DARPA Spaceplane

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by publiusr, Sep 20, 2013.

  1. publiusr

    publiusr Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
  2. JustAFriend

    JustAFriend Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2002
    Location:
    South Florida, USA
    Sad thing is we could have had the capability in 1963.

    Boeing_X-20_Dyna-Soar

    [​IMG]

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

    sojourner Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Location:
    Sojourner
    Dyna-soar was to be launched on top of a rocket, so no, not really the same thing.
     
  4. gturner

    gturner Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Location:
    Kentucky
    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.
     
  5. MacLeod

    MacLeod Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Location:
    Great Britain
  6. sojourner

    sojourner Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Location:
    Sojourner
    HOTOL begat Skylon.
     
  7. JustAFriend

    JustAFriend Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2002
    Location:
    South Florida, USA
    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:
     
  8. sojourner

    sojourner Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Location:
    Sojourner
    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:
     
  9. gturner

    gturner Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Location:
    Kentucky
    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.
     
  10. publiusr

    publiusr Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    That wasn't done with the EELVs though--we still have both of those--at least until the RD-180s run out...