Boeing X-20 Dyna-Soar and alternate projects

The image on the left...I seem to remember art of a 3 core LV that had that batwing look..
 
Children's book:

1716051570012.jpg
 
Scott, could you post a picture of that odd corrugated skin where the folds ran top to bottom instead of stem to stern.

I wonder if the ideas behind that odd corrugated pattern might be applicable to the "elonerons" tested earlier today...

More
www.edwards.af.mil

FLASHBACK: Dyna-Soar, Little Joe II: Paths to the Present Suborbital Flight Test Program

The X-20 Dyna-Soar program is often remembered as one of the biggest lost opportunities in the history of manned space flight.
www.edwards.af.mil
 
Last edited:
publiusr said:
Scott, could you post a picture of that odd corrugated skin where the folds ran top to bottom instead of stem to stern.

I wonder if the ideas behind that odd corrugated pattern might be applicable to the "elonerons" tested earlier today...
Click to expand...
no, it was for expansion.
 
Michel Van said:
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
Click to expand...

Picture 6 was my father Jim Wood in that space suit
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Attachments

  • Little Joe II Dyna Soar.jpg
    Little Joe II Dyna Soar.jpg
    75.6 KB · Views: 79
  • Joe II Dyna Saor Adapter.jpg
    Joe II Dyna Saor Adapter.jpg
    55.9 KB · Views: 69
  • Little Joe II Trajectory.jpg
    Little Joe II Trajectory.jpg
    96.3 KB · Views: 82
  • LITTLE JOE DYNASOAR FLASHBACK.pdf
    2.1 MB · Views: 13
Last edited by a moderator:
DynaSoar took a veeery long time finding itself a viable orbital launcher: Titan III. The program wasted a lot of time, credibility and dollars examining pie-in-the-sky launch vehicles.

By the way I realize that, while I'm pretty familiar with the MOL own Titan - the III-M - I know next to nothing about DynaSoar own Titan III variant.
"A man-rated Titan IIIC with a Transtage" ? did it ever got any special letter or designation ?
 
Archibald said:
By the way I realize that, while I'm pretty familiar with the MOL own Titan - the III-M - I know next to nothing about DynaSoar own Titan III variant.
"A man-rated Titan IIIC with a Transtage" ? did it ever got any special letter or designation ?
Click to expand...
Titan III exists because of Dynasoar. Titan-IIIC was designed for Dynasoar. The others came after.
 
Archibald said:
By the way I realize that, while I'm pretty familiar with the MOL own Titan - the III-M - I know next to nothing about DynaSoar own Titan III variant.
"A man-rated Titan IIIC with a Transtage" ? did it ever got any special letter or designation ?
Click to expand...
The Titan IIIC was designed *Specifically* for the manned X-20. Note that on a lot of the early IIIC launches you can see white circles on the solid rocket booster nose cones. Those cover blow-out ports on either side of the nose cone; these are where linear shaped charged would blow circular holes in the forward domes of the booster rockets to serve as "thrust termination ports" in the event that something went really wrong on the launch of a Titan IIIC. If it was an unmanned launch there'd be no purpose in such things; the boosters would be simply destroyed, along with the launch vehicle by the range safety officer. But for a manned vehicle, you want to give the crew a chance of escape. The ports were positioned so that the resulting hot gas jets would miss the wings of the Dyna Soar payload.

When the Dyna Soar was cancelled the Titan IIIC SRBs already had those features built into them; they were removed from later launches. Titan-3C_MOL-Gemini-B-Test_3.jpg
 
RanulfC said:
Okay I can buy the bomb bay mods for this launch but pray tell how does the one with the boosters get anywhere with ALL the landing gear bays covered? That would be a serious issue with the center-line B-52 gear?

Randy
Click to expand...
It was to use its solid abort rocket for the drop tests.
 
There is much misunderstanding about the origin of the Dyna-Soar and who decided what missions it could accomplish. There is also much fiction regarding German wartime developments. It got its start from the Sänger Orbital Bomber, a German wartime project that popular opinion says never got beyond the drawing board. A photo of a wind tunnel model exists. After the war, Stalin was keen to find its designer, Eugen Sänger. https://www.amazon.com/Sanger-Germa...x=sanger+orbital+bomber,stripbooks,134&sr=1-1

Walter Dornberger became a consultant to the Bell Aircraft company, proposing a number of German wartime developments for construction. But the United States was busy developing ICBMs, digging out a mountain for the NORAD Cheyenne Mountain Complex and developing an engine for the Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Project. A lot of money was being spent very quickly. By 1959, the U.S. deployed a number of ICBMs after digging up a portion of the country for missile siloes. During his farewell address, outgoing President Eisenhower mentioned a large Military-Industrial Complex without going into detail.

The Wright Air Development Center got its hands on the X-20, followed by a number of others. No one could decide if it should be used for satellite inspection, surveillance or bombardment. Or just fly as a research aircraft like the X-15. There was even talk of it working in association with a space station, another German wartime concept. A full-scale mock-up was built, astronauts were selected and construction had begun at Boeing when it was cancelled by the Kennedy Administration, along with the ANP Project. It would soon be replaced by the SR-71 and dedicated surveillance satellites. Then it would return as the Space Shuttle.
 
edwest4 said:
There is much misunderstanding about the origin of the Dyna-Soar and who decided what missions it could accomplish. There is also much fiction regarding German wartime developments. It got its start from the Sänger Orbital Bomber, a German wartime project that popular opinion says never got beyond the drawing board. A photo of a wind tunnel model exists. After the war, Stalin was keen to find its designer, Eugen Sänger. https://www.amazon.com/Sanger-Germanys-Orbital-Rocket-Bomber/dp/0764315498/ref=sr_1_1?crid=EPPAZC6U5BML&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.Ecy6cFxL3VqBCk0cSJqb16SeC2c0YbsWwFKKvrJJjYbGjHj071QN20LucGBJIEps.d8fhrUI7gzu30UFEVGWiE-_rwV6roPrPL53X0g4VA5k&dib_tag=se&keywords=sanger+orbital+bomber&qid=1739125273&s=books&sprefix=sanger+orbital+bomber,stripbooks,134&sr=1-1

Walter Dornberger became a consultant to the Bell Aircraft company, proposing a number of German wartime developments for construction. But the United States was busy developing ICBMs, digging out a mountain for the NORAD Cheyenne Mountain Complex and developing an engine for the Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Project. A lot of money was being spent very quickly. By 1959, the U.S. deployed a number of ICBMs after digging up a portion of the country for missile siloes. During his farewell address, outgoing President Eisenhower mentioned a large Military-Industrial Complex without going into detail.

The Wright Air Development Center got its hands on the X-20, followed by a number of others. No one could decide if it should be used for satellite inspection, surveillance or bombardment. Or just fly as a research aircraft like the X-15. There was even talk of it working in association with a space station, another German wartime concept. A full-scale mock-up was built, astronauts were selected and construction had begun at Boeing when it was cancelled by the Kennedy Administration, along with the ANP Project. It would soon be replaced by the SR-71 and dedicated surveillance satellites. Then it would return as the Space Shuttle.
Click to expand...
You forgot all the cruise missile development in the late 40's and early 50's before the ICBM. Navaho, Snark, Madator, Mace, Bull Goose, Regulus, etc
 
Byeman said:
You forgot all the cruise missile development in the late 40's and early 50's before the ICBM. Navaho, Snark, Madator, Mace, Bull Goose, Regulus, etc
Click to expand...

Actually, I didn't. As of 2012, a complete history of Cold War military developments could not be told due to still classified information.
 
There were so many nuclear delivery systems considered in the 1950's. So many of them went into (expensive) development - only to be savagely canned as obsolete. Turned out in the end that the definite system was Polaris: solid-fuel missiles inside nuclear subs. Ok.
 
Byeman said:
It was to use its solid abort rocket for the drop tests.
Click to expand...

Got that the first time :)
The problem is those solid boosters cover the B-52 gear positions... Hence the question of how does it take off with those in the way?

Same problem with the XB-70 gear and the housing for the X-20 and boosters.

Randy
 
RanulfC said:
The problem is those solid boosters cover the B-52 gear positions... Hence the question of how does it take off with those in the way?
Click to expand...
The artist concept for the X-20/Booster launch configuration and the B-52 were only to demonstrate that the focus of the study was on launching a manned vehicle to space from a subsonic and supersonic bomber. The study addressed the deficiencies of the then, current bombers.
1739458714349.png
NASA Tech Memo X-636 Preliminary Performance Analysis of Air Launching Manned Orbital Vehicles - Bellman and Washington.
 
Last edited:
This was the configuration that can give an idea of X-20 B-52 scale and clearances for the drop test (Boeing).
 

Attachments

  • X20 B52 Drop Test.jpg
    X20 B52 Drop Test.jpg
    295.6 KB · Views: 28
Dynoman said:
The artist concept for the X-20/Booster launch configuration and the B-52 were only to demonstrate that the focus of the study was on launching a manned vehicle to space from a subsonic and supersonic bomber. The study addressed the deficiencies of the then, current bombers.
View attachment 759345
NASA Tech Memo X-636 Preliminary Performance Analysis of Air Launching Manned Orbital Vehicles - Bellman and Washington.
Click to expand...

We have a thread here https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/1962-nasa-dyna-soar-air-launch-study.4479/#post-756431 where I linked the full document after compressing it.

Dear moderators, could you please merge the two threads ?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom