The Trek BBS

The Trek BBS (http://www.trekbbs.com/index.php)
-   Science and Technology (http://www.trekbbs.com/forumdisplay.php?f=36)
-   -   DARPA Spaceplane (http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=226495)

publiusr September 20 2013 11:04 PM

DARPA Spaceplane
 
More here:
http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Rele...013/09/17.aspx
[COLOR=#006699]http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=21462[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#006699]http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=21403[/COLOR]


Hope it doesn't end like this
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=12737

JustAFriend September 23 2013 03:58 PM

Re: DARPA Spaceplane
 
Sad thing is we could have had the capability in 1963.

Boeing_X-20_Dyna-Soar

http://www.boeing.com/assets/images/...oar_flight.jpg

Instread Congress wanted to pretend that there was no military involment in the space programs.

sojourner September 23 2013 05:20 PM

Re: DARPA Spaceplane
 
Dyna-soar was to be launched on top of a rocket, so no, not really the same thing.

gturner September 23 2013 08:31 PM

Re: DARPA Spaceplane
 
It also had a rather unfortunate name.

Of course, the reason for lifting wings is probably so the Air Force didn't have to depend on the Navy to pluck their capsule out of the ocean.

MacLeod September 23 2013 09:08 PM

Re: DARPA Spaceplane
 
Sounds a bit like these

British Aerospace's HOTOL

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOTOL

Skylon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_Engines_Skylon

The Rockwell X-30

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_X-30

sojourner September 24 2013 01:18 AM

Re: DARPA Spaceplane
 
HOTOL begat Skylon.

JustAFriend September 24 2013 01:37 AM

Re: DARPA Spaceplane
 
Quote:

sojourner wrote: (Post 8681803)
Dyna-soar was to be launched on top of a rocket, so no, not really the same thing.

So you don't think they would have developed further after 1963??
So we would have had the DARPA plane in 1985 instead of 2015....

:rolleyes:

sojourner September 24 2013 04:07 PM

Re: DARPA Spaceplane
 
Quote:

JustAFriend wrote: (Post 8683867)
Quote:

sojourner wrote: (Post 8681803)
Dyna-soar was to be launched on top of a rocket, so no, not really the same thing.

So you don't think they would have developed further after 1963??
So we would have had the DARPA plane in 1985 instead of 2015....

:rolleyes:

It's a different thing entirely. Dyna-soar is merely a change in re-entry method. It was Nothing close to development of a single stage to orbit craft. The only real advances it had over capsules of the day is re-usability and landing accuracy.


And to answer the question more directly in your first post. No we wouldn't have had that "capability" in 1963 for the reasons stated above. As to whether it would have been further developed after 1963 and reached "spaceplane" status by 1985, well that's not really what you were talking about in your first post is it? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

gturner September 24 2013 04:53 PM

Re: DARPA Spaceplane
 
Well, it also points up one of the issues with government space flight, which is that when you're thinking in government mode, having two different flight vehicles with almost identical capabilities (two military guys in orbit) doesn't make sense, so one program is inevitably axed as redundant and duplicative waste.

publiusr September 29 2013 09:21 PM

Re: DARPA Spaceplane
 
That wasn't done with the EELVs though--we still have both of those--at least until the RD-180s run out...


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:59 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.