Boeing X-20 Dyna-Soar and alternate projects

[merriman]

The Destination Moon music is a perfect fit for that film.

David

 

[trekkist]

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as the established baseline of how to reach LEO with people -- as vs. a big, expensive, twice-lost-in-public spaceplane superseded by CAPSULE).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.

 

[Byeman]

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 cargo carriers (maybe), small stations (probably), orbital logistics dumps, space tugs, etc.

 

[trekkist]

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.

 

[Byeman]

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

 

[blackstar]

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.

 

[trekkist]

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?"

 

[blackstar]

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.

 

[trekkist]

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]
[font=verdana, sans-serif][/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![/font]

[font=verdana, sans-serif]Do others agree with Blackstar on this? It's a sincere question. No person with ideas wishes to be misunderstood.[/font]

[font=verdana, sans-serif]What style suggestions would you offer? Word usage, sentence length, too many parenthesis, others?[/font]

[font=verdana, sans-serif]My suggestion is you try reading a sentence aloud to yourself, applying tone of voice to stuff in [/font][font=verdana, sans-serif]parenthesis. [/font]

 

[Byeman]

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.

 

[carmelo]

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.

 

[Byeman]

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.

 

[blackstar]

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.

 

[Archibald]

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)

 

[carmelo]

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.

 

[blackstar]

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.

 

[carmelo]

Fantastic,thanks!
I would be happy to see pictures of Robert Crippen or Karol Bobko,or Dick Truly in MOL space suit!
Somewhere must exist!
This secret on MOL stuff is irritating. :-\

 

[Michel Van]

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

 

[Jemiba]

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.

 

[hesham]

We still love this artist drawing.

 

[robunos]

In reality, would it not have been 'upside down' at this point in it's trajectory, like the Space Shuttle ?

cheers,
Robin.

 

[Byeman]

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

 

[robunos]

I see... thanks for that...

cheers,
Robin.

 

[Bomiwriter]

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

 

[carmelo]

But at this point the question is this:
If YOU were Secretary of Defense in 1963,would cancelled the Dyna Soar program?

 

[bobbymike]

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

 

[Michel Van]

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...

 

[carmelo]

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.

 

[Byeman]

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.

 

[bobbymike]

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.

 

[carmelo]

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.

 

[hesham]

From Flying Review 2/1960,


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

 

[hesham]

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

 

[Orionblamblam]

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...

 

[hesham]

Excellent my dear Scott,many thanks.

 

[The Artist]

And;

DN 13, 14 and 15 seem to explain the model I photographed at Vought. http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3052.msg156492.html#msg156492

 

[hesham]

Hi,


I think it was a Douglas proposal for Dynasoar,am I right ?.


https://archive.org/stream/missilesrockets8196unse#page/n827/mode/2up
https://archive.org/stream/missilesrockets8919unse#page/n307/mode/2up

 

[flateric]

MAN'S ROLE IN DYNA-SOAR FLIGHT
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/document/cia-rdp70b00584r000200050001-7

 

[Dynoman]

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.

 

[Archibald]

Seconded. I skimmed through it and it is pretty interesting.