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.
blackstar said:There is no payload that would have stayed the same size in 1960, 1980 and 2010.
XP67_Moonbat said: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
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?
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.
Orionblamblam said:
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.
CNH said:"What killed Dyna-Soar, ultimately?"
carmelo said:CNH said:"What killed Dyna-Soar, ultimately?"
Robert McNamara.
Orionblamblam said:The Northrop N-206 spaceplane, entered into the System 464L competition for the Dyna Soar I/II/III role, 1958. More info in US Bomber Projects issue #9.
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.
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.
blackstar said:Atlas and Titan I, for instance, had short service lives. Thor also didn't operate for very long.
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.
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.
.
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.
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.