http://nasaimages.lunaimaging.com/

great site.. just spent a while browsing the apollo collections.. amazing stuff

Ta.

Dropbear said:

http://nasaimages.lunaimaging.com/

great site.. just spent a while browsing the apollo collections.. amazing stuff

Thanks.

Do the have the photos there from orbit of the lander landing sites? One of these I’ve only seen once, never on the web, in a very old coffee-table style book, Apollo 12 photographed from orbit by Dick Gordon. There was no such from Apollo 11 and 14, but possibly also later Apollos.

And no I don’t mean the recent photos of Apollo landing sites from orbit.

What was the weirdest Lunar feature photographed from orbit in Apollo times?

I like this one from 1949. This looks like a remarkably modern scramjet for high supersonic velocities.
http://nasaimages.lunaimaging.com/luna/servlet/detail/NVA2~31~31~86358~137720:A-14001

Flying saucer from 1960.
http://nasaimages.lunaimaging.com/luna/servlet/detail/NVA2~31~31~65836~128037:A-27750

This seems like a viable high supersonic aircraft design from 1962.
http://nasaimages.lunaimaging.com/luna/servlet/detail/NVA2~31~31~65843~128111:A-28474

An extremely early space shuttle design from 1962.
http://nasaimages.lunaimaging.com/luna/servlet/detail/NVA2~31~31~65855~128080:A-29258

mollwollfumble said:

I like this one from 1949. This looks like a remarkably modern scramjet for high supersonic velocities.
http://nasaimages.lunaimaging.com/luna/servlet/detail/NVA2~31~31~86358~137720:A-14001

An extremely early space shuttle design from 1962.
http://nasaimages.lunaimaging.com/luna/servlet/detail/NVA2~31~31~65855~128080:A-29258

That first one reminds me of one of the early x-plane series, though I can’t remember which one sorry. It does look a little like the X-3 though.

The last one is one of the wingless test aircraft. NASA built three main variations I think, none of them were intended to become a Shuttle they were just testing various shapes in the high-speed wind tunnel to see how they would withstand the high-mach airflow (and thus found the blunt noses worked better as they didn’t melt) and some real aircraft for slower speed testing in real life. Ones like the M2-F2 and X-24A and X-24B , etc.

Spiny Norman said:

mollwollfumble said:

I like this one from 1949. This looks like a remarkably modern scramjet for high supersonic velocities.
http://nasaimages.lunaimaging.com/luna/servlet/detail/NVA2~31~31~86358~137720:A-14001

An extremely early space shuttle design from 1962.
http://nasaimages.lunaimaging.com/luna/servlet/detail/NVA2~31~31~65855~128080:A-29258

That first one reminds me of one of the early x-plane series, though I can’t remember which one sorry. It does look a little like the X-3 though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_X-3_Stiletto

The last one is one of the wingless test aircraft. NASA built three main variations I think, none of them were intended to become a Shuttle they were just testing various shapes in the high-speed wind tunnel to see how they would withstand the high-mach airflow (and thus found the blunt noses worked better as they didn’t melt) and some real aircraft for slower speed testing in real life. Ones like the M2-F2 and X-24A and X-24B , etc.

Looking up that link on the X-3.

“The Douglas X-3 Stiletto was a 1950s United States experimental jet aircraft with a slender fuselage and a long tapered nose, manufactured by the Douglas Aircraft Company. Its primary mission was to investigate the design features of an aircraft suitable for sustained supersonic speeds, which included the first use of titanium in major airframe components. Douglas designed the X-3 with the goal of a maximum speed of approximately 2,000 mph (Mach 2.6), but it was, however, seriously underpowered for this purpose and could not even exceed Mach 1 in level flight.” “originally intended for advanced Mach 2 turbojet propulsion testing”, “ it was to take off from the ground under its own power, climb to high altitude, maintain a sustained cruise speed of Mach 2, then land under its own power.”

The overall design shape was good. But using an underpowered engine was a poor choice.
The Concorde turbojet can reach Mach 2 with good fuel efficiency, so I suppose this is what they were aiming for.
If not required to take-off under its own power then ramjet would have been better, a ramjet works most efficiently at Mach 3.
This body shape could even have taken a scramjet engine, with just a bit more streamlining.