Boeing X-20 Dyna-Soar and alternate projects

[flateric]

...and Republic's 'satelloid'

 

[Justo Miranda]

Hi Flateric
"X belly" drawing is 1960 Lockheed & Hughes "space ferry " project.
From "The Dream Machines" by Ron Miller , Krieger Publishing ,1993

 

[Orionblamblam]

Early versions of the Titan III...

 

[Archibald]

Cult spacecraft Part One: The Little Spaceplane That Couldn't

Honolulu HI (SPX) Dec 04, 2008 - It's an odd feature of aerospace history that many prototype aircraft that never went into production become cultplanes. Some prominent examples are flying wings, Avro Arrow, B-70 Valkyrie, anything designed by the Nazis in 1945.

www.space-travel.com

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...

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

McNamara was a hater.

 

[Michel Van]

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

 

[CFE]

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.

 

[OM]

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.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Roger that!

Moonbat

 

[nugo]

Hi flateric!

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

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

 

[flateric]

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.

 

[OM]

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.

 

[Proponent]

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.

 

[hesham]

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

 

[Orionblamblam]

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.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

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

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Dyna-Soar launched on an Atlas-Centaur.

http://renax.club.fr/sharkit/altlas-centaur/altlas-centaur.htm

 

[Triton]

Full-size Dyna-Soar mock-up.

Dyna-Soar launch.

 

[Triton]

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)

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

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.

 

[Triton]

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.

 

[Stargazer]

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!

 

[Antonio]

Not on-line but an interesting book:

http://www.amazon.com/Dyna-Soar-Hypersonic-Strategic-Weapons-System/dp/1896522955/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251321216&sr=1-1

 

[Stargazer]

Thanks for the tip! With the DVD included, it really sounds like great value for the price.

 

[Triton]

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

 

[flateric]

Artwork: "Dyna-Soar Hypersonic Glider" Artist: Gordon Phillips

 

[martinbayer]

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

 

[nugo]

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-??

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Try the search engine

 

[Stargazer]

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-**

 

[nugo]

Hi Stargazer2006!

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

 

[hesham]

Hi,

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

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

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.

 

[Dynoman]

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

 

[hesham]

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.

 

[flateric]

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

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!

 

[Michel Van]

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

 

[flateric]

Michel - thanks! Actually, I need look at my bookshelf more often)))

 

[Nik]

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

 

[Orionblamblam]

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.