Earlier this month I posted small sketches of a remarkable 1981 Boeing concept for a spacecraft meant to haul 1,200 passengers to the asteroids. The source the illustrations came from didn’t have much design data, so I had hopes that the references the document called out would. There were two references that seems relevant; one was publicly available, and didn’t have anything on this; the other was not publicly available, so I made a Freedom of Information Act request for it. And a CD-ROM with PDF files arrived in my mailbox Monday with the response. Sad to say, while it had some interesting things on it, the document does *not* make reference to this craft.
So, for the moment research on this is kinda stymied. It may well be that this design was just a minor notion, produced specifically for the 1981 Boeing study with nothing more detailed to back it up. Or it may be that it was based on prior unpublished Boeing internal work. or it may have come from a prior classified study that could not be readily referenced. In any event, unless something unlikely occurs, that would seem to be that. I am going to make a few attempts at researching this through some slim back channels, but I hold out minimal hope.
Well, that’s disappointing. That design is fascinating.
Indeed it is.
I still intend to model the vehicle; it will just have to be an extrapolation.
I do wonder about the habitat modules, if they are really Shuttle Main Tanks. In the asteroid base concept section of the Boeing report the other the shuttle derivative vehicle with eight main engines mated to a large powered flyback booster, and the OTV, along with the heavy lift variant are all referenced, given that the asteroid base concept is notationally set for the year 2050 I wonder if that is really a Space Shuttle, and if those are Shuttle Main Tanks.
Probably you are facing a mislabeling or a very early artistic concept made by someone without much knowledge of the real stuff.
1. The engine looks much more as a fission rather than fusion. Take attention to the nozzle – fusion does not give a chance for such things. Yet, in very early times, some artists could not realize this problem.
2. Generically the engine reminds a NERVA engine. The remarkable difference is that NERVA has a cylindrical camera behind the nozzle, working as a pressure chamber and reactor container. Here the camera is circular. Still, too Nerva and too classic for fusion.
3. We have some similar things around:
-Realizing “2001: A Space Odyssey”: Piloted Spherical Torus Nuclear Fusion Propulsion
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20050160960.pdf
-Crewed Mission to Callisto Using Advanced Plasma Propulsion Systems
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20030065984.pdf
And others than can be found on NTRS. Besides, amateur rocketeer G. Harry Stine seems to have used a similar approach for his “interplanetary spacecrafts” (ex. Pilgrim Observer) . There some “variations on the theme” or even look-alike crafts like the mini-Orion. In fact we can see that, today, this type of craft gets much more attention (and money) than that old mix between a drum, Verne’s crazy dream and nutzis drunk nightmare.
So in one thing you may probably right – this is more than an internal Boeing study. Probably it is the forefather of a whole family of prototypes that seem well and alive but keep lurking in the shadows because today “no one cares for Space”.
Probably related
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Prometheus
http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/38185/1/05-3441.pdf