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

Dynasoar

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
182
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
blackstar said:
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.
 

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,194
Reaction score
68
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.
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,767
Reaction score
812

Attachments

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,194
Reaction score
68
Titan-i with Centaur ?!
what for a Surprise, extent find Hesham !
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,767
Reaction score
812
Thank you my dears Archipeppa and Michel.
 

nugo

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
337
Reaction score
2
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?
 

carmelo

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
220
Reaction score
6
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?
 

blackstar

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,682
Reaction score
12
carmelo said:
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.
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
182
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
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
 

Attachments

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,767
Reaction score
812
Amazing projects as usual my dear Scott,


thank you for sharing us.
 

OM

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
753
Reaction score
0
Website
www.io.com
Orionblamblam said:
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:
 

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,194
Reaction score
68
You Tube is your friend

take 15 minute and feast you eyes on this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYFhUO4tnSI
X-20 Dyna-Soar Development: "Springboard to Space: The Arnold Center Story" 1965 USAF

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtFreN6iWnQ
The Story of Dyna-Soar - United States Air Force (loud intro!!!)

Test of Spacesuit on X-20 Part one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7mRXblByxo
Test of Spacesuit on X-20 Part two
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TikodTMGdP0

NASA Langley Research Center film # L-591 on Dyna Soar
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irLVpQPriVU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fx8HPESg6Hw
NASA Langley film # L-742 Landing Characteristics of a Winged Reentry Vehicle
 

antigravite

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
673
Reaction score
11
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.
 

OM

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
753
Reaction score
0
Website
www.io.com
Orionblamblam said:
[...] 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:
 

CNH

CLEARANCE: Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2010
Messages
232
Reaction score
0
"What killed Dyna-Soar, ultimately?"

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

blackstar

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,682
Reaction score
12
carmelo said:
CNH said:
"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.
 

The Artist

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
531
Reaction score
16
blackstar said:
carmelo said:
CNH said:
"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.
 

blackstar

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,682
Reaction score
12
The Artist said:
blackstar said:
carmelo said:
CNH said:
"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.
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
182
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
blackstar said:
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.
 

carmelo

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
220
Reaction score
6
blackstar said:
The Artist said:
blackstar said:
carmelo said:
CNH said:
"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.
 

Byeman

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
749
Reaction score
2
Orionblamblam said:
blackstar said:
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.
.

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.
 

Byeman

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
749
Reaction score
2
Orionblamblam said:
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)
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,798
Reaction score
201
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_--JI_aolOU
 

merriman

David Douglass Merriman lll
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
260
Reaction score
13
The Destination Moon music is a perfect fit for that film.

David
 

trekkist

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
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

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
749
Reaction score
2
trekkist said:
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

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
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.
 
Top