• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Dynasoar

PMN1

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
679
Reaction score
20
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?
 

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,273
Reaction score
103
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 ?
 

archipeppe

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
1,562
Reaction score
75
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...).
 

Attachments

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,411
Reaction score
272
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
archipeppe said:
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.

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.
 

archipeppe

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
1,562
Reaction score
75
Orionblamblam said:
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??
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,411
Reaction score
272
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
archipeppe said:
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.


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.
 

Attachments

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,300
Reaction score
421
Orionblamblam said:
archipeppe said:
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?
 

archipeppe

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
1,562
Reaction score
75
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.
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,411
Reaction score
272
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
archipeppe said:
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.
 

archipeppe

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
1,562
Reaction score
75
Orionblamblam said:
It would have been a tight and uncomfortable fit, but the ride would have been short.
And, for sure, it would really worth it...... ;)
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
24,251
Reaction score
1,050
Hi,

http://www.buran.ru/htm/dynasoa2.htm
 

Attachments

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
24,251
Reaction score
1,050
PMN1 said:
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
 

Attachments

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
24,251
Reaction score
1,050
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 ?.
 

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,273
Reaction score
103
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
 

Attachments

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,803
Reaction score
256
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?
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,411
Reaction score
272
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
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.
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,803
Reaction score
256
Oh, Scott and Justo, thanks a bunch to both of you!
 

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,273
Reaction score
103
Justo Miranda said:
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
 

Attachments

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,273
Reaction score
103
Justo Miranda said:
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
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,803
Reaction score
256
Does anyone have good-quality, hi-res photos of Dyna-Soar mock-up with USAF astronauts posing near it?
Something like these...
 

Attachments

Justo Miranda

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 2, 2007
Messages
3,508
Reaction score
173
Hi Flateric
"X belly" drawing is 1960 Lockheed & Hughes "space ferry " project.
From "The Dream Machines" by Ron Miller , Krieger Publishing ,1993
 

Attachments

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,653
Reaction score
241
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...
 
Top