Register here

Author Topic: Dynasoar  (Read 104830 times)

Offline PMN1

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 650
Dynasoar
« on: December 04, 2007, 09:28:28 am »
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/dynasoar.htm

The X-20 was pushed as an alternate to the Gemini as a space station ferry vehicle in the twilight days of the program. If only it had been accepted, the US would have had a space station and winged ferry vehicle flying before the end of the 1960's.

How accurate would you regard this statement from the Astronautix site and what implications would funding for the X20 have on future programmes?

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3560
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #1 on: December 07, 2007, 01:04:47 am »
i think that Dyna Soar would be a great...
Mini Shuttle, Orbital Bomber, Orbital reconnaissance Craft etc
already in end of 1960s, Where not this damted McNamara and
"his believed that the Pentagon needed no manned military spacecraft." crap

off course Dyna Soar was not perfect
like his mainframe (USSR copy it for Buran and get nasty surprise at atmosphere reentry)
and a singel pilot in front (was there tube from Cockpit to Passenger compartment in Dyna Soar shuttle ?)
wen he get into trouble were is the co pilot ?



I love Strange Technology

Offline archipeppe

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1457
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #2 on: December 07, 2007, 01:58:24 am »
Michel has right Dyna Soar was not perfect but was improvable for sure....

Despite it was claimed as "operational vehicle", the Dyna Soar was intended by since as research aircraft (that's why it was still known as X 20).
In this optic there's no surprise to have only one pilot, even in space, considering that X 20 was intended as an upgrade respect the outstanding X 15.

And there where plans to put an X15B already in orbit (ok I don't want to go OT, and I will open a specific thread about X15B soon).
I suppose that if Dyna Soar would be realized it could (potentially) be one of the most notably machine ever flown, especially considering the time of its design (the end of '50s).

Anyway even if it was never realized, the Dyna Soar left a deep impression in all the people who are interested in Aviation & Space, the proof is the fact that we still discussing about it today (in several dedicated Forums the topics about X20 Dyna Soar are countless...).

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6737
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #3 on: December 07, 2007, 09:20:07 am »

Despite it was claimed as "operational vehicle", the Dyna Soar was intended by since as research aircraft (that's why it was still known as X 20).



Like the X-27 Lancer, the "X" designation was used as a means to obtain funding for somethign that was always intended to be an operational vehicle.

Quote
In this optic there's no surprise to have only one pilot, even in space, considering that X 20 was intended as an upgrade respect the outstanding X 15.

The X-20 was *not* an upgrade of the X-15. They were massively different vehicles. Also, the Dyna Soar could carry up to 6 people, though 5 was more likely. One pilot, four passengers in the mid-section and possibly a fifth in the boattail.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline archipeppe

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1457
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #4 on: December 08, 2007, 03:54:06 am »
The X-20 was *not* an upgrade of the X-15. They were massively different vehicles. Also, the Dyna Soar could carry up to 6 people, though 5 was more likely. One pilot, four passengers in the mid-section and possibly a fifth in the boattail.

Of course you're right Scott.

Evidentely it wasn't my intention to say that there was a direct design-link between the North American X 15 and the Boeing X 20. The opinion I expressed was striclty related to the incremental growth ratio of performances transiting through X 15 to X 20.

I agree with you that tha maximum human payload of Dyna Soar could be exstimated in, at least, 5 persons (1 pilot and 4 passengers).
This fact is acknowledged according to several different sources from Mark Wade to Scott Lowther.... ;-)

A little question: do you mind that the "operational" version of Dyan Soar could be officially named S-20, or what else??

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6737
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #5 on: December 08, 2007, 08:20:08 am »

I agree with you that tha maximum human payload of Dyna Soar could be exstimated in, at least, 5 persons (1 pilot and 4 passengers).
This fact is acknowledged according to several different sources from Mark Wade to Scott Lowther.... ;-)

Boeing archives had the Dyna Soar model in the photos below.


Quote
A little question: do you mind that the "operational" version of Dyna Soar could be officially named S-20, or what else??

Hard to tell what it would have been called officially. it may very well have entered operational service as "X-20." It started life as a bomber, and the Russians were certainly aware of that... and they'd likely be a bit twitchy every time you launched one of these bombers over their heads just to deliver sandwiches to a space station. So a less aggressive *name* might have helped, if only in public relations.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8969
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #6 on: December 08, 2007, 08:21:47 am »

I agree with you that tha maximum human payload of Dyna Soar could be exstimated in, at least, 5 persons (1 pilot and 4 passengers).
This fact is acknowledged according to several different sources from Mark Wade to Scott Lowther.... ;-)

Boeing archives had the Dyna Soar model in the photos below.

Did that archive happen to have much North American/Rockwell info?  Particularly F-108, WS-300A, and NR-349?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6737
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #7 on: December 08, 2007, 08:39:29 am »

Did that archive happen to have much North American/Rockwell info?  Particularly F-108, WS-300A, and NR-349?

Had a lot, but had not yet fully processed it, at least when I was there.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline archipeppe

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1457
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #8 on: December 08, 2007, 08:54:46 am »
Supercool pictures Scott!!!  :)

It is clear that each crew member has its own ejection seat, exactly like Big Gemini crew.
It is also clear that cargo bay doors should be jettison first in order to allow the crew ejection from the "inside" of Dyna Soar.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6737
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #9 on: December 08, 2007, 09:27:10 am »
Supercool pictures Scott!!!  :)

Somewhere I have a bad photocopy of a photo of an actual astronaut in an actual DS suit sitting in a full-scale DS passenger section mockup. It would have been a tight and uncomfortable fit, but the ride would have been short.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline archipeppe

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1457
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #10 on: December 08, 2007, 09:46:54 am »
It would have been a tight and uncomfortable fit, but the ride would have been short.

And, for sure, it would really worth it......  ;)

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 19718
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #11 on: July 04, 2008, 09:30:13 am »

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 19718
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #12 on: July 07, 2008, 04:15:06 am »
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/dynasoar.htm

The X-20 was pushed as an alternate to the Gemini as a space station ferry vehicle in the twilight days of the program. If only it had been accepted, the US would have had a space station and winged ferry vehicle flying before the end of the 1960's.

How accurate would you regard this statement from the Astronautix site and what implications would funding for the X20 have on future programmes?

The Dyna Soar proposals;
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/dynasoar.htm

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 19718
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #13 on: July 08, 2008, 03:33:41 am »
Hi,

we know the Bell proposal for the Dyna Soar was designed with Martin
as Martin/Bell team,so I suggested that the Martin design was Model-429,
is there anyone agree with me ?.

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3560
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #14 on: July 10, 2008, 03:40:37 am »
back to 4-seat Dyna Soar payload bay

here a picture who russian squeeze 3 kosmonaut in a soyuz capsule!

against that 4-seat Dyna Soar is a first class flight !

art by G. De Chiara (aka archipeppe)
source http://orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?p=8521
I love Strange Technology