swartzbeck <die-s...@bite.me.com> wrote:
>In article <33BA3DAD...@jet.uk>, Peter Card <Peter...@jet.uk> wrote:
>
>> Aaron Gilliland wrote:
>> >
>> > Alright folks, I've been waiting for this one. In your
>> > opinion, what was the ugliest rocket ever created.
>>
>> into a 50's SF movie they would have laughed at you.
>
>machine; I'd certainly prefer to be seen riding aboard _it_ than some of
>those things the Russians pile up to launch the Soyuz.
I have say that the Shuttle as it is, is a somewhat uninspiring
contraption, especially compared to the really slick looking concpet
beasts of the 60s and 70s. My personal favorite has always been the
Boeing two-part lifting body version. The current thing seems rather
half-assed by comparison.
Ted Mahler
Most of the early russian (and some of the current ones)
I think are ugly. Their V2 research rocket with all the stuff
stuck on the sides looked like someone just had a new toy
and did not know how to use it. Hey, come to think of it
that's exactly what the situation was!
Peter A., what is that rocket of theirs that looks like
a ball is stuck on top? That'a a strange bird.
--
+----------__(')__-------------------------------+
l (')-//__l|l__\\ l
l \O_\/lol\/_O__ Ted Mahler (NAR 18184) l
l /O`. [ ] ;O_L\ (TRIP 1915) l
l _\__\_[ ]_/__/_/ (N5ZYO) l
l /'l l H l l'\ t...@sh-gpl.ti.com l
l /_\l___l_H_l___l/_\ l
l / '-H-` \ l
+-~~~--------~'~--------~~~----------------------+
Brian S. Thorn
On Tue, 01 Jul 1997 22:42:01 -0700, Aaron Gilliland <bub...@mulberry.com> wrote:
>Alright folks, I've been waiting for this one. In your
>opinion, what was the ugliest rocket ever created. And I'm
>talking about real NASA, Military, or otherwise commercial or
>experimental rockets, not Estes models.
>
> To get the ball rolling, I nominate the Juno 2. One
>of the regulars in rocket disaster footage (for those of you
>with "Space Flight" on video).
I nominate the Delta A-B-D family. At least, that's what I think
they were called. It's hard to keep all those evolutionary Thor
derivatives straight.
Anyway, Delta-A had a short, squat first stage with little
trianglular fins that looked like an afterthought. The upper
half of the first stage tapered inward to about half the lower
diameter. Then above that was a long upper stage, nearly
as long as the first (Thor) stage. Finally, the payload
shroud ballooned back out again. The Delta D made this
ugly beast even less elegant by adding three short, squat
strap-on boosters to the Thor stage. Ugly, ugly, ugly.
That this thing was actually stable in flight is truly remarkable.
NASA finally came to its senses and made all the stages
the same diameter, the simple Delta we know today,
although payload shrouds have taken to ballooning out
again. Sigh.
-Brian
David Maclennan
> Aaron Gilliland wrote:
> >
> > Alright folks, I've been waiting for this one. In your
> > opinion, what was the ugliest rocket ever created.
Well, it isn't exactly created yet, but my vote goes to the Russian
Angara rocket - weirdest design I've ever seen, I think!
David Maclennan
Mark Cable
> >Alright folks, I've been waiting for this one. In your
> >opinion, what was the ugliest rocket ever created. And I'm
> >talking about real NASA, Military, or otherwise commercial or
> >experimental rockets, not Estes models.
I nominate that weird V-2 variant the russians used as a sounding rocket,
the V-2-a. What's with those rockets attached to the side canted outward?
Weird.
-Mark
Henry Spencer
In article <09642ACA293A19AB.E75C06C2...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
Brian S. Thorn <bth...@airmail.net> wrote:
>NASA finally came to its senses and made all the stages
>the same diameter, the simple Delta we know today,
>although payload shrouds have taken to ballooning out
>again. Sigh.
Actually, the second stage is still a smaller diameter, it's just that
it's hidden inside the payload shroud on the more recent Deltas. On the
forthcoming Delta III it will actually grow to full diameter... but the
uglies are back, because now the first stage will start out at the current
diameter and then bulge out halfway up.
--
Committees do harm merely by existing. | Henry Spencer
-- Freeman Dyson | he...@zoo.toronto.edu
Michael Waltemathe
In article <5pgj63$m4h$2...@superb.csc.ti.com>,
t...@sh-gpl.ti.com (Ted Mahler) wrote:
> Most of the early russian (and some of the current ones)
> I think are ugly. Their V2 research rocket with all the stuff
> stuck on the sides looked like someone just had a new toy
> and did not know how to use it. Hey, come to think of it
> that's exactly what the situation was!
> Peter A., what is that rocket of theirs that looks like
> a ball is stuck on top? That'a a strange bird.
They called it "Vertikal"
It was developed from a W5 rocket.
cu,
Michael
Dana Orgovan
>
> To get the ball rolling, I nominate the Juno 2. One
> of the regulars in rocket disaster footage (for those of you
> with "Space Flight" on video).
>
How 'bout that Titan/Booster configuration. Looked ugly to me.
Aaron Gilliland
Dana Orgovan wrote:
> How 'bout that Titan/Booster configuration. Looked ugly to me.
I wonder if any NASA oldtimers are around...
in that case, I'm just going to say "Bumper" to see
if any heads start turning :)
- Bubbis >:-)
Filip De Vos
Dr. Bruce Dunn (bd...@istar.ca) wrote:
: Araine I:
: The design is a standard "disintegrating totem pole" type, but the
: vehicle has three different diameters. The stack narrows above the
: first stage, then swells out again for the payload fairing. The first
: stage has semi-circular "fenders" covering the part of each engine which
: projects beyond the principal diameter, and the fenders in turn have
: stubby fins perched on top of them. The outside of the stack has a
: number of obscure protrusions, and a goodly assortment of external
: propellant lines and conduits.
Ariane 4 can also be fitted with extra strap-ons, either two or four, and
sometimes of two different sizes at the same time (Ariane 44LP). This is
the most cluttered version.
Oh yeah, at launch, Ariane sheds a bunch of isolating blankets from the
upper stage.
I am nominating Titan IIIE-Centaur, though. The upper stage really looks
like the graft-on it is, as if the engineers could not have been bothered
with checking the diameter of the previous stages. In common with all
Titans with boosters, the two SRBs have much fatter (single) exhaust
pipes than those of the first stage. And what is that extra cylinder to
one side doing?
--
Filip De Vos The idea that space travel is inherently
enormously expensive is fraudulent.
FilipP...@rug.ac.be John S. Lewis
JAllenLewi
Filip De Vos wrote:
>In common with all
>Titans with boosters, the two SRBs have much fatter (single) exhaust
>pipes than those of the first stage. And what is that extra cylinder to
>one side doing?
The tank on the side of the SRBs is Nitrogen Tetroxide for the Liquid
Injection Thrust Vector Control (LITVC). 24 pintle valves around the
circumference of the nozzle allow injection of the oxidizer, which creates
a shock wave to vector the thrust. These are controlled in quadrants and
are very redundant, but never a flight failure. The Titan IVA SRBs, made
by United Technologies Pratt & Whitney Space Propulsion Operations
Chemical Systems Division (how's that for a mouthful?!?), uses a fixed
nozzle. The new Titan IVB solids have a vectorable flexseal nozzle, so
there is no bright orange tank to detract from the aesthetics (back to the
thread topic), but there are two small fairings near the aft skirt on each
solid; within these fairings are the Gas Hydraulic Power Units, hydraulic
turbopumps powered by solid propellant gas generators to provide
hydraulics for the TVC actuators. More than you wanted to know, right,
but maybe the Titan IVB is prettier!!
Bjorn M
Speaking of the R-7 design: I recall reading somewhere that the
Russian R-7 ICBM design was altered heavily during the years from 1951
up to 1954. It started with straight no-nonsense boosters attached to
the main rocket, but they were streamlined after a couple of years.
Korolyov was once quoted (don't remember the source) saying "Ugly
rockets don't fly (well?)". Certainly strategic performance goals were
a priority issue for Korolyov, but I suspect that his personal
aestethic values were also certainly predominant in the case of the
"Semyorka" R-7 rocket. He had, after all, been involved with the
testing of captured V-2's.
PeteAlway
fid...@eduserv1.rug.ac.be (Filip De Vos) Wrote:
>I am nominating Titan IIIE-Centaur, though. The upper stage really looks
>like the graft-on it is, as if the engineers could not have been bothered
>with checking the diameter of the previous stages. In common with all
>Titans with boosters, the two SRBs have much fatter (single) exhaust
>pipes than those of the first stage. And what is that extra cylinder to
>one side doing?
A container of fluid for injecting into the strap-on nozzle for thrust
vector control.
Peter Alway
Henry Spencer
In article <19970706161...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
JAllenLewi <jalle...@aol.com> wrote:
>...but maybe the Titan IVB is prettier!!
Actually, I'd call it uglier: lumps sticking out instead of the slim
extra cylinder or two on the original IV.
And speaking of lumps, I'd nominate Energia for the ugliness award.
Functional it may be, but it has all the visual charm of a mud fence.
KeithWalk
Greetings...
Ugliest Rocket... I cast my vote for the British Black Arrow that launched
the Prospero satellite in the early 1970's.
Second Ungliest Rocket... The Atlas-FW4 that launched a number of
USAF OV1 research satellites in the mid-to-late 1960's.
Most Intriguing Rocket... Probably the Soviet N-1 Moon Rocket.
Regards,
Keith F. Walker
KeithWalk
Greetings...
Bumper... as in V-2/Wac-Corporal???
If you're looking back to the late 1940's, how about some of those
Project Hermes rockets,,, the one that looked like a stretched "egg"
with wings (I think it was called Hermes A3).
Keith F. Walker
Jeff Lewis
PeteAlway wrote:
>
> My first reaction is that there is no such thing as an ugly rocket--just
> cool wierd-looking rockets.
>
> The Trident missile, looking very much like it was designed to fit into a
> cylindrical volume as tightly as possible, it up there on the ugly list.
Yes, the Trident was trying to pack as much as possible into a small
volume, but what does look cool is when the Aerodynamic Spike, or
Aerospike, is deployed. Shortly after launch, when a certain sustained
G-level is sensed, a solid propellant gas generator is ignited, which
extends a telescoping ~8 foot long pole with a plate on the end. This
'fakes out' the air into thinking that the missile is more streamlined
and increases the range. It looks cooler in that configuration.
Kermitus
Aaron Gilliland <bub...@mulberry.com> wrote in article
<33BF04...@mulberry.com>...
CCAFS?
--
We are the Frog
You will be amphibiated
Resistance is reptile
>
Alan Brain
Aaron Gilliland wrote:
>
> Alright folks, I've been waiting for this one. In your
> opinion, what was the ugliest rocket ever created. And I'm
> talking about real NASA, Military, or otherwise commercial or
> experimental rockets, not Estes models.
>
> of the regulars in rocket disaster footage (for those of you
> with "Space Flight" on video).
>
> - Bubbis >:-)
Without a doubt, SeaSlug. (Royal Navy SAM).
--
aeb...@dynamite.com.au <> <> How doth the little Crocodile
| Alan & Carmel Brain| xxxxx Improve his shining tail?
| Canberra Australia | xxxxxHxHxxxxxx _MMMMMMMMM_MMMMMMMMM
100026.2014 compuserve o OO*O^^^^O*OO o oo oo oo oo
By pulling MAERKLIN Wagons, in 1/220 Scale
See http://www.z-world.com/graphics/z/master/8856.gif for picture
David Maclennan
Dana Orgovan wrote:
>
> >
> > To get the ball rolling, I nominate the Juno 2.
> How 'bout that Titan/Booster configuration. Looked ugly to me.
I still nominate Russia's Angara (if it ever flies....)
David Maclennan
Aaron Gilliland
Kermitus wrote:
> Hmm--wasn't Bumper/WAC one of the first launches from
> CCAFS?
Something like that. I saw some pics of the assembly. Didn't
look all that glamorous to me, but I guess the hardcore Cocoa beach
enthusiasts thought it was a Venus de Milo
- Bubbis >:-)
Mark Herring
In article <ECx5FH.9tt%spen...@zoo.toronto.edu>, Henry Spencer
>In article <19970706161...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
>JAllenLewi <jalle...@aol.com> wrote:
>>...but maybe the Titan IVB is prettier!!
>
>Actually, I'd call it uglier: lumps sticking out instead of the slim
>extra cylinder or two on the original IV.
>
>And speaking of lumps, I'd nominate Energia for the ugliness award.
>Functional it may be, but it has all the visual charm of a mud fence.
Come to think about it, the Soviet N-1 wouldn't win any beauty contests
either...
PeteAlway
spa...@sparkware.com (Mark Herring)
>Come to think about it, the Soviet N-1 wouldn't win any beauty contests
>either...
Hey, It's one of the coolest looking rockets I've seen!
Peter Alway
Sherwood Harrington
PeteAlway (pete...@aol.com) wrote:
: spa...@sparkware.com (Mark Herring)
: >Come to think about it, the Soviet N-1 wouldn't win any beauty contests
: >either...
: Hey, It's one of the coolest looking rockets I've seen!
Before, during, or after an explosion?
--
Sherwood Harrington Voice: (408) 864-8725
Astronomy Department http://planetarium.fhda.edu/astrwww/shhome.html
DeAnza College Cupertino, California, 94087
Alan Brain
Alan Brain wrote:
>
> Aaron Gilliland wrote:
> >
> > Alright folks, I've been waiting for this one. In your
> > opinion, what was the ugliest rocket ever created. And I'm
> > talking about real NASA, Military, or otherwise commercial or
> > experimental rockets, not Estes models.
> Without a doubt, SeaSlug. (Royal Navy SAM).
Since very few people know about this one, I'll try to do some ASCII art
of it.
__
_ / |____________
_/ |____|/==_____________|
AFT |_---____---- _________|__ FORWARD
\_| |\==_____________|
\__|
This is a missile SOOO ugly that they put it in a cage to launch it.
The boosters had a lot more power than their designed characteristics
that they had to add multiple spoilers to make it go slower ( true...)
Dwayne Allen Day
: >Come to think about it, the Soviet N-1 wouldn't win any beauty contests
: >either...
: Hey, It's one of the coolest looking rockets I've seen!
I think it blows up really cool...
DDAY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society
outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship."
--Justice John Paul Stevens
Robert Casey
>
>: >Come to think about it, the Soviet N-1 wouldn't win any beauty contests
>: >either...
>
>: Hey, It's one of the coolest looking rockets I've seen!
>
It would have looked better if it didn't blow up in flight.
Andrew Thielmann
I'm afraid it would not. You can find some in-flight photos
(before explosion) on my page:
http://www.cyberspc.mb.ca/~atil/n1/n1foto.htm
Though they are of poor quality, it is clear that the "tail
of fire" (which is not only extremely functional from the engineering
point of view, but very important for the esthaetic apperance of flying
rocket) is unproportionally short and very weak. Especially in comparison
to the long and powerful Saturn V flame. Not surprising, for 30 small
emgines cannot adequately replace 5 large ones.
And, surprisingly, yes, N1 on the pad looks beautiful. This thing
always cause mixed emotions in me. Its beauty, and the overall
tremendousness of the whole project, on the edge of impossible for
the former USSR makes admiration... but as an engineer, knowing what
is inside, and knowing the history... Creating N1, soviet engineers
conducted many real miracles in their attempt to bypass things that could
(and should) be done in different, more easy and safe ways - but ways
not accessible to them. Due to lack of sufficient funding, technical
possibilities and know-hows, stupid political management...
As an engineer, I am happy N1 was finally canceled. It could cost many
lives if flown manned. It proved it could fly, and it was close enough to
successful flights, but it was too early bird for Russian technology -
and its adoption would have surely prevented development of Energia.
And it is Energia that I hornour to be the superour rocket. It even
appears very well - very 'powerful'. And booster caps inclined to the
core make more sreamline silouette then that of Shuttle. Very pity
the project is stopped. To imagine, that Mir-like station could be
launched in just two pieces... or what weight of Martian zonde could
be achived... Dropping about 20 Pathfinders at once, into different places,
like a multiple warhed - if a couple crashes, no one will notice!
And, finally, I have to mention that defining rocket as beutiful or
ugly depends very much on how you look. General rule, formulated by
Russian aircraft designer Tupolev, is that "if the machine is not
beautiful enough, it will never fly well". But, as any rule this has
exempts. The famous (in Russia) space-related monument, which admires
non-professionals (the V-2 type rocket climbing into the sky after
the inclined launch) makes professionals laugh and calculate the exact
street where it will fall - for the "launch" is absolutely sure aborted ;-)
--
=_=_=_ Andrew Thielmann _=_=_= at...@cyberspc.mb.ca
http://www.cyberspc.mb.ca/~atil
Chris Williams
In article <33CAEF2D...@cyberspc.mb.ca>, at...@cyberspc.mb.ca says...
>And, surprisingly, yes, N1 on the pad looks beautiful.
You need aesthetics therapy, assuming such a thing exists. N1 was even
uglier than a Titan 2. It's a rocket whose diet has slipped.
Let's not forget the Nike Ajax, of course. Ugly or what?
Chris
Joe
Yeah, but explosions aside... To have been three miles away from NINE
MILLION POUNDS of thrust at liftoff!
Or for that matter, 7.5 millions pounds! Ah, how I would have loved to
be at a Saturn V launch. I sure do miss that bird... (I nominate it
for Most Beautiful Rocket)
Joe.
Christopher Michael Jones
: >Come to think about it, the Soviet N-1 wouldn't win any beauty contests
: >either...
: Hey, It's one of the coolest looking rockets I've seen!
I second that motion.
Though, I think the Energia rocket is not all that pretty.