Register here

Author Topic: Dynasoar  (Read 102611 times)

Offline PMN1

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 647
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: 3537
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: 6727
    • 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: 6727
    • 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: 8900
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: 6727
    • 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: 6727
    • 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: 19495
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #11 on: July 04, 2008, 09:30:13 am »

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 19495
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: 19495
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: 3537
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

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7888
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #15 on: July 21, 2008, 04:29:15 am »
I always was wondering of actual color scheme, markings and national insignia colors that operational Dyna-Soar would use.
I suspect U.S. AIR FORCE would be used instead of USAF (more often seen al latest Dyna artist's impressions, simplified white-on-black national insignia (interesting that full-scale mockup didn't have it at all)...just on left wing (?)...hardly doubt also that NASA on yellow stripe would stay as well as Boeing lettering on vertical control surfaces.

Any suggestions or factoids on the subject?
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6727
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #16 on: July 21, 2008, 06:20:04 am »
There would be miminal markings. The reason why it was overall black in color was to aid in heat rejection through radiation; any paint on the surface would inhibit emissivity at that spot, and would result in a hot-spot and potential damage. It may have used paint - if it used any paint at all - that would burn off very easily, so that when it landed is was back to bare black.
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 Justo Miranda

  • Secret Projects Master
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3184
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #17 on: July 21, 2008, 07:41:24 am »
I have found the attached drawings that may be of  general interest.(post 1)

Offline Justo Miranda

  • Secret Projects Master
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3184
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #18 on: July 21, 2008, 07:42:55 am »
I have found the attached drawings that may be of  general interest.(post 2)

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7888
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #19 on: July 21, 2008, 07:46:19 am »
Oh, Scott and Justo, thanks a bunch to both of you!
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline archipeppe

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1457
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #20 on: July 21, 2008, 07:56:20 am »
Oh, Scott and Justo, thanks a bunch to both of you!

I agree 110%!!!!  :D

Offline Justo Miranda

  • Secret Projects Master
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3184
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #21 on: July 21, 2008, 10:39:06 am »
Here some pics of thermal abrasion effects and thermal paint test (post 1)

Offline Justo Miranda

  • Secret Projects Master
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3184
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #22 on: July 21, 2008, 10:41:21 am »
Here some pics of thermal abrasion effects and thermal paint test (post 2)

Offline Justo Miranda

  • Secret Projects Master
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3184
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #23 on: July 21, 2008, 10:42:50 am »
Here some pics of thermal abrasion effects and thermal paint test (post 3)

Offline Justo Miranda

  • Secret Projects Master
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3184
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #24 on: July 23, 2008, 07:46:18 am »
Dynasoar pressure suit (1962)

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3537
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #25 on: July 23, 2008, 11:21:34 am »
Dynasoar pressure suit (1962)

that one of them
the book "DYNA-SOAR Hypersonic  Strategic weapon System"
(apogee books) has a DVD with movies from X-20 program

one movie show Space suit test in mock up cockpit with diverent suit models
with  Gus Grissom and Niel Armstrong !


to Picture the suits i think but not 100% sure
first:    B.F. Goodrich Mark III ?
second Gus Grissom in a NX-3 mercury space suit
three:  B.F. Goodrich Mark IV ?
four:    B.F. Goodrich Mark II ?
five:    Niel Armstrong in a B.F. Goodrich GX-1G ?
six :    A2H from ILC ?

source: apogee books and USAF
« Last Edit: July 23, 2008, 11:25:03 am by Michel Van »
I love Strange Technology

Offline Justo Miranda

  • Secret Projects Master
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3184
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #26 on: July 23, 2008, 12:00:13 pm »
Picture nº5 is a Goodrich GX-IG

Offline Justo Miranda

  • Secret Projects Master
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3184
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #27 on: July 23, 2008, 12:12:09 pm »
Picture Nº 6?

Offline Justo Miranda

  • Secret Projects Master
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3184
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #28 on: July 23, 2008, 12:20:06 pm »
Nº 3 may be a David Clark XMC-2 ?

Offline Justo Miranda

  • Secret Projects Master
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3184
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #29 on: July 23, 2008, 12:25:37 pm »
Picture nº4 is a Goodrich Mk IV (Model 1958)

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3537
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #30 on: July 23, 2008, 12:33:58 pm »
Nº 3 may be a David Clark XMC-2 ?
thanks for picture Justo
after i check the video again

nr 3 IS a David Clark XMC-2 suit



« Last Edit: July 23, 2008, 12:47:24 pm by Michel Van »
I love Strange Technology

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7888
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #31 on: August 03, 2008, 12:11:44 pm »
Does anyone have good-quality, hi-res photos of Dyna-Soar mock-up with USAF astronauts posing near it?
Something like these...
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Justo Miranda

  • Secret Projects Master
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3184
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #32 on: August 03, 2008, 02:21:10 pm »
Sorry nothing best ...

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7888
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #33 on: August 30, 2008, 04:53:25 pm »
Martin Dyna-Soar proposal as of March 1959.

enjoy http://www.dtic.mil/srch/doc?collection=1EDA8F23681120DB&id=AD0318479
« Last Edit: August 30, 2008, 05:03:15 pm by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7888
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #34 on: August 30, 2008, 04:57:40 pm »
Once seen on eBay, gone with the wind - Lockheed's WS-464L as of March 1958
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7888
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #35 on: August 30, 2008, 04:59:36 pm »
Northrop's Dyna...
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7888
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #36 on: August 30, 2008, 05:01:25 pm »
...and Republic's 'satelloid'
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Justo Miranda

  • Secret Projects Master
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3184
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #37 on: August 31, 2008, 07:39:08 am »
Hi Flateric
"X belly" drawing is 1960 Lockheed & Hughes "space ferry " project.
From "The Dream Machines" by Ron Miller , Krieger Publishing ,1993

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6727
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #38 on: September 07, 2008, 04:35:27 pm »
Early versions of the Titan III...

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 Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1556
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #39 on: December 15, 2008, 06:30:13 am »
http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Cult_spacecraft_Part_One_The_Little_Spaceplane_That_Could_Not_999.html

Good article on DynaSoar (aside some errors like the lead blocks in the orbiter noses; and the fact that ARD -1998-  did not compete with Hermes - cancelled in 1992)

My humble opinion now  ;D

When one hear of DynaSoar for the first time, three questions come to mind

(past the "whoaaa, they planned a shuttle before the shuttle!" excitation)

- Would Dynasoar have worked, considering all the problems with the current shuttle, and the fact DynaSoar was imagined 15 years before ?

- What about DynaSoar in USAF service ? how difficult to fly ? how difficult to maintain ?

- What influence on the Shuttle if it had entered service ?

Well, this article is the FIRST, in many readings, that give me CLEAR answers to these questions...


« Last Edit: December 15, 2008, 06:50:39 am by Archibald »
Conservatoire de l'Air et de l'Espace d'Aquitaine - Bordeaux - Mérignac / Dassault aviation museum
http://www.caea.info/en/plan.php

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2048
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #40 on: December 15, 2008, 08:23:01 am »
McNamara was a hater.
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3537
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #41 on: December 16, 2008, 05:50:54 am »

When one hear of DynaSoar for the first time, three questions come to mind

(past the "whoaaa, they planned a shuttle before the shuttle!" excitation)

- Would Dynasoar have worked, considering all the problems with the current shuttle, and the fact DynaSoar was imagined 15 years before ?

- What about DynaSoar in USAF service ? how difficult to fly ? how difficult to maintain ?

- What influence on the Shuttle if it had entered service ?

Well, this article is the FIRST, in many readings, that give me CLEAR answers to these questions...

that a good question and here some aswer
(i know this is not a Wat if Forum...)

Dynasoar had work, the Main frame design had some flaw but can get solved
it had fly even better as shuttle aka the "flying brick"

after Astronautix - http://www.astronautix.com/craft/dynasoar.htm
Dyna-Soar as hypersonic research vehicle first flight in March 1963 to 1965
with first unmanned Orbital flight in 1965
Dyna Soar as hypersonic reconnaissance vehicle would deployed in mid-1969.
with first Orbital flight in 1967 December 1 - Dynasoar 9
Dyna Soar as hypersonic, global, strategic bombardment and reconnaissance system, operational in mid-1974.
after this very slow development there will be a
Dyna Soar as Space Shuttle with 5 Astronauts on board for 1978

Cost ?
maintenance is cheaper than shuttle ! No SSME, SRMB, ET etc.
i guess the cost are low around $ 5-10 (1965 value) million on Dyna Soar alone
(NOT including buildings, facilities, training, salaries, etc)
expensive is the Titan-IIIC Flyaway Unit Cost $: 20 million. (1965 value )

total cost in 1965 dollar would be around $40-50 million per mission



« Last Edit: December 16, 2008, 08:37:23 am by Michel Van »
I love Strange Technology

Offline CFE

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 258
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #42 on: December 16, 2008, 06:33:07 pm »
DynaSoar could have worked for sure, but it would likely be grounded after an initial series of missions due to the flaws in the concept.  The biggest virtue of DynaSoar would have been proving that lifting re-entry is not optimal for a dense re-entry body.

Offline OM

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 753
    • OMBlog
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #43 on: December 21, 2008, 07:25:27 pm »
McNamara was a hater.

...It wasn't that he was a hater, it was that he was a schmuck. You should hear some of his lectures and read some of his writings trying to defend his decisions as SecDev. Only Symington's decision on the Flying Wing and Dickhead's over the YF-23 make less sense, and that's an understatement.

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2048
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #44 on: December 22, 2008, 07:27:08 am »
Roger that! :)

Moonbat
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline nugo

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 323
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #45 on: February 21, 2009, 08:28:03 am »
  Hi flateric!

 If you can write about Dyna Soar/X-20:

  Martin Report Number ?
  Northrop Report Number ?
  Lockheed Report Number ?
  Republic Report Number ?

 

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7888
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #46 on: February 21, 2009, 08:48:54 am »
Nugo, if you have read my post, you'll note that I was posting thumbnail images from eBay lots. To my sorrow, I don't have there reports, except Martin's submission - you can see direct link to the paper in my older post.
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline OM

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 753
    • OMBlog
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #47 on: February 21, 2009, 09:44:13 pm »
McNamara was a hater.

...It wasn't that he was a hater, it was that he was a schmuck. You should hear some of his lectures and read some of his writings trying to defend his decisions as SecDev. Only Symington's decision on the Flying Wing and Dickhead's over the YF-23 make less sense, and that's an understatement.

Is it that he was a schmuck or was it that the Soviets believed that it was nuclear weapon delivery platform? McNamara did believe that Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) kept the peace between the United States and the Soviet Union.

...No, he was a schmuck. You'll find that a lot of Cold War history courses are starting to include this fact in their lectures.


Offline Proponent

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 57
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #48 on: February 23, 2009, 01:35:19 am »
total cost in 1965 dollar would be around $40-50 million per mission

Perhaps, but on the other hand the payload would have been close to zero, as opposed to the Shuttle's payload of 25 tonnes or so.

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 19495
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #49 on: April 19, 2009, 10:32:40 am »
Hi,

(Artist's imprtition of the X-20 Dyno-Soar spacecraft in the process of jettisoning
the cockpit heat-shield for orbital flight. Dyna-Soar plans were discussed last month
at the US Air Force Association Convention in Las Vegas).
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1962/1962%20-%202275.html

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6727
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #50 on: April 20, 2009, 11:51:46 pm »
Perhaps, but on the other hand the payload would have been close to zero, as opposed to the Shuttle's payload of 25 tonnes or so.

Payload would have been five astronauts (six if they wanted to be uncomfortable and skip a few kind of important componants). Probably easier, more cost effective ways to launch five astronauts, but claims that the DS was useless are so much ill-informed bunk.
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 XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2048
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #51 on: June 11, 2009, 03:06:56 pm »
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720063130_1972063130.pdf

U.S. AIR FORCE -
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS
AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
JOINT CONFERENCE
ON
LIFTING MANNED HYPERVELOCITY
AND REENTRY VEHICLES

A COMPILATION OF THE PAPERS PRESENTED

PART II

April 13-1 4,1960



Guys this is 394 pages long. So it will take a bit to open. Enjoy.

Moonbat


http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720063130_1972063130.pdf
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2048
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #52 on: June 23, 2009, 06:05:17 pm »
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8954
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #53 on: August 26, 2009, 12:51:03 pm »
Full-size Dyna-Soar mock-up.

Dyna-Soar launch.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2009, 02:09:38 pm by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8954
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #54 on: August 26, 2009, 01:09:38 pm »
First image of from a Boeing advertisement appearing in Time magazine November 17, 1961.

Sixth image is of Capt Edward J Dwight Jr, the first black man selected as a potential astronaut in 1963 and one of 16 candidates at the Air Force Aerospace Research Pilot School, holding a model of the X-20 during a visit to Washington DC. The winged vehicle would have been launched by a Titan IIIC, a model of which is to Dwight’s right. (Photo, UPI).

Seventh image is of a model of Dyna-Soar, atop Titan booster rockets, being displayed by Sen. Barry M. Goldwater while show it off to visitors in his office. Taken July 1963 and appearing in Life magazine.

Eighth image is a Langley engineer prepares a model of the proposed air force X-20 Dyna-Soar aerospace plane for testing in Tank No. 2 in 1961 (NASA)
« Last Edit: August 26, 2009, 02:10:49 pm by Triton »

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2048
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #55 on: August 26, 2009, 01:40:39 pm »
Triton,

You have no idea how much I'd love to have that model. I made a Dyna-Soar model of my own last year but it's probably nowhere near as good a contractor model.
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8954
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #56 on: August 26, 2009, 01:48:04 pm »
First image is of Dyna-Soar model photograph by Ralph Crane, part of the Life magazine archives (1962).

Second image by Ralph Crane, part of the Life magazine archives (1962). Individuals are not named.

Dyna-Soar wind tunnel model.

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 12922
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #57 on: August 26, 2009, 02:09:09 pm »
The Dyna-Soar not only was a beautiful design, but it was also a sound design. Everything I see in this thread and elsewhere seems to indicate it would have been a success if completed. To think teams of engineers at NASA and Boeing (not to mention Martin, Lockheed and others) spent years perfecting the project for naught is just so annoying (in fact, every time that happens it bugs me...). Politicians and financiers have the final say and can topple over a good project on a whim.

What killed Dyna-Soar, ultimately? Was it because the race to the Moon that Kennedy initiated in 1961 devoured most of the money that could be allocated to space programs? Was it because of its size, which made it impossible for it to place modules in orbit or carry space labs up there, like the later Space Shuttle orbiters did?

If there are any valuable sources on the subject available for reading (on the web would be a good start) then I'm willing to know more about that. And sorry to all those who are very knowledgeable on the subject and may be irritated by such naive questions!

Offline pometablava

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 3146

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 12922
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #59 on: August 26, 2009, 02:25:21 pm »
Thanks for the tip! With the DVD included, it really sounds like great value for the price.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8954
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #60 on: August 26, 2009, 02:25:58 pm »
Mark Wade has an interesting entry and chronology of events up to the cancellation of Dyna-Soar on his Encyclopedia Astronautica web site.
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/dynasoar.htm

The United States Air Force Systems Command has a paper titled USAF Termination of the X-20A Dyna Soar Program - 1964 as part of the AFSC Historical Publication Series.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17510978/USAF-Termination-of-the-X20A-Dyna-Soar-Program-1964
« Last Edit: December 15, 2009, 11:40:10 am by Triton »

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7888
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #61 on: October 02, 2009, 04:41:03 pm »
Artwork: "Dyna-Soar Hypersonic Glider" Artist: Gordon Phillips
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline martinbayer

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 303
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #62 on: October 02, 2009, 09:04:08 pm »
Looks like the other vehicle in the illustration is the Lenticular Apollo design:

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apocular.htm

http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/craft/apocular.htm

I always wondered how much inspiration the variable incidence wing for reentry attached to a body of resolution of that concept may have provided for Rutan's SpaceShipOne...

Martin
Would be marching to the beat of his own drum, if he didn't detest marching to any drumbeat at all so much.

Offline nugo

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 323
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #63 on: October 02, 2009, 09:57:26 pm »
  Hi All!

 If you can write about Dyna Soar/X-20:

  Boeing/Vought Model 844/Vought Model 4??
  Convair Model ?
  Douglas Model 1???
  Lockheed Model CL-4??
  Martin/Bell Model  3??/Bell Model D-1?? or D-2??
  McDonnell Model 1??
  North American X-15B (Model  ?)
  Northrop Model  1?? or Model 2??
  Republic Model AP-??

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2048
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #64 on: October 02, 2009, 11:10:48 pm »
Try the search engine
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 12922
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #65 on: October 03, 2009, 12:51:28 am »
Nugo, I've noticed that in your various posts, you use the "?" to indicate a missing figure in your designations. However, this is misleading because it could indicate a designation you're not sure about.
For example, when you write "Lockheed Model CL-4??" my first impression is that you are questioning the fact that it was called Model CL-4... when in fact you simply want to indicate the fact that the missing designation was in the 400 to 499 range...

May I suggest you replace the question marks by asterisks as follows:

  Boeing/Vought Model 844/Vought Model 4**
  Convair Model **
  Douglas Model 1***
  Lockheed Model CL-4**
  Martin/Bell Model  3**/Bell Model D-1** or D-2**
  McDonnell Model 1**
  North American X-15B (Model  ***)
  Northrop Model  1** or Model 2**
  Republic Model AP-**
« Last Edit: October 03, 2009, 09:29:44 am by Stargazer2006 »

Offline nugo

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 323
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #66 on: October 03, 2009, 08:46:06 am »
  Hi Stargazer2006!

 Model CL-4??---Yes, designation was in the 400 to 499 range and so on...

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 19495
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #67 on: October 06, 2009, 10:21:25 am »
Hi,

who heard about a studying from X-20,as secret Dyna Soar bomber ?.

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2048
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #68 on: October 06, 2009, 02:25:44 pm »
From Wikipedia:

"The original intention for Dyna-Soar, outlined in the Weapons System 464L proposal, called for a project combining aeronautical research with weapons system development."

Also, when you think about it, the X-20 was a descendant of the BOMI, ROBO, and Brass Bell programs. So a bomber variant wouldn't be too far-fetched.
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline Dynoman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 528
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #69 on: October 07, 2009, 05:03:17 am »
Phase I Dyna Soar applications, including bombing missions can be found in the document:

Boost Glide Weapons Application Study June 30, 1959

http://www.dtic.mil/srch/doc?collection=t3&id=AD0311156

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 19495
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #70 on: October 08, 2009, 10:19:07 am »
From Wikipedia:

"The original intention for Dyna-Soar, outlined in the Weapons System 464L proposal, called for a project combining aeronautical research with weapons system development."

Also, when you think about it, the X-20 was a descendant of the BOMI, ROBO, and Brass Bell programs. So a bomber variant wouldn't be too far-fetched.

My dear XP67_Moonbat,

that was not my words,it was for Mr. Jay Miller from The X-Planes book;
he said; the X-20 proposed capabilities included a secret Dyna Soar bomber,a Dyna
Soar military payloads transportation vehicle (i.e.,a recce platform carrying ultra-high-
resolution optical sensors and sophisticated electromagnetic spectrum sensors),and
a Dyna Soar military space missions support vehicle.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7888
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #71 on: December 15, 2009, 02:43:20 am »
A question - do anyone knows more of X-20 landing gears? Any detailied drawings (just in case, I have full 3 set from Scott already)?
Anyone can get rid on this paper?

http://www.dtic.mil/srch/doc?collection=t3&id=AD0603703
Quote
Accession Number : AD0603703
Title :   X-20 (DYNA-SOAR) LANDING GEAR DEVELOPMENT AND QUALIFICATION PROGRAM,
Corporate Author : SYSTEMS ENGINEERING GROUP WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB OHIO
Personal Author(s) : HOWARD,H. W.
Report Date : JUN 1964
Pagination or Media Count : 41
Abstract : A description of the X-20 landing gear and performance requirements are presented. The yielding metal energy absorption system and the all skid concept is discussed. A summary is presented of the 'energy strap' and skid development programs. The qualification program, which had not been initiated at the time of program termination, is discussed, and conclusions and recommendations are presented. (Author)

Alexander Shlyadinsky wants to improve 3D model he made for Space Wings book...

Thanks in advance!
« Last Edit: December 15, 2009, 03:50:14 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3537
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #72 on: December 15, 2009, 10:17:06 am »
Michel come to rescue
I hope this wat Alexander Shlyadinsky looking for


Source:
Dyna-Soar: Hypersonic Strategies Weapon Systems
Apogee Books
Page 178 & 179
Art Copyright: Boeing

I love Strange Technology

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7888
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #73 on: December 15, 2009, 11:39:36 am »
Michel - thanks! Actually, I need look at my bookshelf more often)))
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Nik

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 382
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #74 on: December 15, 2009, 01:25:46 pm »
If, like me, you have vague memories of the lenticular concept, here's a good link...
http://www.astronautix.com/craftfam/lenicles.htm

And, yes, Bono & al. really, really did propose a 100 metre diameter lenticular SSTO that would have delivered a million pounds of payload (~450 tonnes !!) to Low Earth Orbit...

Plus FantasticPlastic's take on the orbital 'loiter' bomber...
http://www.fantastic-plastic.com/LenticularRe-EntryVehiclePage.htm

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6727
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #75 on: December 15, 2009, 02:06:31 pm »

And, yes, Bono & al. really, really did propose a 100 metre diameter lenticular SSTO that would have delivered a million pounds of payload (~450 tonnes !!) to Low Earth Orbit...

"Propose" insofar as it was a strawman design to show that it *wasn't* a particularly good design when compared to more conventional cylindrical configurations.
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 carmelo

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 190
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #76 on: December 15, 2009, 06:34:18 pm »
Well,in front at this pictures of "advanced" Dyna Soar
i have ever asked to me:
1-where are go all these  guys  (maybe a space station)?
2-Were is the docking port for transfer ?
On the cockpit or on the crew compartment?
How the pilot  can go to the crew compartment?
A hatch  behind the seat,in Gemini-B style?
but the X-20 cockpit is more small of the Gemini capsule,and remove the ejection seat is impossible.
For  passengers  to the cockpit we have the same problem.
So?








« Last Edit: December 15, 2009, 06:36:48 pm by carmelo »

Offline Proponent

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 57
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #77 on: December 15, 2009, 09:03:05 pm »
Well,in front at this pictures of "advanced" Dyna Soar
i have ever asked to me....

I don't know to what extent this is based on actual plans, but this video on www.deepcold.com suggests some answers.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6727
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #78 on: December 15, 2009, 09:39:33 pm »

1-where are go all these  guys  (maybe a space station)?

Yes.

Quote
2-Were is the docking port for transfer ?

In the transition section.

[/quote]
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 Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8954
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #79 on: December 15, 2009, 09:56:01 pm »
Was Dynasoar considered for enemy satellite or spacecraft rendezvous, inspection, and then, if necessary, destruction missions? Do we have any information about the payloads that the vehicle might carry for this purpose?


« Last Edit: December 15, 2009, 10:20:56 pm by Triton »

Offline Lauge

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 436
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #80 on: December 15, 2009, 11:41:01 pm »
Was Dynasoar considered for enemy satellite or spacecraft rendezvous, inspection, and then, if necessary, destruction missions? Do we have any information about the payloads that the vehicle might carry for this purpose?

Just to avoid future misunderstanding, I stress that the design for the "YF-19A Saber" is entirely hypothetical:
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3aq.html#MikeBillard

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg
"Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the crocoducks of war"

"Swinging across on rigging, cutlass in teeth, is regrettably not a practical means of boarding a spacecraft".
The Tough Guide to the Known Galaxy

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3537
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #81 on: December 16, 2009, 12:26:13 am »
Was Dynasoar considered for enemy satellite or spacecraft rendezvous, inspection, and then, if necessary, destruction missions? Do we have any information about the payloads that the vehicle might carry for this purpose?

for SAINT II, Blue Gemini study and "Evil" LM csd
they look for 2 man mission, one make a EVA to enemy satellite and look Wat it is.
if the enemy satellite is hostile, it gona be destroy
they had several proposal like during EVA the Astronaut spray black paint over sensors and Camera.
or cut communication antenna of
or after EVA Shoot with a gun or just fire a rocket on it

i think that last one would be mode for Dyna Soar
the Pilot makes a close  rendezvous and check the enemy satellite (No EVA)
and shoot it if necessary

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/saintii.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apolmcsd.htm
« Last Edit: December 16, 2009, 05:36:41 am by Michel Van »
I love Strange Technology

Offline Dynoman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 528
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #82 on: December 16, 2009, 05:10:59 am »

Offline Dynoman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 528
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #83 on: December 16, 2009, 05:14:25 am »
Sorry, heres a better link.

Boost Glide Weapons System Applications Study...149MB

http://www.dtic.mil/srch/doc?collection=t3&id=AD0311156
« Last Edit: December 16, 2009, 05:19:54 am by Dynoman »

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3537
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #84 on: December 16, 2009, 06:04:28 am »
THX for link
I love Strange Technology

Offline carmelo

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 190
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #85 on: December 16, 2009, 07:00:39 am »



Quote
2-Were is the docking port for transfer ?

Quote
In the transition section.


And how pilot and crew go to the transition section?

Offline Steve Pace

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2256
  • Aviation History Writer
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #86 on: December 16, 2009, 07:40:35 am »
What we really need is an Orbital Garbage Truck to start cleaning up all the space junk out there.
When you know you're right, go ahead.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6727
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #87 on: December 16, 2009, 07:47:52 am »
Was Dynasoar considered for enemy satellite or spacecraft rendezvous, inspection, and then, if necessary, destruction missions?

Yes.

Quote
Do we have any information about the payloads that the vehicle might carry for this purpose?

Yes. A variety of small rockets, plus a remotely controlled modified M-16 for close-up work.
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 XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2048
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #88 on: December 16, 2009, 07:57:43 am »
Now that's funny! :D  See I was gonna suggest the pilot stick a handgun out the open entry hatch and take care of the enemy sat that way.
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6727
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #89 on: December 16, 2009, 08:43:30 am »
Now that's funny! :D  See I was gonna suggest the pilot stick a handgun out the open entry hatch and take care of the enemy sat that way.

Nothing terribly funny about it. A 5.56mm rifle round will almost certainly cause massive damage to something like a standard 1960's/70's spysat or comsat. A the very least it would make a mess of the solar panels.
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 Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6727
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #90 on: December 16, 2009, 08:56:05 am »

And how pilot and crew go to the transition section?

Tunnel.
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 Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8954
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #91 on: December 16, 2009, 12:16:46 pm »
Sorry, heres a better link.

Boost Glide Weapons System Applications Study...149MB

http://www.dtic.mil/srch/doc?collection=t3&id=AD0311156

Thank you Dynoman.

Offline Proponent

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 57
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #92 on: December 16, 2009, 08:50:12 pm »

And how pilot and crew go to the transition section?

Tunnel.

Hang on a minute--Dyna-Soar docking with a Saturn S-IV station?  What I find weird about this is the idea of the USAF considering the use of any Saturn hardware at all.  Unless... this was very early in the Dyna-Soar program, before the Titan IIIC was approved, and the AF was planning to use a Saturn C-1 to launch Dyna-Soar?

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3537
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #93 on: December 16, 2009, 09:08:17 pm »
USAF consider for a while Saturn 1 as launch vehicle for Dyna Soar
I love Strange Technology

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2048
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #94 on: December 17, 2009, 09:37:34 am »
Oh yeah, Saturn was a early option. Check it out.

From Astronautix.com:


Moonbat
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline The Artist

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 517
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #95 on: December 17, 2009, 10:48:25 am »
Was Dynasoar considered for enemy satellite or spacecraft rendezvous, inspection, and then, if necessary, destruction missions?

Yes.

Quote
Do we have any information about the payloads that the vehicle might carry for this purpose?

Yes. A variety of small rockets, plus a remotely controlled modified M-16 for close-up work.

Sorry about the poor quality - this is from an old photocopy. The source is noted in the image.

Mike
"Thank you for summing that up."

Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3537
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #96 on: December 17, 2009, 11:05:16 am »


from left to right
Convair Astro IV with Lox/Lh2 stages
Martin Titan C (1959) a Titan II First stage with Lox/Lh2 second stage with LR87 engine.
GD Saturn C-1
Martin Titan II with Solid booster (THIS IS NOT Titan IIIC)
USAF SLS A-388

other Rockets
GD Atlas Centaur (Boeing proposal)

Boeing Solid Booster HY-Fly aka Early bird
http://up-ship.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/image16.jpg
http://up-ship.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/image172a.jpg

Martin Titan C (1957) build from Titan-1 Hardware
first stage 4 meter ø with 4xLR87 engine, second stage = Titan-1 first stage.

NASA study for Air launch X-20 into orbit from a B-52
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,4479.0.html

i found this picture DS on Saturn C-1 but a tree stage !
http://up-ship.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/image18.jpg

hell who many launcher were proposed for X-20 ?!
I love Strange Technology

Offline The Artist

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 517
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #97 on: December 17, 2009, 11:11:33 am »
Sorry about the poor quality of these. This little photo-copied packet had been given to me some time ago so I don't know any more of the source than what you'll see in image 1.

Mike
« Last Edit: December 17, 2009, 11:13:15 am by The Artist »
"Thank you for summing that up."

Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III

Offline The Artist

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 517
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #98 on: December 17, 2009, 11:27:52 am »
Air launching the Dyna Soar for orbital missions - from a NASA TM.

Source information noted in the images.

Mike
"Thank you for summing that up."

Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6727
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #99 on: December 17, 2009, 11:31:59 am »

Sorry about the poor quality - this is from an old photocopy. The source is noted in the image.

The artwork is notably flawed. Most importantly, the Titan Transtage is not shown... the Dyna Soar would only be separated from that at end-of-mission, after the de-orbit burn and just before re-entry, since it relied on the Transtage for all important maneuver capability. Additionally, it does not seem to show the re-entry heatshield over the canopy... until after re-entry and the vehicle decellerating to below Mach 1, the only windows the pilot would have were the small side windows. And it's really unlikely that it would get this close to an enemy satellite, instead it would stand off at least a few hundred yards. Shrapnel is a bitch when your heat shield is metal *foil.*
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 The Artist

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 517
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #100 on: December 17, 2009, 11:33:53 am »
From Aviation Week. A shot of the wing pylon for the B-52 / Dyna Soar flights.

Mike
"Thank you for summing that up."

Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III

Offline The Artist

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 517
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #101 on: December 17, 2009, 11:37:15 am »

Sorry about the poor quality - this is from an old photocopy. The source is noted in the image.

The artwork is notably flawed. Most importantly, the Titan Transtage is not shown... the Dyna Soar would only be separated from that at end-of-mission, after the de-orbit burn and just before re-entry, since it relied on the Transtage for all important maneuver capability. Additionally, it does not seem to show the re-entry heatshield over the canopy... until after re-entry and the vehicle decellerating to below Mach 1, the only windows the pilot would have were the small side windows. And it's really unlikely that it would get this close to an enemy satellite, instead it would stand off at least a few hundred yards. Shrapnel is a bitch when your heat shield is metal *foil.*

True, but I think the intent of this image was to show the concept without giving away too much.

Mike
"Thank you for summing that up."

Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III

Offline The Artist

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 517
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #102 on: December 17, 2009, 11:39:30 am »
Thinking outside the box?

Mike
"Thank you for summing that up."

Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III

Offline The Artist

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 517
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #103 on: December 17, 2009, 11:48:21 am »
Just a few information pages. What I know of the source can be found in the images.

Mike
"Thank you for summing that up."

Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III

Offline The Artist

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 517
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #104 on: December 17, 2009, 11:52:45 am »
The acceleration rocket for Dyna Soar.

From Aviation Week. The full piece has shots of manufacture and salt testing.

Mike
"Thank you for summing that up."

Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6727
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #105 on: December 17, 2009, 11:52:58 am »
Oh yeah, Saturn was a early option.

And the Juno V before that.
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 Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6727
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #106 on: December 17, 2009, 11:58:17 am »
The acceleration rocket for Dyna Soar.

Thiokol XM-92.
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 The Artist

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 517
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #107 on: December 17, 2009, 11:59:57 am »
A question - do anyone knows more of X-20 landing gears? Any detailied drawings (just in case, I have full 3 set from Scott already)?
Anyone can get rid on this paper?


Thanks in advance!

This is from an advertisement so it may or may not be useful to you.

Mike
"Thank you for summing that up."

Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III

Offline The Artist

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 517
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #108 on: December 17, 2009, 12:07:45 pm »
And last bit for this Dyna Soar flood.

These two images seem to fit here. Both from Aviation Week.

Mike
"Thank you for summing that up."

Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6727
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #109 on: December 17, 2009, 12:15:59 pm »
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 flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7888
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #110 on: December 17, 2009, 12:16:52 pm »
This is from an advertisement so it may or may not be useful to you.
Mike

very useful indeed, thanks!
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline The Artist

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 517
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #111 on: December 17, 2009, 12:21:49 pm »
"Thank you for summing that up."

Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6727
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #112 on: December 17, 2009, 12:29:09 pm »

Is that on a modified Titan?

Doubtful. Given the size of the SLOMAR (bigger'n Dyna Soar), the launch vehicle would need to be at least Saturn I sized, probably bigger. Probably a Norair design for an all-new booster.
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 martinbayer

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 303
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #113 on: December 17, 2009, 04:07:05 pm »
The illustration of the Martin concept shown in Artist's message was also used as a book cover for "Orbiting Stations" by Irwin Stambler:
http://dreamsofspace.nfshost.com/1965orbitingstations.htm
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_1t6ell3AwVE/Shx6ZPUAFyI/AAAAAAAAAdA/OWaqiIDYSWM/s1600-h/1965orbitingstations.jpg

Martin
Would be marching to the beat of his own drum, if he didn't detest marching to any drumbeat at all so much.

Offline airrocket

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 291
  • Dreams To Reality
    • Retro Flight
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #114 on: December 17, 2009, 07:36:43 pm »
WOw...one of the sleekest looking lifting body renderings ever.
Vis Viva

Offline The Artist

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 517
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #115 on: December 17, 2009, 08:29:02 pm »
The illustration of the Martin concept shown in Artist's message was also used as a book cover for "Orbiting Stations" by Irwin Stambler:
http://dreamsofspace.nfshost.com/1965orbitingstations.htm
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_1t6ell3AwVE/Shx6ZPUAFyI/AAAAAAAAAdA/OWaqiIDYSWM/s1600-h/1965orbitingstations.jpg

Martin


Thanks.

That one looks much better in color.
"Thank you for summing that up."

Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III

Offline The Artist

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 517
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #116 on: December 17, 2009, 09:10:25 pm »
If you will permit a little personal indulgence in this thread.

Mike
"Thank you for summing that up."

Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6727
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #117 on: December 17, 2009, 09:54:36 pm »
If you will permit a little personal indulgence in this thread.

Mike


« Last Edit: December 17, 2009, 09:58:26 pm by Orionblamblam »
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 carmelo

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 190
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #118 on: December 18, 2009, 11:20:35 am »

Offline carmelo

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 190
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #119 on: December 21, 2009, 03:49:39 pm »
Dynasoar operational weapon.

Offline carmelo

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 190
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #120 on: December 21, 2009, 04:02:54 pm »
X-20 flight.

Offline carmelo

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 190
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #121 on: December 21, 2009, 04:05:19 pm »
X-20 flight.

Offline carmelo

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 190
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #122 on: December 21, 2009, 04:08:10 pm »
Dynasoar mission.

Offline carmelo

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 190
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #123 on: December 21, 2009, 04:13:45 pm »
Landing.

Offline carmelo

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 190
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #124 on: December 21, 2009, 04:21:27 pm »
(Happy) end.

Offline carmelo

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 190
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #125 on: December 21, 2009, 04:25:19 pm »
Dynasoar Payload bay.

[PLEASE NO POSTINGS OF SCANS FROM MIDLAND COUNTIES/IAN ALLAN BOOKS HERE]
« Last Edit: December 21, 2009, 04:35:48 pm by flateric »

Offline Steve Pace

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2256
  • Aviation History Writer
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #126 on: December 21, 2009, 04:33:12 pm »
Where can I get high res images of these great illustrations?
When you know you're right, go ahead.

Offline carmelo

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 190
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #127 on: December 21, 2009, 04:37:57 pm »
X-20 Dynasoar space suit.
The last is an USAF experimental EVA suit (the year of this suit is 1962,is the first American EVA suit and is probable that is for X-20 future applications).

Offline carmelo

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 190
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #128 on: December 21, 2009, 04:43:20 pm »
Saturn USAF workshop and Dynasoar.

Offline carmelo

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 190
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #129 on: December 21, 2009, 05:23:36 pm »
Some others pictures:
Dynasoar "Space pilots":
Dyna-Soar Group 1 - USA

Albert Crews,
Henry C. Gordon,
Pete Knight,
Russell L. Rogers,
Milt Thompson, 
James W. Wood.

Note:
In April 1960, seven men were secretly chosen for the Dyna-Soar program : Neil Armstrong, Bill Dana, Henry C. Gordon, Pete Knight, Russell L. Rogers, Milt Thompson, James W. Wood.
Armstrong and Dana left the program in the summer of 1962.
On September 19, 1962, Albert Crews was added to the Dyna-Soar program and the names of the six active Dyna-Soar astronauts were announced to the public.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7888
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #130 on: December 21, 2009, 05:38:03 pm »
go on))) thanks!
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline carmelo

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 190
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #131 on: December 21, 2009, 07:28:41 pm »
Dynasoar Space pilot suit-up:

Offline carmelo

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 190
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #132 on: December 21, 2009, 07:30:18 pm »
Suit-up:

Offline carmelo

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 190
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #133 on: December 21, 2009, 07:31:55 pm »
Suit-up:

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10114
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #134 on: December 21, 2009, 10:54:39 pm »
Nice pics.

However, please add the sources for the stuff you are posting.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline The Artist

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 517
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #135 on: December 23, 2009, 11:17:34 pm »
Where can I get high res images of these great illustrations?

While I'm not sure where Carmelo got those posted images, I can tell you that many of those images (not the 3DCG images) can be found in the Apogee book Dyna-Soar Hypersonic Strategic Weapons System. Though, some of them are quite small in that book.

Mike
"Thank you for summing that up."

Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3537
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #136 on: December 24, 2009, 03:45:22 am »
Where can I get high res images of these great illustrations?

While I'm not sure where Carmelo got those posted images, I can tell you that many of those images (not the 3DCG images) can be found in the Apogee book Dyna-Soar Hypersonic Strategic Weapons System. Though, some of them are quite small in that book.

Mike

the Apogee book "Dyna-Soar Hypersonic Strategic Weapons System."
got a DVD with USAF movies of Dyna Soar, also space suit test for Dyna Soar
i made screenshots of Suit test and posted here
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3052.msg38875.html#msg38875

Carmelo just did same thing with USAF movie on DVD
I love Strange Technology

Offline The Artist

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 517
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #137 on: December 30, 2009, 10:44:14 am »
These photos had been sent to me many years back and I'm sorry to say that I've lost track of the person who sent them to me. Note that this is the mock-up in an earlier configuration. Wouldn't you love to be able to walk around in there and look at those displays in the background?

The graphic is a simple image I did long ago to show the size comparison of the Dynasoar to the Mercury and Gemini capsules.

Mike
"Thank you for summing that up."

Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III

Offline Bomiwriter

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • **
  • Posts: 58
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #138 on: January 06, 2010, 08:44:43 pm »
Bomiwriter says greetings.

Since this is my top priority project I just gotta speak up too.

Dining Soar;  It was Abbreviated Development Plan System 464L deveoped by a now deceased friend Mr. William Walter.  It described the overall DS project but stipulated...a research glider-Dyna Soar I, an intermediate military applications test glider Dyna Soar II and the Dyna Soar III a supposedly full operational military vehicle, a one-man glider for the initial reconnaissance mission and some orbital bombardment missions.

The Boeing initial Model 814-1010 was presented with a rear section able to house various suites for...hullo, military missions, despite the ADP and project Card describing DS I as a research vehicle.  I do have the presentation material and drawings and they will appear in my latest QUEST article on Cold War U.S. Space Weapons (not the real title).  Boeing's presentation booklets presented or reminded the USAF that for example, the next Model...814-2050-1 (the Dyna Soar competition winner), had between 75-90 cubic foot area in which "military payloads" may be inserted for reconnaissance, missions, and that external pods could be attached to the upper rear fuselage if necessary.  The next and production bird was Model 844-2050E that was not at all finalized but became the production vehicle, also had a 90 cubic feet area that had equipment in it, but...but, 75 cubic feet it too, was available for military missions, again, despite the 844-2050E being a "research" boost-glider.

Martin & Martin-Bell also offered an expanded reconnaissance and bombardment or orbital bomber Dyna Soar derived from their April, 1959 model that lost to Boeing.

Then, we have Republic who offered the exact same glider design for DS I, DS II and DS III, all displaying a nuclear tipped reentry missile attached to the spine.  So what does all this mean?

Despite the initial Dyna Soar gliders being "research" or proof-of-concept birds, two firms from the get-go, even though Martin-Bell generated a separate presentation booklet on their DS I, with expanded reconnaissance and orbital bombardment versions but Boeing always left open the offer of USAF military roles if somewhat limited by the small holds of 75-90 cubic feet.

One would easily overlook this point unless intently focused upon the wording in the presentations offered.  And it all says the same thing...room could be made for a military camera system, radar, or infrared system if it could be jam packed into that small space, and with a modified belly hatch and could perform a basic military mission once a man-rated booster was avaiable.

I expect this may clarify some points and perhaps Orionblaster will back me on this.  To reiterate, the wording of the presentations, because during the project's time period, somebody behind closed doors AF Staff), was discussing something very little has been revealed.  A military space force composed of numerous vehicles, robot sats, bomb platforms, resupply lifting body & boost-glide variety, reconn gliders, decoy orbital and reentry bomb gliders, etc.

Phew...what a project had it become operational, but then there's "Mac the knife."  I often wonderd just who he really was and who he actually worked for...having cancelled most every project the USAF wanted to build and enter space to operate.  I'm gone and good fortunes to all.
Bomiwriter

Offline Bomiwriter

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • **
  • Posts: 58
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #139 on: January 06, 2010, 08:53:20 pm »
Bomiwriter again;

I neglected to say this;  Most savvy individuals do not refer to the Boeing boost-glider as the X-20...why?  MacNamara demanded that the USAF change its designation.  Was he fearful of disinformation being slammed at DoD, or USAF and even the U.S. Government?  Perhaps yes or no.  Nevertheless, he cancelled nearly all efforts to militarily enter low-earth orbit period.

I do not care to acknowledge this man's actions concerning the project.  He strangled any chance to incrementally enter space with a winged piloted glider, and cancelled any chance of gaining a valuable future hypersonic data base and boost-glider orbital operations experience for future projects.  It appears deliberate and upon writing to him twice and presenting circumstantial evidence that the project appears to have gone "Black," citing the Cuba problem, he never answered me.  I told him of Docs I have copies of that stated an outright interest by a particular Govt agency in the DS project, but still, two letters remained unanswered.  I wonder what happened to those letters, now that he is deceased and who found and read them.

That's it and good fortunes to all.
Bomiwriter

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2048
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #140 on: January 07, 2010, 08:55:54 am »
The German soldier from Laugh In put it best: "Very interesting!"
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8954
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #141 on: January 09, 2010, 06:49:42 pm »
Official United States Air Force film The Story of Dyna-Soar.




« Last Edit: January 09, 2010, 06:52:41 pm by Triton »

Offline Desert Dawn

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 191
    • Stratosphere Models
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #142 on: January 22, 2010, 05:14:54 pm »
Absolutely fantastic stuff Triton !! Especially the Neil Armstrong footage and the technical tests. I had a list of those movies from DTIC years back and had always wanted to get them, but at the time it would have cost so much money (and not knowing what was on each of them exactly).. Someone just saved me a lot of money by putting all of them on You Tube.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2010, 11:13:48 am by flateric »

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2048
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #143 on: March 09, 2010, 09:15:57 am »
Brief article, nice graphics. Enjoy!

www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2009/october/i_history.pdf



Moonbat
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6727
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #144 on: March 09, 2010, 06:05:11 pm »
Brief article, nice graphics. Enjoy!

www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2009/october/i_history.pdf

Yeesh. There are two graphics, and two captions. And each caption has fundamental errors in fact.
1) That's not a trans-stage... that's a Titan II second stage, and it's not going to orbit.
2) That's not a Titan I, that's a Titan II.
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 XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2048
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #145 on: March 09, 2010, 06:39:06 pm »
Visual junk food. Yay!  

Yeah, I noticed it wasn't a Titan I either. It's ironic that they'll charge a $400 user fee for any product photo to be used in an article or book.

But they can't afford a fact checker to go through their own publication and see that that wasn't a Titan I. Where's their head at?
« Last Edit: March 10, 2010, 09:15:14 am by XP67_Moonbat »
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 19495
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #146 on: April 04, 2010, 10:39:36 am »

Offline Dynoman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 528
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #147 on: June 29, 2010, 12:01:41 pm »
Early Dyna Soar pictures from the Bell Museum:

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6727
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #148 on: June 29, 2010, 12:10:23 pm »
Early Dyna Soar pictures from the Bell Museum:

In what way are they "from" the museum? Were you able to gain physical access to the archives and scan them, or what? I ask due to the museum having been boxed up and moved a few years back, and I'm curious about their current status.
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 Steve Pace

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2256
  • Aviation History Writer
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #149 on: June 29, 2010, 12:12:02 pm »
Where is the Bell Museum?
When you know you're right, go ahead.

Offline Dynoman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 528
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #150 on: June 29, 2010, 12:26:54 pm »
Currently the Bell Museum is in Mentone, Indiana. Thier address is below:

South Oak St. 
Mentone 
Indiana 
U.S.A 
46539 
574-353-7296 

The files are available from thier website:

http://bellaircraftmuseum.org/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1 

Offline RanulfC

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 418
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #151 on: June 29, 2010, 01:14:51 pm »
Brief article, nice graphics. Enjoy!

www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2009/october/i_history.pdf

Yeesh. There are two graphics, and two captions. And each caption has fundamental errors in fact.
1) That's not a trans-stage... that's a Titan II second stage, and it's not going to orbit.
2) That's not a Titan I, that's a Titan II.
Uhm, wasn't the "plan" for the X-20 to mounted originally on Titan-I's (LOX-RP1) that the Air Force wasn't converting to II's? I thought it wasn't till later in the program that the Titan-II was selected and then the Titan-III??
(And being 'technical' doesn't EVERY X-20 have a 'trans-stage' attached since it had no propulsion on-board? Not that I'm going to try and defend the Boeing article since it contains errors even in the article itself...)

Randy

Offline The Artist

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 517
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #152 on: June 29, 2010, 07:17:46 pm »
My understanding is that the sub-orbital flights would not have used the trans-stage but it, as with the orbital flights, would have had a small solid booster mounted in the forward end of the adapter shroud as an abort booster.
"Thank you for summing that up."

Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 12922
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #153 on: June 30, 2010, 01:26:55 am »
Nice collection, but I'm sure there must be a lot more they haven't put up for display yet.

Found two more nice DynaSoar pictures there:
« Last Edit: June 30, 2010, 01:31:25 am by Stargazer2006 »


Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8954
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #155 on: August 11, 2010, 07:36:49 pm »

Offline edwest

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 209
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #156 on: August 11, 2010, 07:58:03 pm »

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.





"deliver sandwiches to a space station." Ah, so that was its other mission :) Thanks.




Ed

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8954
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #157 on: August 20, 2010, 01:55:24 pm »
Boeing print ad from 1963 showing Dyna-Soar X-20 and orbiting laboratory space station concept found on eBay.

Source: http://cgi.ebay.com/1963-BOEING-X-20-Dyna-Soar-Planned-Spacecraft-AD-/360284985430?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8954
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #158 on: August 24, 2010, 03:45:03 pm »
Boeing X-20 Dynasoar concept artwork poster found on eBay.

URL: http://cgi.ebay.com/1950s-BOEING-X-20-DYNA-SOAR-CONCEPT-POSTER-LARGE-/310244080078?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0

Description:
Quote
Here are some more great items from a former Boeing employees estate. Great late 50's Boeing concept poster of the X-20 "Dyna-Soar" taking off at night. Fred Takasumi signed artwork.Colors are outstanding and fresh, this was found rolled up and stored and were never mounted or hung.Measures approx 24"x24"

Added from “Found on Ebay” thread
« Last Edit: January 07, 2013, 03:20:26 am by Jemiba »

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 19495
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #159 on: August 28, 2010, 08:40:04 am »
 Hi All!

 If you can write about Dyna Soar/X-20:

  Boeing/Vought Model 844/Vought Model 4??
  Convair Model ?
  Douglas Model 1???
  Lockheed Model CL-4??
  Martin/Bell Model  3??/Bell Model D-1?? or D-2??
  McDonnell Model 1??
  North American X-15B (Model  ?)
  Northrop Model  1?? or Model 2??
  Republic Model AP-??



The Martin/Bell proposal was Project 7990.

http://www.space.com/media/pdf/dyna-soar.pdf

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 19495
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #160 on: August 29, 2010, 06:05:36 am »


The Martin/Bell proposal was Project 7990.

http://www.space.com/media/pdf/dyna-soar.pdf


I try to find any confirm about this Info from google books
site,but no way.

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 19495
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #161 on: August 31, 2010, 05:24:50 am »

Offline Spark

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 361
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #162 on: August 31, 2010, 06:50:54 am »


The Martin/Bell proposal was Project 7990.

http://www.space.com/media/pdf/dyna-soar.pdf


I try to find any confirm about this Info from google books
site,but no way.
Hi,
RAE Farnborough were there first. Reported on the Home Service a year or two early and disputing Erihkes claims for Blunt re-entry. bodies.
Note RAE scientist was working on a bluff re-entry body in the late forties.

Offline OM

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 753
    • OMBlog
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #163 on: September 01, 2010, 07:13:01 pm »


...Anyone else see a remarkable resemblance here:



...Quite possibly the closest prototype design I've seen to the Icarus. Anyone know if this design was declassified and/or any concept in situ promo artwork was distributed prior to early 1967 when Abbott and Cruikshank started work on Planet of the Apes? Perhaps in AvLeak?

Offline Dynoman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 528
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #164 on: April 16, 2011, 03:14:39 pm »
After straining my eyes on various photos and video footage of the Dyna Soar simulator, I've recreated one of the mid-program cockpit configurations in 3-D. I'm still looking for the lettering in the top three 'red' annunciators on the right.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6727
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #165 on: May 16, 2011, 04:19:27 pm »
The 1959 Martin-Bell concept. Higher-rez versions at the links.
Art (84901.jpg): http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=9844
Art (84851.jpg): http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=9880
3-view: http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=9925
Inboard profile: http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=9974
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 Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6727
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #166 on: May 16, 2011, 10:54:36 pm »
Anyone know if this design was declassified and/or any concept in situ promo artwork was distributed prior to early 1967 ...

A basic drawing of the design was published prior to 1963 or so in a declassified paper on the evolution of the Dyna Soar glider. The design never got much press; it was classified when it was first designed, but was very quickly replaced with a less insane configuration.
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 Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6727
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #167 on: May 16, 2011, 11:14:11 pm »
After straining my eyes on various photos and video footage of the Dyna Soar simulator, I've recreated one of the mid-program cockpit configurations in 3-D. I'm still looking for the lettering in the top three 'red' annunciators on the right.

A photo I have of a different cockpit layout showing that in the similar annuciators, the red ones had *no* lettering.

« Last Edit: May 17, 2011, 12:23:15 am by Orionblamblam »
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 pathology_doc

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 774
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #168 on: May 17, 2011, 04:35:03 am »
Now that's funny! :D  See I was gonna suggest the pilot stick a handgun out the open entry hatch and take care of the enemy sat that way.

Nothing terribly funny about it. A 5.56mm rifle round will almost certainly cause massive damage to something like a standard 1960's/70's spysat or comsat. A the very least it would make a mess of the solar panels.

My choice would be a 57mm or 75mm recoilless rifle, mounted internally and flipped out on the long axis with a gunsight for the pilot. Rear crew could reload. Guaranteed one-shot kill, I should think, on all but the largest of satellites.

Offline Dynoman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 528
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #169 on: May 17, 2011, 08:18:22 am »
Thanks for saving my eyes Orionblamblam. I can only assume that the three indicators are associated with failures or 'alarms' for the augmentation system, since there is one under each axis aug malf annunciator. Is that picture you have available as a high resolution picture?
I'd like to try and recreate that one as well. It looks like one of the latest configurations with switches located along the windows below the hatch.

Offline Catch-22

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 33

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8900
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #171 on: December 09, 2011, 12:25:59 pm »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6727
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #172 on: December 10, 2011, 12:28:43 am »

 
Huh. As it turns out, government propaganda films featuring the Dyna Soar program are endlessly fascinating to some cats.
 
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 Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7194
  • _ \\ //
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #173 on: December 10, 2011, 01:02:48 am »
[chuckles]
To the Stars

Online bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6862
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #174 on: February 03, 2012, 05:30:34 pm »
"The real man smiles in trouble, gathers strength from distress, and grows brave by reflection." - Thomas Paine

"On what principle is it that with nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?" - Lord Macaulay

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8954
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #175 on: February 17, 2012, 10:59:07 am »

Offline magnus_z

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 112
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #176 on: March 09, 2012, 11:11:01 pm »
Interavia: World Review of Aviation and Astronautics. - 1962. - oct. - vol. XVII. - # 10. - p. 1298.

Offline Graham1973

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 821
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #177 on: March 10, 2012, 12:40:05 am »
Courtesy of the 1963 story, "The Trouble With Telstar"

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30679/30679-h/30679-h.htm






The LV looks like a Saturn I derivative

Offline George Allegrezza

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 679
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #178 on: April 13, 2012, 08:47:28 am »
Martin study for USAF on Titan II booster for Dyna-Soar Step I (DS-I).

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740077029_1974077029.pdf

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1601
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #179 on: April 13, 2012, 05:09:51 pm »
They did a nice job scanning that document. There are some good images near the back.

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3537
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #180 on: April 14, 2012, 03:27:06 am »
The Cover art and illustration  was made by SF-master Artist John Schoenherr  B)
I love Strange Technology

Offline Graham1973

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 821
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #181 on: April 19, 2012, 03:24:51 am »
The Cover art and illustration  was made by SF-master Artist John Schoenherr  B)

Isn't the the artist who created the Wookies? See "And Seven Times Never Kill Man" by George R R Martin.


Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3537
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #182 on: April 19, 2012, 06:19:38 am »
The Cover art and illustration  was made by SF-master Artist John Schoenherr  B)

Isn't the the artist who created the Wookies? See "And Seven Times Never Kill Man" by George R R Martin.


Nope that is official Ralph McQuarrie
but there some interesting "analog" with this Analog issue from 1975 and design process on wookies in 1976  ::)

http://www.geekosystem.com/chewbacca-origin/

and now back to Dynasoar project

Martin proposed begin 1960s a large Booster build from cluster of Titan-1 tanks and F-1 engine
as payload for manned lunar mission the illustration show a Dynasoar like glider !
I love Strange Technology

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2048
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #183 on: April 19, 2012, 07:42:05 am »
You're talking about the Arcturus booster, right?
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3537
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #184 on: April 19, 2012, 09:15:23 am »
You're talking about the Arcturus booster, right?


yes that the one
I love Strange Technology

Offline The Artist

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 517
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #185 on: July 20, 2012, 08:25:19 pm »
Just back from a trip to Dallas / Fort Worth with Mark N. and Rich D. I saw this interesting item in a case at the Vought Retired Employees archives.

This was not a high-speed model as it appeared to have been made with blown plastic. This is only the nose section of a larger model. (No. I did not see the rest of the model.) I have no information of the model number. Additional pictures may follow later.
"Thank you for summing that up."

Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 19495
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #186 on: November 17, 2012, 02:16:29 pm »
My dear Michel Van,

it is North American jet-back booster,it was deigned in 1959 for the Boeing
Dyna Soar,clearly shows the Navaho and X-15 based on.

As the drawings;

 1)  PL-3347
 2)  PL-3295
 3)  PL-3298
 4)  PL-3299

The later one was appeared in the book, The X-planes X-1 to X-45.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19780073127_1978073127.pdf
« Last Edit: September 08, 2014, 04:49:11 am by hesham »

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3537
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #187 on: November 18, 2012, 09:01:42 am »
Big THX for new picture, hesham
I love Strange Technology

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 19495
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #188 on: November 18, 2012, 01:34:28 pm »
My dear Michel Van,

it is North American jet-back booster,it was deigned in 1959 for the Boeing
Dyna Soar,clearly shows the Navaho and X-15 based on.

As the drawings;

 1)  PL-3347
 2)  PL-3295
 3)  PL-3298
 4)  PL-3299

The later one was appeared in the book, The X-planes X-1 to X-45.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19780073127_1978073127.pdf


Thank you my dear Michel,


and for the NAA designation,PL series,are those right ?.

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 19495

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 19495
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #190 on: December 10, 2012, 02:14:55 pm »

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 12922
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #191 on: December 10, 2012, 04:13:52 pm »
here is the Convair CTV (report FZP-068);

The Convair CTV (Dyna-Soar proposal) was also in Report FZP-067 as follows:

FZP-067    1958-03    Dyna-Soar I CTV (Conceptual Test Vehicle): General Management Proposal for Dyna-Soar Program (System 464L) - General Management Section
FZP-068    1958-03    Dyna-Soar I CTV (Conceptual Test Vehicle): General Management Proposal for Dyna-Soar Program (System 464L) - Technical Approach Section

Offline OM

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 753
    • OMBlog
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #192 on: December 16, 2012, 02:49:33 am »
here is the Convair CTV (report FZP-068);

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19780075344_1978075344.pdf


...Jeez, and as if the stress factors involved in adapting Mercury to the Atlas wasn't pushing materials sciences as it was. Did they honestly expect the aerodynamics of the orbiter to compensate for the pencilnecking - bottlenecking doesn't do that attachment justice - or is there something in the structure that I'm missing here other than "and in between A and C is B, where B is defined as 'a miracle happens'."??

Offline Retrofit

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 492
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #193 on: December 16, 2012, 05:27:23 am »
FZP-068    1958-03    Dyna-Soar I CTV (Conceptual Test Vehicle): General Management Proposal for Dyna-Soar Program (System 464L) - Technical Approach Section
Any link to this "Technical Approach Section" document?
 
I don't know if the two following documents have been already posted:
Martin "Project Dynasoar General Management Proposal" (24 march 1958): http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19780075329_1978075329.pdf
Boeing Proposal (24 march 1958): http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19780075341_1978075341.pdf
 
« Last Edit: December 16, 2012, 05:33:30 am by Retrofit »

Offline Bill Walker

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 482
  • Per Ardua ad Nauseum
    • Canadian Military aircraft Serial Numbers
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #194 on: December 16, 2012, 07:42:43 am »
Thanks to everybody that has contributed to this thread.  I love the Dynasoar.

Following up on OM's post about requiring miracles, I'm often amazed at some of the "minor" secondary projects spun off main projects back then.  Can you imagine asking your design team, who are struggling with the Dynasoar, that they need to also whip off a multi-hundred ton VTO supersonic carrier.  In their spare time, perhaps.
Bill Walker

Offline OM

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 753
    • OMBlog
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #195 on: December 16, 2012, 04:03:55 pm »
Following up on OM's post about requiring miracles, I'm often amazed at some of the "minor" secondary projects spun off main projects back then.


...IIRC, the way the story goes is this: a major agricultural conglomerate hired some famous SDI R&D guy to develop a method for killing all the bugs in a crop field. The R&D guy turned down several dozen offers from this conglomerate before finally taking the exorbitant amount of cash and prizes they offered just for playing - even though pesticide research was *not* the same thing as frying Soviet missiles from orbit. He told them that repeatedly, but apparently nobody wearing a suit was listening. They just handed him the cash and told him to get to work.


...A year went by, and the suits finally started getting concerned about the expenditures, and asked for a status briefing. The R&D guy came in with a diagram showing how his process would work. The de-bugger ray would kill all the bugs in view of a picture, which he showed both before and after the crop was zapped. In between the two photos, there was a big blank box. When queried as to what happens in the big blank box, the R&D guy replied 'A miracle".


The suits knew they'd been had, and they also realized they'd known it all along. And to top it all off, they wrote the guy a bonus check and quietly let him go back to what he was doing to begin with.

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7601
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #196 on: December 22, 2012, 02:29:58 am »
A well-narrated story !   ;)
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline samardza

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 5
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #197 on: December 22, 2012, 02:50:16 pm »
has anyone other than me compared the dimensions of the X-37B and the X-20, including the cross section and payload bay dimensions?

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3537
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #198 on: January 07, 2013, 10:45:36 am »
has anyone other than me compared the dimensions of the X-37B and the X-20, including the cross section and payload bay dimensions?
Me with surprise result !
what ever X-20, ALSV and X-37B had to carry, it has similar size:

X-20, Equipment compartment:  1.20 m x 1.89 m (assumption after technical drawing on X-20)
ALSV, Payload bay size: 1.52 m x 2.74 m
X-37B, payload bay size: 1.2 m x 2.1 m
I love Strange Technology

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1601
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #199 on: January 08, 2013, 09:34:44 pm »
has anyone other than me compared the dimensions of the X-37B and the X-20, including the cross section and payload bay dimensions?
Me with surprise result !
what ever X-20, ALSV and X-37B had to carry, it has similar size:

X-20, Equipment compartment:  1.20 m x 1.89 m (assumption after technical drawing on X-20)
ALSV, Payload bay size: 1.52 m x 2.74 m
X-37B, payload bay size: 1.2 m x 2.1 m

I think you are jumping to conclusions. There is no payload that would have stayed the same size in 1960, 1980 and 2010.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6727
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #200 on: January 09, 2013, 12:08:03 am »
There is no payload that would have stayed the same size in 1960, 1980 and 2010.

Passengers.
 
Not saying that the X-37 is going to be a taxi, just pointing out that people are more or less the same size.
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 Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3537
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #201 on: January 09, 2013, 01:02:11 am »
oh yes Passengers do not downsize over 5 decades  ;)
also not Optical equipment like Cameras, because the focal length of the lens.
or Antennas for Radar scanner.
I love Strange Technology

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 19495
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #202 on: February 07, 2013, 05:47:14 am »
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720063130_1972063130.pdf

U.S. AIR FORCE -
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS
AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
JOINT CONFERENCE
ON
LIFTING MANNED HYPERVELOCITY
AND REENTRY VEHICLES

A COMPILATION OF THE PAPERS PRESENTED

PART II

April 13-1 4,1960



Guys this is 394 pages long. So it will take a bit to open. Enjoy.

Moonbat


http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720063130_1972063130.pdf


From the same source.

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 19495
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #203 on: February 07, 2013, 05:49:16 am »
And;


Offline archipeppe

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1457
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #204 on: February 07, 2013, 07:42:35 am »
Great find Hesham!!!!


Thanks for it....

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3537
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #205 on: February 07, 2013, 07:59:25 am »
Titan-i with Centaur ?!
what for a Surprise, extent find Hesham !
« Last Edit: February 07, 2013, 08:40:08 am by Michel Van »
I love Strange Technology

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 19495
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #206 on: February 07, 2013, 08:07:47 am »
Thank you my dears Archipeppa and Michel.

Offline RanulfC

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 418
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #207 on: February 27, 2013, 01:36:42 pm »
Interesting paper on "PRELIMINARY PERFORMANCE APJALYSIS OF AIR LAUNCHING
MANNED ORBITAL VEHICLES*"
 
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720063744_1972063744.pdf
 
AKA: How to launch a Dynasoar and booster :)
 
Randy

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6727
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #208 on: March 06, 2013, 09:05:59 am »
Drawings that will eventually be in APR V3N4.
 
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 nugo

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 323
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #209 on: May 09, 2013, 11:01:23 am »
     Hi All!

   Boeing Model 814
   Convair Model ?
   Douglas Model 1???
   Lockheed Model CL-4?? (or CL-3??)
   Martin/Bell Model  3??/Bell Model D-1?? or D-2??
   McDonnell Model 132A-C
   North American X-15B (Model  ?)
   Northrop Model  1?? or Model 2??
   Republic Model AP-9? (or AP-8?)
  If you can write about Dyna Soar/X-20?

Offline carmelo

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 190
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #210 on: October 10, 2013, 07:33:04 am »
Was the X-20 Dyna Soar a reusable spaceplane?
Or every mission would have a brand new X-20?
And if reusable,how many could perform?

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1601
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #211 on: October 10, 2013, 12:50:26 pm »
Was the X-20 Dyna Soar a reusable spaceplane?
Or every mission would have a brand new X-20?
And if reusable,how many could perform?

The plan was for it to be reusable.

But keep in mind that the "X" meant that it was experimental, so they did not know how well it would perform and how many times they could fly it. Also, it would only be flown as many times as they needed to collect the data.

One of the problems with the X-20--and really the thing that led to its cancellation--was that it was not a clearly focused program. It was called an experimental X-plane program, but the Air Force really wanted it to fly operational missions. It was too expensive for an X-plane, and it was too unproven to do operational missions. So it got canceled.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6727
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #212 on: October 11, 2013, 11:40:50 pm »
Lockheeds System 464L Dyna Soar submission of 1958. Source

This design was suborbital, and did not quite fulfill the performance requirements of System 464L.
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 Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6727
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #213 on: October 12, 2013, 12:24:59 pm »
McDonnell's System 464L submission from 1958. Data is very lean on this; how, if the Lockheed design wasn't capable of attaining orbit, the McDonnell design would've, I've no idea unless it had a substantial on-board propulsion system.

Source

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 hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 19495
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #214 on: October 12, 2013, 03:30:40 pm »
Amazing projects as usual my dear Scott,


thank you for sharing us.

Offline OM

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 753
    • OMBlog
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #215 on: October 12, 2013, 07:25:14 pm »
McDonnell's System 464L submission from 1958. Data is very lean on this; how, if the Lockheed design wasn't capable of attaining orbit, the McDonnell design would've, I've no idea unless it had a substantial on-board propulsion system.


...If the two diagrams are from the same proposal set, I suggest that the Atlas Adapter also contains the engine(s), which get(s) jettisoned once the fuel in the onboard tanks are exhausted. IIRC there were a couple of post-Columbia Shuttle replacements proposed that called for the SSMEs to be tossed, and at least one similar Buran pitch was talked about on .shuttle some years ago as well.


...That being said, that first image you posted sports an awfully thin wing area. In fact, I'm more apt to call it a "flying spade" more than some actually referred to the X-20 as being. I'd love to see if any actual wind tunnel tests were done with scale models of this design, not to mention the data.


:OM:

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3537
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #216 on: November 22, 2013, 04:59:18 am »
You Tube is your friend

take 15 minute and feast you eyes on this

X-20 Dyna-Soar Development: "Springboard to Space: The Arnold Center Story" 1965 USAF


The Story of Dyna-Soar - United States Air Force (loud intro!!!)

Test of Spacesuit on X-20 Part one

Test of Spacesuit on X-20 Part two


NASA Langley Research Center film # L-591 on Dyna Soar



NASA Langley film # L-742 Landing Characteristics of a Winged Reentry Vehicle



I love Strange Technology

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6727
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #217 on: June 21, 2014, 09:27:12 pm »
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 Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3537
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #218 on: June 22, 2014, 11:43:51 am »
Ahem:

93 pages of Dyna Soar.



a must read 93 pages, for those who got big Dyna Soar book from Apogee Books
get Aerospace Project Review V3N4 to get complete  overview on Dyna Soar project.
I love Strange Technology

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6727
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #219 on: June 22, 2014, 04:52:24 pm »
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 antigravite

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 549
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #220 on: July 07, 2014, 02:09:35 pm »
Enjoy this scanned article just found by accident.

This source material has not been posted here yet. AFAIK, none of this material is posted on this forum, and I don't know to which extend we can.

David STERN, "Martin Bell's Alternate 1958 DynaSoar I studies revealed", QUEST, 15:1, 2008, pp.22-32

http://thehuwaldtfamily.org/jtrl/vehicle_data/X-Vehicles/X-20/Martin-Bell's%20Alternate%201958%20Dyna-Soar%20Studies,%20Quest%20V15N1,%202008.pdf

This material is available from a family-owned website operated by Joe who described this material as follows:"Welcome to my personal collection of technical reports. Most of the reports in this archive are related to my 20 some years as an aerospace engineer. However there are also reports and historical documents covering a broad array of scientific, engineering, mathematical, computer graphics, and computer programming subjects. All of the material in this archive should be public domain (most of it was created by United States Government agencies such as NASA) and I have filtered out any material from my private collection that is restricted by U.S. export laws."
source : http://thehuwaldtfamily.org/jtrl/

A.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
L e t   b o l d s   b e   l i g h t
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Offline OM

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 753
    • OMBlog
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #221 on: July 24, 2014, 08:15:53 pm »
[...] how, if the Lockheed design wasn't capable of attaining orbit, the McDonnell design would've, I've no idea unless it had a substantial on-board propulsion system.


...There had to be *something* in mind. Lookit how it damned near dwarfs the Atlas just sitting on top of it. Hell, I've always felt that Dynasoar was sahotage from inside the Pentagon, as they didn't wan anyone working with propulsion technologies that could fit the bill, but the Soviets could easily get ahold of. Not a CT Nutter Mutter from this end, just a "gut feeling". And I"m on my stomach meds, thank you very much :P

:OM:


Offline CNH

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 205
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #223 on: September 09, 2014, 02:48:38 pm »
"What killed Dyna-Soar, ultimately?"

Who needs a manned military capsule? It has no military value at all.

Offline carmelo

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 190
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #224 on: September 10, 2014, 07:58:14 am »

"What killed Dyna-Soar, ultimately?"


Robert McNamara.

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1601
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #225 on: September 12, 2014, 11:33:22 am »

"What killed Dyna-Soar, ultimately?"


Robert McNamara.

It was going to go away on its own no matter what. The Air Force was spending a lot of money on something that had no realistic operational requirement and was too expensive to be merely experimental. The Air Force would have killed it anyway once Vietnam began ramping-up.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6727
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #226 on: September 12, 2014, 03:23:50 pm »
The Northrop N-206 spaceplane, entered into the System 464L competition for the Dyna Soar I/II/III role, 1958. More info in US Bomber Projects issue #9.
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 hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 19495
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #227 on: September 13, 2014, 04:41:00 am »
The Northrop N-206 spaceplane, entered into the System 464L competition for the Dyna Soar I/II/III role, 1958. More info in US Bomber Projects issue #9.


Excellent my dear Scott,and great find.

Offline The Artist

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 517
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #228 on: September 13, 2014, 06:57:22 am »

"What killed Dyna-Soar, ultimately?"


Robert McNamara.

It was going to go away on its own no matter what. The Air Force was spending a lot of money on something that had no realistic operational requirement and was too expensive to be merely experimental. The Air Force would have killed it anyway once Vietnam began ramping-up.

Two down and one to go. The third factor in the death of Dynasoar was Kennedy's Man on the Moon speech and the way the country got behind that effort after he was killed. There was no way that the country was going to support two major space efforts at one time.
"Thank you for summing that up."

Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III

Offline fightingirish

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1864
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #229 on: September 14, 2014, 10:32:47 am »
Slán,
fightingirish

Slán ist an Irish Gaelic word for Goodbye.  :)

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1601
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #230 on: September 15, 2014, 06:54:37 pm »

"What killed Dyna-Soar, ultimately?"


Robert McNamara.

It was going to go away on its own no matter what. The Air Force was spending a lot of money on something that had no realistic operational requirement and was too expensive to be merely experimental. The Air Force would have killed it anyway once Vietnam began ramping-up.

Two down and one to go. The third factor in the death of Dynasoar was Kennedy's Man on the Moon speech and the way the country got behind that effort after he was killed. There was no way that the country was going to support two major space efforts at one time.

I dunno. Remember that they created MOL around the same time. MOL was more focused on an operational mission, and it ultimately became rather expensive.

If you step back from the gee-whiz fanboy view of this period and look at it more objectively, it becomes clear that the Air Force was funding a bunch of big expensive programs that it could not really afford and that did not have clear missions. The B-70 and Dyna-Soar were probably the two best examples. McNamara killed them for good reasons, because they were eating a lot of money and they were not going to achieve any goals that the country really needed. If you look at some other advanced USAF programs of the mid-late 1950s you can see that the Air Force spent a lot of money on projects that didn't last very long. Atlas and Titan I, for instance, had short service lives. Thor also didn't operate for very long. So the Air Force was burning a lot of cash and had to be reigned in, which is what McNamara did.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6727
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #231 on: September 15, 2014, 07:55:00 pm »
Atlas and Titan I, for instance, had short service lives. Thor also didn't operate for very long.

I'm not sure that I agree with you 100% on your police work there, Lou. The Atlas and Thor are still flying *today.* The Titan line only died out in 2005.  Fifty+ years seems like a pretty good run to me.

Had B-70 been allowed to continue, economical SST's *may* have resulted. Had Dyna Soar been allowed to continue, the Shuttle almost absolutely certainly would have been a vastly different program, based not only on Dyna Soar design work but also actual experience with maintenance and operations, and, with luck, ocean recovery of the SRB cases (which UTC examined and proposed). Dyna Soar would have either convinced NASA that the as-built-Shuttle was too hard, or it would have been redesigned to simplify things.
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 carmelo

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 190
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #232 on: September 16, 2014, 01:22:31 pm »

"What killed Dyna-Soar, ultimately?"


Robert McNamara.

It was going to go away on its own no matter what. The Air Force was spending a lot of money on something that had no realistic operational requirement and was too expensive to be merely experimental. The Air Force would have killed it anyway once Vietnam began ramping-up.

Two down and one to go. The third factor in the death of Dynasoar was Kennedy's Man on the Moon speech and the way the country got behind that effort after he was killed. There was no way that the country was going to support two major space efforts at one time.

I dunno. Remember that they created MOL around the same time. MOL was more focused on an operational mission, and it ultimately became rather expensive.

If you step back from the gee-whiz fanboy view of this period and look at it more objectively, it becomes clear that the Air Force was funding a bunch of big expensive programs that it could not really afford and that did not have clear missions. The B-70 and Dyna-Soar were probably the two best examples. McNamara killed them for good reasons, because they were eating a lot of money and they were not going to achieve any goals that the country really needed. If you look at some other advanced USAF programs of the mid-late 1950s you can see that the Air Force spent a lot of money on projects that didn't last very long. Atlas and Titan I, for instance, had short service lives. Thor also didn't operate for very long. So the Air Force was burning a lot of cash and had to be reigned in, which is what McNamara did.

Ironically the senseless,detrimental and harmful war in Vietnam burned a lot of milions, invested in a catastrophic defeat.
At least the Dyna Soar would have been a investiment in a research vehicle for a future space plane.

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #233 on: September 18, 2014, 11:50:05 am »
Atlas and Titan I, for instance, had short service lives. Thor also didn't operate for very long.

I'm not sure that I agree with you 100% on your police work there, Lou. The Atlas and Thor are still flying *today.* The Titan line only died out in 2005.  Fifty+ years seems like a pretty good run to me.
[size=78%].[/size]


Blackstar is right.  He was referring to the ICBM's.  The launch vehicle versions are not the same as the weapon systems.  Comparing the vehicles today to Atlas and Thor of yesteryear is like comparing the 787 to B-29's.

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #234 on: September 18, 2014, 11:56:17 am »

1.  Had B-70 been allowed to continue, economical SST's *may* have resulted.


2.   Had Dyna Soar been allowed to continue, the Shuttle almost absolutely certainly would have been a vastly different program, based not only on Dyna Soar design work but also actual experience with maintenance and operations, and, with luck, ocean recovery of the SRB cases (which UTC examined and proposed). Dyna Soar would have either convinced NASA that the as-built-Shuttle was too hard, or it would have been redesigned to simplify things.


1.  Not really.  The XB-70 contributed all it could to the SST in its research program.  There would have been little to learn from the operational phase.
2.  Nor really.  The issue wasn't that they didn't know enough to design the shuttle for routine O&M, it was that NASA didn't have the money to do it right (much like being forced to go to SRM's vs LRB's)


Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8900
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #235 on: October 10, 2014, 06:45:15 am »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline merriman

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 178
  • David Douglass Merriman lll
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #236 on: October 10, 2014, 11:20:09 am »
The Destination Moon music is a perfect fit for that film.

David
We're the extra fuel they may need, Stanton...

Offline trekkist

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 18
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #237 on: October 15, 2014, 08:04:15 am »
The Apogee book says Dyna's skin was expected to be reusable up to 10 times. I'm unsure how that level of "reusability" compares with the degree to which shuttle orbiters had to be refurbished between flights.


What killed it?
1)JFK/McNamera discomfort with a manned military space program
2)cost/cost overruns/incept delay…latter 2 at least in part result of changes/rethinking of purpose. Dyna itself winnowed down from numerous prior spaceplane studies to a proof of concept vehicle for a future operational vehicle (which a little modified Dyna could have been)


"Useless"?
Imagine first orbit, as I think possible if at some point fast-tracked, by '65-68. Soon after, USAF has potential for a fast-deployment, polar-orbit eyes in the sky response to a sudden event: "What's THAT?"/"Let's take a look" AS WELL AS (given an armed variant) ability to hit OR put up a man to CHOOSE/be told "Go/No go" to hit that Sudden Event.


Would that have been a VITAL need? Given we got by without it, no. Would the observation part of it been quickly overtaken by unmanned spysats? Yep. But it's not just the space fanboy part of me wishes Dyna had flown. Recall the Gemini astronauts' stories of how much they could see from orbit: they located ships at sea by tracing the "contrails" to the little tiny dot at their apex. NASA doubted this at first, but it was so.


IF Dyna had become operational, it might well have remained so, "insulted" by its being military from political manipulations of NASA's budget. Result?
1)No hiatus in manned flight, ever.
2)A small reusable spaceplane as the established baseline of how to reach LEO with people  -- as vs. a big, expensive, twice-lost-in-public spaceplane superseded by CAPSULE). Few people notice when a jet fighter is lost. Would USAF have procured Dynas in such numbers that losing a few would seem as unremarkable? Maybe.
3)an operational piece of LEO infrastructure, to which the USAF could have/would have wanted to add cargo carriers (maybe), small stations (probably), orbital logistics dumps, space tugs, etc.






Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #238 on: October 15, 2014, 12:07:31 pm »

A. What killed it? 1)JFK/McNamera discomfort with a manned military space program2)cost/cost overruns/incept delay…latter 2 at least in part result of changes/rethinking of purpose. Dyna itself winnowed down from numerous prior spaceplane studies to a proof of concept vehicle for a future operational vehicle (which a little modified Dyna could have been)B.  "Useless"?Imagine first orbit, as I think possible if at some point fast-tracked, by '65-68. Soon after, USAF has potential for a fast-deployment, polar-orbit eyes in the sky response to a sudden event: "What's THAT?"/"Let's take a look" AS WELL AS (given an armed variant) ability to hit OR put up a man to CHOOSE/be told "Go/No go" to hit that Sudden Event. Would that have been a VITAL need? Given we got by without it, no. Would the observation part of it been quickly overtaken by unmanned spysats? Yep. But it's not just the space fanboy part of me wishes Dyna had flown. Recall the Gemini astronauts' stories of how much they could see from orbit: they located ships at sea by tracing the "contrails" to the little tiny dot at their apex. NASA doubted this at first, but it was so. C.  IF Dyna had become operational, it might well have remained so, "insulted" by its being military from political manipulations of NASA's budget. Result? 1)No hiatus in manned flight, ever. 2)A small reusable spaceplane as the established baseline of how to reach LEO with people  -- as vs. a big, expensive, twice-lost-in-public spaceplane superseded by CAPSULE). Few people notice when a jet fighter is lost. Would USAF have procured Dynas in such numbers that losing a few would seem as unremarkable? Maybe. 3)an operational piece of LEO infrastructure, to which the USAF could have/would have wanted to add cargo carriers (maybe), small stations (probably), orbital logistics dumps, space tugs, etc.



A.  Lack of credible mission.  It was sold on operational capabilities that it couldn't.  It just should have been an X plane


B.  Yes, very useless.    It is impossible for any vehicle flying from VAFB to allowable inclinations to do a first orbit flyover.  Anyways, if Dynasoar could do it, then an unmanned vehicle could do it better and quicker.  No need to load a man in it, just launch it.


C.  No, that is just space fanboy wishing.  1, 2 or 3 not credible.  Any loss of a manned spacecraft (specially in that timeframe) would have been an issue.  50 years later the USAF still has no need for [size=78%] [/size][size=78%]cargo carriers (maybe), small stations (probably), orbital logistics dumps, space tugs, etc.[/size]
« Last Edit: October 15, 2014, 12:18:05 pm by Byeman »

Offline trekkist

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 18
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #239 on: October 15, 2014, 10:16:49 pm »
In effect, it was an X-plane…it consolidated as "unfit at present for operational capabilities" a number of X projects preceding it. Various capabilities were proposed by Boeing, but the USAF, IIRC, didn't explicitly declare the DynaSoar would itself have served any of those roles. I think of it as akin to the first military Wright Flier…a proof-of-concept vehicle, which might have been tasked to attempt the sorts of things I cited, had it flown.


I won't argue Vandenburg-no-first-pass flyover; I don't know orbital mechanics, and presume you do. But I do think that, had the AF flown the thing, they'd have fought hard to try using it. Could be the X-20 would have been more akin to an experimental VTOL of the era than the "first military plane" -- but to my mind, the first manned spaceplane is different in kind from an aircraft, whereas a VTOL differs but in degree.


An unmanned vehicle could have done it better and quicker…but by what date did the first such occur? As I recall, MOL was bested by spysats only some years later. I posited a (perhaps technically as well as politically infeasible) early first launch date

as my argument's basis, saying then that had the thing existed, the USAF would have fought not just to keep it, but to improve on its capabilities (stations, depots etc). This competition (manned/unmanned) would in the long run have been lost -- but in the short run? Manned bombers didn't die due to missiles, and may still take some time to die due to drones…and that's in an era without a Cold War. Drop the X-20 onto the scene circa '65-68, I'm not wholly convinced a niche wouldn't have been found for it.


Are there any USAF vets on here? Be interesting to hear their take on this.


Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #240 on: October 16, 2014, 10:30:50 am »

1.  An unmanned vehicle could have done it better and quicker…but by what date did the first such occur? As I recall, MOL was bested by spysats only some years later. I posited a (perhaps technically as well as politically infeasible) early first launch date

2.  as my argument's basis, saying then that had the thing existed, the USAF would have fought not just to keep it, but to improve on its capabilities (stations, depots etc). This competition (manned/unmanned) would in the long run have been lost -- but in the short run? Manned bombers didn't die due to missiles, and may still take some time to die due to drones…and that's in an era without a Cold War.


3. Drop the X-20 onto the scene circa '65-68, I'm not wholly convinced a niche wouldn't have been found for it.



1.  MOL was bested years before it was cancelled, that is why it was canceled.


2.  In space, drones already dominated, before there was manned capability. It would be going backwards. 


3. No niche because it was too expensive for the little if any utility it provided




Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1601
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #241 on: October 16, 2014, 10:50:17 am »
This is something that comes up from time to time with some programs--at what point is an "operational" mission too poorly-defined and risky to be developed? And at what point is an "experimental" mission too expensive and open-ended to not get funded?

Dyna-Soar could have done stuff, sure. It could have pushed the technology boundaries. And it possibly could have done some operational missions. But it was going to be very expensive for an X-plane, and very expensive for an operational mission with questionable usefulness.

I'm doubtful about the claim that McNamara was against human spaceflight. When he canceled Dyna-Soar he also approved MOL, and MOL became an expensive manned spaceflight program. The first MOL astronaut class was announced in 1965. So he was willing to continue a military man in space program, just not Dyna-Soar.

Offline trekkist

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 18
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #242 on: October 18, 2014, 11:17:41 am »
Did McNamera ever utter a word re: Dyna subsequent to its cancellation? I've read some of his books, and found naught on the subject.


I've read Houchin's work too, which suggests to me the definitive last word on cancellation issues has yet to be written, and won't be, save a researcher takes up the task…which it's probably nearly too late for, what with everyone on site at the time being by now dead, or damn nearly.


KH-9 Hexagon flew 1971; MOL died 1969. Operationally, it wasn't bested before it flew, save perhaps in conceptual anticipation of KH-9's inception.


Drones did of course dominate; satellites proliferated and improved far more quickly than progress toward manned operational on-orbit capability developed. And yes, the Soviets "proved" men provided "little utility," IF one presumes MOL could not have bested Salyut/Almaz in that regard.


Which is the germ of my argument: an untried/undemonstrated manned orbital recon effort by U.S. technology (presumably then, if not now, somewhat superior to Soviet) can't really be contrasted with a demonstrated (and as of Hexagon, perhaps demonstrably superior) spy sat capability. Nor can that comparison offer credible proof it "should not" have been tried.


Let alone that unexpected aspects to manned operations might have emerged.


"What good's man in space?"/"Let's put some up and find out"/"Nah, we don't have to, now that Hexagon's flying"/"Don't HAVE TO explore the question, you mean?"/"Right. Therefore, we shouldn't, and Hexagon's answered it anyway"/"Uh…the question wasn't ABOUT Hexagon"/"What question?"

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1601
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #243 on: October 19, 2014, 07:30:16 pm »
KH-9 Hexagon flew 1971; MOL died 1969. Operationally, it wasn't bested before it flew, save perhaps in conceptual anticipation of KH-9's inception.


I find your writing style to be very odd and confusing, so I'm not going to bother with replying to most of it.

As for your above statement, MOL was not a direct competitor in terms of capabilities to any other system. It occupied a niche of its own. It provided high resolution capability, but the GAMBIT-3 was already doing that by 1966 and it kept getting better. The only thing that MOL could really add was the ability to go after more targets (because somebody was pointing it at the best targets). But that was a very narrow improvement over the capability that they already had with G3. And once the HEXAGON came along, it had pretty impressive resolution and covered ALL the targets, so it was no longer a question of pointing at the best ones during each pass, it just got them all, all the time.

The first MOL launch was scheduled for 1972 and was probably going to slip, so it just wasn't going to come online before HEXAGON.

Offline trekkist

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 18
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #244 on: October 20, 2014, 05:55:17 am »

You're right. I've been putting too much emphasis on MOL's "niche." Thank you for setting me straight.

>I find your writing style to be very odd and confusing, so I'm not going to bother with replying to most of it.
[/size]
[/size]My apologies. I don't try to be hard to follow. I've heard the complaint from someone else recently. Unless you're the same person!

[/size]Do others agree with Blackstar on this? It's a sincere question. No person with ideas wishes to be misunderstood.

[/size]What style suggestions would you offer? Word usage, sentence length, too many parenthesis, others?

[/size]My suggestion is you try reading a sentence aloud to yourself, applying tone of voice to stuff in [/size]parenthesis.

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #245 on: October 20, 2014, 10:36:07 am »

KH-9 Hexagon flew 1971; MOL died 1969. Operationally, it wasn't bested before it flew, save perhaps in conceptual anticipation of KH-9's inception.

It was bested by "GAMBIT-3 was already doing that by 1966 and it kept getting better. "

hich is the germ of my argument: an untried/undemonstrated manned orbital recon effort by U.S. technology (presumably then, if not now, somewhat superior to Soviet) can't really be contrasted with a demonstrated (and as of Hexagon, perhaps demonstrably superior) spy sat capability. Nor can that comparison offer credible proof it "should not" have been tried.
Let alone that unexpected aspects to manned operations might have emerged.


The capabilities and results of the existing systems was known so that a trial with a manned system was not needed.


Any aspects that would have emerged would have been minor and overshadowed by the drawbacks of a manned operations (vibration, extra systems, extra consumables, more mass, more constraints, etc)


Skylab used a manned tended solar telescope but it could operate in the unmanned mode.  It was found that there was no advantage. 
« Last Edit: October 20, 2014, 10:50:57 am by Byeman »

Offline carmelo

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 190
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #246 on: October 20, 2014, 01:56:25 pm »
The truth is that should have choose a more simple fast and soonest thing..for exemple  an Apollo capsule with a telescope module.
Launch the Apollo with a Saturn IB,make a docking manovre with the telescope module (in Apollo/LEM or Apollo/ASTPDocking Module mode),
and beginning to spy.
More,you share hardware with NASA and save cost.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2014, 03:14:31 pm by carmelo »

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #247 on: October 20, 2014, 06:28:06 pm »
The truth is that should have choose a more simple fast and soonest thing..for exemple  an Apollo capsule with a telescope module.
Launch the Apollo with a Saturn IB,make a docking manovre with the telescope module (in Apollo/LEM or Apollo/ASTPDocking Module mode),
and beginning to spy.
More,you share hardware with NASA and save cost.


Why bother with the Apollo.?  It adds nothing but cost.  The crew in Apollo can't see through the optics of the telescope, so what is the point of flying it with a manned spacecraft.

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1601
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #248 on: October 20, 2014, 09:39:31 pm »
The truth is that should have choose a more simple fast and soonest thing..for exemple  an Apollo capsule with a telescope module.
Launch the Apollo with a Saturn IB,make a docking manovre with the telescope module (in Apollo/LEM or Apollo/ASTPDocking Module mode),
and beginning to spy.
More,you share hardware with NASA and save cost.

No, there was no point to that.

I sat down with a couple of MOL astronauts a few weeks ago and they explained how operations would have worked with MOL. They had a very sophisticated computer targeting system that showed them what targets were coming up on each pass and they would look at them with spotting scopes, figure out if they were clear or important, and prioritize them with the computer system which would then control the big camera. Human operations only made sense if you had that computer prioritization system and a really powerful camera. The UPWARD approach used a camera (the KH-7 GAMBIT-1) that was already obsolete. And it would not have had the targeting computer. No point.

MOL satisfied a small niche requirement. And it was expensive. Maybe if they had gotten one or two of them up it might have demonstrated some valuable capability. But the robots (KH-4, 7, 8, eventually 9) were already working, and they were reliable, and they were getting better all the time. They did the job and eventually they did the job very very well.

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1556
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #249 on: October 22, 2014, 10:52:52 am »
Quote
They had a very sophisticated computer targeting system that showed them what targets were coming up on each pass and they would look at them with spotting scopes, figure out if they were clear or important, and prioritize them with the computer system which would then control the big camera.

Trying to picture this in my head - of astronauts peering at Earth (Soviet!) surface much like submariners looking through a periscope. Then entering the data into a 60's-fashioned computer - huge, noisy, heating like hell, with a ridiculous small storage capacity. And then the huge camera move into action, filling long rolls of films latter carried into the Gemini B or an unmanned reentry vehicle at the back of the MOL. 

My personnal opinion is: this is better than any sci-fi or James Bond ! at times reality beats fiction hands down.

(Jim won't like the following because there are mention of Big Gemini inside)

In my own little alternate history where the shuttle gets canned late 1971 by Weinberger's OMB, Big Gemini is used by NASA and, off the shelf, by USAF - with a pair of leftover MOL camera systems that were held in storage.
This is somewhat similar to second hand KH-9 mapping cameras that were carried by space shuttles in the 80's (or that concept of putting the last KH-9, the test article into a shuttle bay, turning the shuttle into a space SR-71)
« Last Edit: October 22, 2014, 11:45:39 am by Archibald »
Conservatoire de l'Air et de l'Espace d'Aquitaine - Bordeaux - Mérignac / Dassault aviation museum
http://www.caea.info/en/plan.php

Offline carmelo

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 190
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #250 on: October 22, 2014, 12:56:53 pm »

I sat down with a couple of MOL astronauts a few weeks ago and they explained how operations would have worked with MOL.

Please,if you contact they again you can ask they three  questions?

1-They have wear the MOL spacesuit,and if yes in which configuration (blue or with the white termal overgarnment)?

2-they have training in the maneuver ingress to laboratory  through the hatch in the heat shield?

3-They have make EVA simulations?

Thanks.  ;)


Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1601
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #251 on: October 22, 2014, 01:22:57 pm »

I sat down with a couple of MOL astronauts a few weeks ago and they explained how operations would have worked with MOL.

Please,if you contact they again you can ask they three  questions?

1-They have wear the MOL spacesuit,and if yes in which configuration (blue or with the white termal overgarnment)?

2-they have training in the maneuver ingress to laboratory  through the hatch in the heat shield?

3-They have make EVA simulations?

Thanks.  ;)

I asked 2 and 3. Yes, they did train in maneuvering through the hatch. One of them even did a training on the Vomit Comet where he had to get out of his Gemini seat, turn around, climb into the tunnel, and move through the tunnel, all in 20 second increments. He said that it was a very unpleasant experiment.

(Note: there were underwater experiments involving the hatch and tunnel, but I suspect that these were performed by engineers developing the system and not by the astronauts, at least not early on.)

They did some underwater training, although memories are vague here. One of them remembers an underwater tank at Huntington Beach. There was also some underwater training on the east coast (I forget, but there were facilities in the Keys and Bermuda).

But they did no "mission specific training" and most of what they did was program management, NOT training. When you think of astronauts you think of them doing simulations, training in spacesuits, etc. But most of what the MOL guys did was oversee development of the equipment and give the engineers an astronaut perspective on how to design things. It's like what the NASA astronauts did for the shuttle program during the 1970s.

Offline carmelo

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 190
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #252 on: October 25, 2014, 08:33:26 am »
Fantastic,thanks!
I would be happy to see pictures of Robert Crippen or Karol Bobko,or Dick Truly in MOL space suit! :D
   Somewhere must exist!
This secret on MOL stuff is irritating. :-\
« Last Edit: October 25, 2014, 08:37:08 am by carmelo »

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3537
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #253 on: October 26, 2014, 02:13:25 pm »

Please,if you contact they again you can ask they three  questions?

1-They have wear the MOL spacesuit,and if yes in which configuration (blue or with the white termal overgarnment)?

Blue suits are  for ground use: training et
white Suits are for Flights. Dyna soar had something similar except fight suits were aluminized. 

2-they have training in the maneuver ingress to laboratory  through the hatch in the heat shield?

yes in Water tanks and in Aircraft was test went very well for soft suite not for hard suits...

3-They have make EVA simulations?
so far i know they had made, those test in Aircraft as they looking EVA transfer from Gemini to Lab.

Thanks.  ;)
you welcome but there ist a MOL threat in this Forum
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,4024.0.html
I love Strange Technology

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7601
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #254 on: November 18, 2014, 01:38:46 am »
With regards to the post here
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3052.msg97224.html#msg97224

I got the comment by Bomiwriter:
"the lenticular spacecraft is one of a series from Boeing's PARSECS Project...this one to orbit Mars, map it and do other things a robotic spacecraft does."

and for the posts
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3052.msg100855.html#msg100855
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3052.msg101811.html#msg101811
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3052.msg102256.html#msg102256

"Boeing's DS gliders were I.D'd by Model number...the last series was Model 844-2050E humpback seen with-without transtage."

"Boeing DS gliders were not X-20 till Mack the Knife demanded USAF redesignate it in 1962.  ALSO,
various versions could carry up to 6-8 pax depending upon what model and mission"

Thought it best to add them here.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2014, 01:43:48 am by Jemiba »
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 19495
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #255 on: November 28, 2014, 03:52:52 am »
We still love this artist drawing.


 

Offline robunos

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1611
  • You're Mad, You Are.....
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #256 on: November 28, 2014, 11:16:59 am »
In reality, would it not have been 'upside down' at this point in it's trajectory, like the Space Shuttle ?

cheers,
            Robin.
Where ARE the Daleks when you need them......

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #257 on: November 30, 2014, 01:32:43 pm »
In reality, would it not have been 'upside down' at this point in it's trajectory, like the Space Shuttle ?



No.


a.  The shuttle in the last 30 or flights rolled heads up.  This was done for TDRSS coverage
b.  the shuttle flew "upside down" because of wing loading in the early portion of the flight
c.  Also, the shuttle flew "upside down" so that the crew could see the horizon in case of aborts.  Dynasoar had its forward windows covered

Offline robunos

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1611
  • You're Mad, You Are.....
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #258 on: November 30, 2014, 02:43:58 pm »
I see... thanks for that...

cheers,
            Robin.
Where ARE the Daleks when you need them......

Offline Bomiwriter

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • **
  • Posts: 58
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #259 on: January 17, 2015, 12:59:55 am »
Having seen Orion's Martin Dyna Soar drawings, he must have visited the Niagara Aerospace Museum behind me...sort of following in my footsteps so to speak!
 
The Arnold Wind Tunnel Boeing Dyna Soar is for real folks!  I interviewed two Boeing model builders who traveled with the very large model...they also set up the model in the Arnold tunnel and looked after it during and after testes were completed.  Furthermore, one became a very close friend and shared some "inside" information since he was initially hired on as a machinist.  The Model Shop found out and got their hands on him, where he did outstanding model building work.  The Arnold model was the largets BAC Dyna Soar to be constructed and the belly consisted of long aluminum "U" shaped channels side by side; the rest of course was constructed of sheet metal.  They were not hypersonic tunnel tests but lower speed tests, and numerous of them occurred at many Institutes, not just Boeing who owned and operated a hypersonic blow-down tunnel at the edge of Boeing Field.  They also had a supersonic wind tunnel but took their smaller Dyna Soar models to the University of Washington's low speed tunnel for tests as well.  My friend traveled up there by car, and with custom made cases housing the Dyna Soar models, and any sting attachment items needed.  The U of Washington's Aeronautics section helped test the models, but all photos and data went back with either an accompanying engineer or the tunnel troops accompanying the models.  I believe its top speed was around 350 mph...many of the Boeing commercial transport configs were also tested there.
Boeing recently or pulled out of their secret storage unit somewhere in the Kent/Auburn valley, a 1/3 or so size Dyna Soar model and it is now hung at the Aerodynamics department at Purdue University!  Meaning...who knows but the Shadow and their Mommy, who talks not to us mortals, but obviously Purdue also was involved in fine tuning the aerodynamics of Boeing's design.  Numerous small models of the Martin-Bell and Boeing Dyna Soar Configs were constructed by Arnold model builder and tested at Arnold's wind tunnels.
I still maintain that the December, 1959 BoMi Division (Bell teamed with Martin formed this branch with that name) configuration seen on DVD that comes the Canadian author's book was a viable and workable design except for the wrong nose design, and cheaper without a raised cockpit canopy as was Boeing's expensive design.  The periscope system and angled forward fuselage where the portholes were located were slanted enough for the pilot to see out the portholes but at a shallow angle forward, plus the periscope view was considered viable enough for a pilot  to land the glider, despite its very high landing speed...I believe, somewhat higher than X-15.   The Bell X-16 utilized a periscope allowing a view below...watch out for da Migs, and their boost-gliders all utilized one as well.  The forward cockpit bulkhead on all Bell boost-gliders and their Dyna Soar designs was filled with instruments and some switches.  I also see that Orion overboard embellishing the April, 1959 Martin-Bell Dyna Soar.  It was black with white USAF letters and tail numbers...not this somewhat kinky-wierd "commercial-glitzy" decoration or whatever you want to call it!
Nuff said.
Bomiwriter
 
 

Offline carmelo

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 190
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #260 on: January 17, 2015, 03:57:32 pm »
But at this point the question is this:
If YOU were Secretary of Defense in 1963,would cancelled the Dyna Soar program?

Online bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6862
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #261 on: January 17, 2015, 04:10:38 pm »
But at this point the question is this:
If YOU were Secretary of Defense in 1963,would cancelled the Dyna Soar program?


Me? Nope I would have built nuclear space bombers, about 500 WS-120As, hundreds of Skybolts and a few hundred B-70's
"The real man smiles in trouble, gathers strength from distress, and grows brave by reflection." - Thomas Paine

"On what principle is it that with nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?" - Lord Macaulay

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3537
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #262 on: January 18, 2015, 02:13:22 am »
But at this point the question is this:
If YOU were Secretary of Defense in 1963,would cancelled the Dyna Soar program?

let look what got
in 1950s Dyna Soar had to build for Bomber/ reconnaissance with option to intercept enemy satellite and destroy them
in 1960s the Bomber role was taken by ICBM and unmanned  reconnaissance satellite make relative good job
so  what to do with that Dyna Soar ?

as Secretary of Defense, i would transform it into X-20 research program of NASA and USAF
testing area beyond the X-15 capabilities and make one orbit flights from Florida and land in California.

on the rest:
i try to get WS120A true capitol hill
bury the Xb-70 project, too expensive to build and operate.
I would order R&D on low cost Bomber for low level approach in style of B-1 with Mach 2
and Most important not push NAVY and USAF to one aircraft can do for everything you can think of...
I love Strange Technology

Offline carmelo

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 190
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #263 on: January 19, 2015, 07:18:42 pm »
But at this point the question is this:
If YOU were Secretary of Defense in 1963,would cancelled the Dyna Soar program?

l

as Secretary of Defense, i would transform it into X-20 research program of NASA and USAF
testing area beyond the X-15 capabilities and make one orbit flights from Florida and land in California.



+ 1
I agree.

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #264 on: January 20, 2015, 07:29:54 am »

Me? Nope I would have built nuclear space bombers, about 500 WS-120As, hundreds of Skybolts and a few hundred B-70's


And for what purpose?  History has shown that what was done was adequate for the job.  All those would be unnecessary and a waste.

Online bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6862
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #265 on: January 20, 2015, 10:30:45 am »

Me? Nope I would have built nuclear space bombers, about 500 WS-120As, hundreds of Skybolts and a few hundred B-70's


And for what purpose?  History has shown that what was done was adequate for the job.  All those would be unnecessary and a waste.

To what end - to show the Soviets that they could never hope to compete with US in the military technological arms race and that we will "bear any burden" in defense of liberty to paraphrase JFK. By shelving all these strategic weapons concepts we basically said to the USSR, hey we don't mind parity if it makes you feel better. McNamara said as much when he cancelled so many projects.

History has shown...........yes after another 30 years history did show, if only we knew what the future held back then.

I am also not going to refight with you the history of the Cold War it has been done on other threads and it turns into a pointless back and forth between people who won't change their minds.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2015, 10:45:28 am by bobbymike »
"The real man smiles in trouble, gathers strength from distress, and grows brave by reflection." - Thomas Paine

"On what principle is it that with nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?" - Lord Macaulay

Offline carmelo

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 190
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #266 on: January 20, 2015, 11:32:05 am »
The point is another had the Dyna Soar be kept alive?
My personal answer is yes,as research program of NASA and USAF,
and the logical next step would be a orbital spaceplane for the spacestations.

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 19495
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #267 on: February 02, 2015, 04:55:55 am »
From Flying Review 2/1960,


is that artist drawing,the Boeing Dyna-Soar ?.

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 19495
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #268 on: February 03, 2015, 01:52:27 pm »
Hi,


I don't know that,the NA XB-70 intended or purposed for launch Boeing Dyna-Soar,has
anyone ever hear about this info before ?.


2/1960

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6727
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #269 on: February 03, 2015, 03:41:19 pm »
Hi,


I don't know that,the NA XB-70 intended or purposed for launch Boeing Dyna-Soar,has
anyone ever hear about this info before ?.


Ahem:
Aerospace Projects Review issue V3N3...

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 hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 19495
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #270 on: February 03, 2015, 03:46:03 pm »
Excellent my dear Scott,many thanks.

Offline The Artist

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 517
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #271 on: May 08, 2015, 01:41:32 pm »
"Thank you for summing that up."

Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 19495
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #272 on: October 11, 2015, 04:34:21 am »
« Last Edit: October 11, 2015, 05:13:42 am by hesham »

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7888
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #273 on: January 26, 2017, 03:34:44 am »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Dynoman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 528
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #274 on: January 26, 2017, 06:04:07 am »
Thank you Flateric...one of the best Dyna Soar documents I've seen. Includes general launch countdown events, control system modes, flight path corridors, abort diagram, approach and landing info, and justifications for manned control of various phases of flight.

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1556
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #275 on: January 28, 2017, 02:11:28 am »
Seconded. I skimmed through it and it is pretty interesting.
Conservatoire de l'Air et de l'Espace d'Aquitaine - Bordeaux - Mérignac / Dassault aviation museum
http://www.caea.info/en/plan.php

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3537
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #276 on: February 06, 2017, 11:23:40 am »
Found on SDASM Archive at Flickr
Convair Little Joe II with not Apollo capsule on top
« Last Edit: February 08, 2017, 04:31:21 am by Michel Van »
I love Strange Technology

Offline ZacYates

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 63
  • LHX SuperTeam fanboy
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #277 on: February 07, 2017, 03:12:28 pm »
Would they have needed to do Little Joe trials with Dyna-Soar?

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 590
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #278 on: February 07, 2017, 04:53:39 pm »
Other than money?

Offline Dynoman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 528
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #279 on: February 07, 2017, 05:24:22 pm »
Flightglobal has an article on the Little Joe booster with a picture of Dyna Soar.
https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1966/1966%20-%200235.html

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2048
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #280 on: February 15, 2017, 12:57:03 pm »
Abort testing, perhaps?
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 19495
Re: Dynasoar
« Reply #281 on: May 19, 2017, 04:35:36 am »
From Le Fana 315 & 316.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2017, 04:56:04 am by hesham »