DynaSoar in USAF service around 1967 : how does this influence NASA shuttle in 1969 ?

[Archibald]

Title says all!

Suppose that DynaSoar survived Mc Namara in 1963 and entered USAF service around 1967.

How does this influence the Shuttle, which program started in summer 1969 ?
NASA has negative feelings towards spaceplanes after seeing USAF experience maybe ?

Discuss...

[Mysterion]

As I understand the way things went, Nixon had a choice to have NASa pursue either a shutte program, or a Mars program. If the USAF was already doing what amounted to a shuttle, I would think NASA goes ahead with a MArs program. Probabkly landing a manned Mars mission sometime in the 1980's.

[Archibald]

Thank you.

to me there's various scenarios in the case USAF put Dynasoar in service.

Or NASA buy two of them as reusable spaceplane testbed and X-15 follow-on , only to discover the concept is not worth the price.

Or USAF face problems similar to the current Shuttle (low subsystem reliability, awful maintenance costs or even some accidents in Challenger-style) and as a consequence NASA stay away from the concept.

Then USAF decide that DynaSoar is a white elephant but still has faith in the spaceplane concept. So they try to build a cheaper, more reliable machine in the 70's.
Contract goes to Rockwell, thus replacing OTL Shuttle.

[Michel Van]

Dyna Soar had wild life until was chanceld by that damm Mc Namara
First a Orbital Bomber
then X-plane
at last Allround Shuttle: reconnaissance, bombing, shoot down Enermy Spysat or bring 4 astronaut to USAF space station.

the Dyna Soar main problem is internal structure
This was designed to compensate for thermal expansion of the hot structure during re-entry
the sovjet copy it for Buran space Shuttle who almost brake apart durnig reentry, because over heat.

USAF and Boenig had found that out in 1966 January 1. with first unmanned flight of Dyna Soar.
this delay the Program for modifcation of internal structure, for next Manned Flight.
to 1967 until James Wayne Wood makes his first Dyna Soar space flight.
to year 1969 Dyna Soar makes 10 manned flights.

in same time NASA study Space Shuttle
wat happen with Dyna Soar in that Time will chance the shuttle program

in worst case the Shuttle look somthing like this


real proposal of rockwell for Alterantive Shuttle concept.

[Mike Stearns]

Originally Posted by Michel Van

in worst case the Shuttle look somthing like this


real proposal of rockwell for Alterantive Shuttle concept.

So, something that looks even more like a flying brick?

[Archibald]

To me it looks like a soap box . Nice model to put in your bathroom!

More seriously

the Dyna Soar main problem is internal structure
This was designed to compensate for thermal expansion of the hot structure during re-entry.

That's very interesting.
You mean that Dynasoar would have had structure problems, burning during reentry ?

[Michel Van]

You mean that Dynasoar would have had structure problems, burning during reentry ?

Yes !
the truss structure of Dyna was not yet testet in real flight
truss structure of Rene 41 steel. This was designed to compensate for thermal expansion of the hot structure during re-entry.

more here
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/dynasoar.htm

[Thande]

Originally Posted by Mysterion

As I understand the way things went, Nixon had a choice to have NASa pursue either a shutte program, or a Mars program. If the USAF was already doing what amounted to a shuttle, I would think NASA goes ahead with a MArs program. Probabkly landing a manned Mars mission sometime in the 1980's.

I thought the shuttle was considered a necessary first step for a Mars programme. 1. Shuttle, 2. Space station, 3. Mars mission, in an interplanetary ship launched from space station.

But of course the funding for 3. was cancelled, leaving NASA with a rather superfluous 1. and 2....

[Michel Van]

I thought the shuttle was considered a necessary first step for a Mars programme. 1. Shuttle, 2. Space station, 3. Mars mission, in an interplanetary ship launched from space station.

you dont need Space Shuttle and Space Station for Marsmission

the Boeing 1969 Study "Integrated Manned Interplanetary Spacecraft."
need only Saturn V and Saturn IB
the mission module serve as Space Station for assembly Crew


you save bilions of Dollar with no Shuttle/Station developent
the mission module prototype sever as Space Station for Hardware Test in orbit.

[Thande]

Originally Posted by Michel Van

you dont need Space Shuttle and Space Station for Marsmission

the Boeing 1969 Study "Integrated Manned Interplanetary Spacecraft."
need only Saturn V and Saturn IB
the mission module serve as Space Station for assembly Crew


you save bilions of Dollar with no Shuttle/Station developent
the mission module prototype sever as Space Station for Hardware Test in orbit.

I meant that they considered it necessary then, not that it actually was necessary. But I see your point.

I wonder how much of an influence 1970s environmental-type attitudes had on the Shuttle - the obsession with making a 'reusable, recyclable' spacecraft, even though repairing it for each new mission cost more than building an entirely new capsule+cargo combination that would do the same job...

[Douglas]

Something possible more weighing is what the effect of a nuclear-capable weapons system that can head for Moscow within twenty minutes of an order to launch and giving Soviet radars no more than three minutes warning does to the international situation.

[Romulus Augustulus]

Originally Posted by fenkmaster

Something possible more weighing is what the effect of a nuclear-capable weapons system that can head for Moscow within twenty minutes of an order to launch and giving Soviet radars no more than three minutes warning does to the international situation.

Yeah, but ICBMs can react within three or four minutes, and when you launch the things, well...the Soviets had early-warning satellites to pick up hot exhaust plumes from missile launches, too, and that would include the boosters they sent the Dyna-Soar up on, you know. So, the element-of-surprise thing, well...not as much.

They could be recalled, though, and retargeted...for reconnaissance, well...they might offer a combination of the advantages of a spyplane and a photoreconnaissance satellite...ideally.

[Archibald]

Originally Posted by Michel Van

you dont need Space Shuttle and Space Station for Marsmission

the Boeing 1969 Study "Integrated Manned Interplanetary Spacecraft."
need only Saturn V and Saturn IB

Agree! and you need even less for a flyby. Btw improved Saturne V
(F-1A, J-2S and 4*156 inch boosters) would have had doubled the LEO payolad up to 250 metric tons.

[Michel Van]

Rockwell made study of Mars Fly By Mission
with only 47000 kg ! (Apollo CSM - Mission Module for 3 Men - Marsprobe)

you know Robert Zubrin Mars Direct ?

The first launch would deliver an unfuelled and unmanned Earth Return Vehicle (ERV) to the Martian surface
After landing an on-board production plant would generate methane/oxygen propellants. (out Mars atmosphere)
A second launch would deliver the four-person crew in Habitation module.
Following eighteen months of extensive exploration of the surface, they would enter the ERV and return directly to Earth.
The same launch vehicles and spacecraft developed for Mars Direct could also support a lunar base.

Launch mass ERV 40000 kg and HM 35200 kg
Saturn V 47000 kg to Moon and Mars

a Nuclear variant of Mars Direct need only one launch ERV+HB are same craft
After landing an on-board production plant would generate carbondioxid propellant (out Mars atmosphere) for NERVA engine
and Lunar variant can use oxygen made from lunarsoil.

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/marirect.htm

[Douglas]

Originally Posted by Romulus Augustulus

Yeah, but ICBMs can react within three or four minutes, and when you launch the things, well...the Soviets had early-warning satellites to pick up hot exhaust plumes from missile launches, too, and that would include the boosters they sent the Dyna-Soar up on, you know. So, the element-of-surprise thing, well...not as much.

But they didn't during the time frame that's postulated for Dyna-Soar development in the early 1960s. A serious Soviet early warning satellite system wasn't in service until the 1970s.

Dyna-Soar doesn't have the same flight characteristics as an ICBM, so yes, it is an element-of-surprise thing. 3 minutes as opposed to 20 minutes, even after the Soviet satellite system comes online.

They could be recalled, though, and retargeted...for reconnaissance, well...they might offer a combination of the advantages of a spyplane and a photoreconnaissance satellite...ideally.

Yes, and they would be a dangerous nuclear-capable device that would threaten the nuclear balance. Further Soviet development of FOBS is guaranteed, IMHO.