DARPA Spaceplane

[publiusr]

More here:
http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2013/09/17.aspx
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=21462
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=21403


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

 

[JustAFriend]

Sad thing is we could have had the capability in 1963.

Boeing_X-20_Dyna-Soar

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

 

[sojourner]

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

 

[gturner]

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]

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]

HOTOL begat Skylon.

 

[JustAFriend]

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....

 

[sojourner]

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....

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?

 

[gturner]

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]

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