spaceship one

On 24 Jun 2004 14:11:46 GMT, (G EddieA95) wrote:

ISTR that there was A1P a plan to orbit an X15, using iirc a Titan rocket,
reenter, and parachute the pilot to ground. What TPS would have been used?
Might such work be of value on SS2?

I vaguely recall something along those lines, but don't know how far the
analysis got. About the same time the X-15 was flying, researchers
discovered that blunt...not needle-shapes...were the best solution for
re-entry. IIRC, the G-force is higher, but the heat is distributed over a
wider area. That's why the Mach 25 Shuttle has such a blunt profile
compared to, say, the Mach 2 Concorde.

Another concept was the Dyna-Soar, basically a mini-shuttle from the
mid-60s. It was an Air Force project. Don't really have any information
on why it was canceled, though a quickie look at one web page said it was
basically lack of a definitive mission and NASA's control of the manned
space program.

Years ago, touring Boeing Surplus, I found a lithograph of a painting of
Dyna-Soar at launch for sale. $5. Still got it.

Ron Wanttaja

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

Another concept was the Dyna-Soar, basically a mini-shuttle from the
mid-60s. It was an Air Force project. Don't really have any information
on why it was canceled,

See opening sequence to any episode of The Six Million Dollar Man.

-- Charlie Springer

On 25 Jun 2004 04:37:45 GMT, (Regnirps) wrote:

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

Another concept was the Dyna-Soar, basically a mini-shuttle from the
mid-60s. It was an Air Force project. Don't really have any information
on why it was canceled,

See opening sequence to any episode of The Six Million Dollar Man.

-- Charlie Springer

That was long after DynaSoar was killed. DynaSoar was to be a
followon to the X15 project, with the goal to put, first, men into
space, then a space laboratory. This goal died when NASA took over
and dictated "men sitting on rockets run by us". The X15 carried on,
but with the goal of going higher and faster, not developing a manned
space presence.

The lifting body accident in question was part of the development
program for the STS. The original design of the shuttle was a lifting
body, until they proved to be a bitch to fly.
--
dillon

When I was a kid, I thought the angel's name was Hark
and the horse's name was Bob.

In article ,
Dillon Pyron wrote:

The original design of the shuttle was a lifting
body, until they proved to be a bitch to fly.

So is it feasable at this time considering the advancements in computer
controls? Like the F-117 or F-16 are unstable without their computer
systems but they work because the computer constantly adjusts the
flight. Could they build an easy to fly lifting body now?

Bernadette

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 09:37:12 -0400, Doc Font
wrote:

In article ,
Dillon Pyron wrote:

The original design of the shuttle was a lifting
body, until they proved to be a bitch to fly.

So is it feasable at this time considering the advancements in computer
controls? Like the F-117 or F-16 are unstable without their computer
systems but they work because the computer constantly adjusts the
flight. Could they build an easy to fly lifting body now?

Bernadette

I would guess so (and was thinking the same thing when I made my
post). That said, there's little drive to do such a thing. Even
though I think it would be much safer than the current design for the
ISC "lifeboat".
--
dillon

When I was a kid, I thought the angel's name was Hark
and the horse's name was Bob.

You gotta have control power sufficient to deal with the instability, plus
some for maneuvering. The M2-F2 ($6M Man) didn't have it. Fly-by-wire would
have done nothing for it; it was just a bad design. The M2-F3 (big center
vertical fin) flew much better due to adequate open-loop roll damping and
directional stability.

That crew return vehicle concept (X-38??) that was/is in the works was
basicallly a lifting body design. But that one used a steerable parachute
for final approach and landing. Not a bad trade, actually, when you
consider the weight cost of something like a deployable control/lift device.
This way, the shape can be optimized for controlled re-entry and initial
descent.

Pete

"Doc Font" wrote in message
...
So is it feasable at this time considering the advancements in computer
controls? Like the F-117 or F-16 are unstable without their computer
systems but they work because the computer constantly adjusts the
flight. Could they build an easy to fly lifting body now?

"Regnirps" wrote in message
...
Ron Wanttaja wrote:

Another concept was the Dyna-Soar, basically a mini-shuttle from the
mid-60s. It was an Air Force project. Don't really have any information
on why it was canceled,

See opening sequence to any episode of The Six Million Dollar Man.

I don't understand- they cancelled Dyna-Soar, took the money from that
budget, and used it put Steve Austin back together???



(better, faster, stronger)

Ya know, for $6M these days, you'd only get powerpoint slides and promises
of a better/faster/stronger dude.

"Jim Carriere" wrote in message
...
I don't understand- they cancelled Dyna-Soar, took the money from that
budget, and used it put Steve Austin back together???

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 14:29:02 GMT, "Pete Schaefer"
wrote:

Ya know, for $6M these days, you'd only get powerpoint slides and promises
of a better/faster/stronger dude.

I'll bet AOL spent more than $6M on their ad.


"Jim Carriere" wrote in message
...
I don't understand- they cancelled Dyna-Soar, took the money from that
budget, and used it put Steve Austin back together???


--
dillon

When I was a kid, I thought the angel's name was Hark
and the horse's name was Bob.

"Jim Carriere" wrote:

I don't understand- they cancelled Dyna-Soar, took the money from that
budget, and used it put Steve Austin back together???

No, he real money went into making time slow down when he powered up and
defying the normal laws of physics, like pushing a wakk over without tearing
the soles out of his shoes or bunding down a light post by pulling on it. And
that ear! Still Top Secret technology.

-- Charlie Springer