Community > Forum > Technology & Science > Dyna-Soar could now be built commercially

Dyna-Soar could now be built commercially

Posted by: greenmonster - Mon Jun 14, 2004 6:47 pm
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 15 posts ] 
Dyna-Soar could now be built commercially 
Author Message
Spaceflight Trainee
Spaceflight Trainee
avatar
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 6:14 pm
Posts: 42
Location: Florida
Post Dyna-Soar could now be built commercially   Posted on: Mon Jun 14, 2004 6:47 pm
The alloys and coatings for Dyna-Soar which were so exotic when developed/selected forty years ago are now standard industrial products.

[RTF] DYNA –SOAR X-20: A LOOK AT HARDWARE AND TECHNOLOGY
File Format: Rich Text Format - View as HTML
... The cancellation of the X-20 DynaSoar project did not ... challenges that the designers
of Dyna-Soar overcame ... working together to become the load bearing airframe. ...
www.ninfinger.org/~sven/models/vault/ Quest%20Magazine%20%20X-20%20article/X20%20Technology%20(RTF).rtf - Similar pages

http://www.ninfinger.org/~sven/models/v ... ogy%20(RTF).rtf


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
User avatar
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 2:05 pm
Posts: 173
Post    Posted on: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:48 pm
Somebody once told me that Dyna-Soar would have never worked as intended.
I'd like more details on why the project was cancelled in the first place.

_________________
Thank you very much Mister Roboto
For helping escape when I needed most
Thank you
Thank you


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
avatar
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 9:33 pm
Posts: 69
Post    Posted on: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:01 pm
109Ace wrote:
Somebody once told me that Dyna-Soar would have never worked as intended.


Correct. Once you've reentered and bombed the Russians you've got a slight problem: How the heck are you going to get back home?

Quote:
I'd like more details on why the project was cancelled in the first place.


ICBMs and spy sats as I recall.

_________________
Catholic Cadet: Apologetics and Evangelization.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Walker
Space Walker
User avatar
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 2:05 pm
Posts: 173
Post    Posted on: Fri Aug 13, 2004 2:19 pm
I think it's ability to skip on the fringes of the atmosphere was placed in question.

_________________
Thank you very much Mister Roboto
For helping escape when I needed most
Thank you
Thank you


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
avatar
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 9:33 pm
Posts: 69
Post    Posted on: Fri Aug 13, 2004 3:42 pm
109Ace wrote:
I think it's ability to skip on the fringes of the atmosphere was placed in question.


Perhaps, but that was a mere technical problem. The real problem was that it didn't have a point anymore.

_________________
Catholic Cadet: Apologetics and Evangelization.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Walker
Space Walker
User avatar
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 2:05 pm
Posts: 173
Post    Posted on: Mon Aug 16, 2004 1:37 pm
can you elaborate on that point?

_________________
Thank you very much Mister Roboto
For helping escape when I needed most
Thank you
Thank you


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
avatar
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 9:33 pm
Posts: 69
Post    Posted on: Mon Aug 16, 2004 7:13 pm
109Ace wrote:
can you elaborate on that point?


ICBM's got rid of the need for the X-20 as a bomber, and spy sats got rid of the need for it as a recon platform. No function left to it.

_________________
Catholic Cadet: Apologetics and Evangelization.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Walker
Space Walker
User avatar
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 2:05 pm
Posts: 173
Post    Posted on: Tue Aug 17, 2004 12:38 pm
it was my impression that dynasoar arrived after ICBMs like the Titan IV
After all, it was to be carried atop a Titan rocket. :P

_________________
Thank you very much Mister Roboto
For helping escape when I needed most
Thank you
Thank you


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Trainee
Spaceflight Trainee
avatar
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 6:14 pm
Posts: 42
Location: Florida
Post Titan III   Posted on: Tue Sep 28, 2004 2:39 pm
109Ace wrote:
it was my impression that dynasoar arrived after ICBMs like the Titan IV
After all, it was to be carried atop a Titan rocket. :P


The Titan III was specifically developed as the Dyna-Soar booster and continued after Dyna-Soar because other uses were found for it.


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
User avatar
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 9:42 am
Posts: 191
Location: Cider country, England.
Post    Posted on: Wed Jan 12, 2005 12:23 pm
Greenmonster, you could well be right here. Starchaser's members magazine carried an article expressing their hopes of developing a spaceplane based on Dyna-soar. I find the whole idea fascinating as a possible high-speed transport. It might just remove the bitterness I feel towards the French for ruining Concorde.

_________________
It was like that when I found it. Honest.


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am
Posts: 887
Post    Posted on: Thu Mar 10, 2005 7:15 pm
Do a search for Buran vs. Dyna-Soar, for a discussion I had on the subject.


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
User avatar
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 11:43 pm
Posts: 97
Location: Canada
Post    Posted on: Sat Mar 12, 2005 8:55 pm
On that note, do a search for +lack +source +ego for a critique on lazy megalomaniacs. Seriously, though, if you're going to try and quote yourself, and if you remember what you said, then at least include a link, if not a full synopsis.


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
User avatar
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 2:05 pm
Posts: 173
Post    Posted on: Fri Mar 18, 2005 8:07 pm
I don't advocate building anything like the Dynasoar.The next reusable spaceplane should be a lifting body. WIngs in space are like ...well I can only think of obscene comparisons so let's leave it to that.

_________________
Thank you very much Mister Roboto
For helping escape when I needed most
Thank you
Thank you


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2004 4:16 am
Posts: 322
Post    Posted on: Sun Mar 20, 2005 12:56 am
But why do you even need a lifting body? This can force the need for a larger, heavier reentry shield, and it also requires tricky internal tank designs, etc.. witness the X-33 fiasco.


Back to top
Profile YIM
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am
Posts: 887
Post    Posted on: Thu Mar 24, 2005 10:14 pm
www.starshipmodeler.net

BTW tha father of the lifting body, Dale Reed, passed away.


Back to top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use