I was reading about the space program, and it seems that the US Air Force had a rocket plane under development in the late 1950’s called Project “Dynasoar”. This was to launched from a rocket booster, and could reach low earth orbit. It could also re-enter the atmosphere, and fly to a landing strip.
In many respects it resembled the Space Shuttle, except for being a lot smaller. Still, what killed thispromising approach? Was it the Apollo project? The airforcealso had a plan to reach the moon via a similar spacecraft…it seems the NASA Apollo Program took away a lot of funding which might have gotten us to the moon a lot faster and for a lot less money.
By the way, how wasit that both the Airforce and Army had their own space programs in the 1950’s?
Heck, all three armed forces branches had a space program. The Vanguard satellites were a navy project. There was a lot of interservice rivalry in the post WWII years, much of it due to threatened budget cuts.
What killed that approach was the decision to go with conventional rockets and reentry systems. The priority seemed to be beat the Russians so quick and dirty was chosen over a more long term approach. I often wonder what would have happened if all the lessons learned with the X-15 which did go into space were put into the dynosaoar program.
As previously stated, the post-Sputnik “space race” shifted the impetus to ballistic missiles launching men in capsules, rather than manned aircraft. And in all fairness, the X-20 “Dyna-Soar” was proving difficult to develop. Frictional heating was a severe problem- one high speed test of the X-15 half burnt it’s wings off, and the X-20 would be subjected to much worse upon reentry. The best heat resistant material they had to build it out of was nickle-steel alloy that was quite heavy: they’d originally hoped to launch the X-20 on a Titan II ballistic missile and ended up having to plan on using the Titan III. It would have carried a single pilot, and had no provision for docking with a space station, vehicle or orbital booster stage. The Air Force was hard put to justify it’s purpose beyond a test program, and with the ultra-ambitious Apollo program in the works, it seemed redundant.
May I highly recommend the magnificent book “The Right Stuff” by Tom Wolfe - upon which the film was based. It’s an absolute rip snorter of a read… full of juicy gossip, and wicked laughter, and more than a sense of regret and pathos regarding some of the decisions taken at the time.
One of my all time favourite books - without doubt.
The book is worth getting just to read Wolfe’s gripping account of Chuck Yeager taking an F-104 (I’m pretty sure that was the plane he used) from ground level - up, up, up into 120,000 ft - apparently, so high it’s officially defined as being in space. Unfortunately for the great man, his plane went into a flat spin on re-entry and even with all his years of experience and undoubted talent at the joystick, he couldn’t save the plane and had to bail out. I’m pretty sure Chuck was at least a one star General by this stage too. The description of Yeager getting caught up with red hot ejection seat exhaust matter in his parachute and in his flight suit is “edge of the seat” stuff.
Yes, the NF-104, a hybrid jet/rocket plane. It only went about 104,000 feet, a few thousand feet short of the Russian record they were trying to break but high enough that aerodynamic flight controls didn’t work anymore. Well short of space too which at least the air force defines as 250,000 feet, almost fifty miles. AF pilots who flew higher than 250k in the X-15 were awarded astronaut wings. One of the civilian pilots who flew that high was awarded a pair of cardboard “asstronaut” wings by his brother test pilots.
The movie is a lot of fun but you’re cheating yourself if you don’t read Wolfe’s book.
Don’t forget the Northrup M2-F2 Lifting body, seen crashing at the start of every Six Million Dollar Man episode…
the actual crash happened in 1967 (so obviously the M2-F2 still needed a little work at that time)
Thanks for the info! Is it physically possible to build a space plane today? I think the advantages of this approach far outway the disadvantages…especially the cost issue.
Yes, the Russians were behind the 8-ball, by the mid-1960’s-I think one of the major handicaps that the Russians engineers labored under was the lack of computer-aided design (CAD). The fact was, due to their rather primative computers, the Russians had to build full-scale mock-ups of their space vehicles, in order to get the design right. This cost lots of time and money…for example, just to get the center of mass of the proposed Russian moon lander right, they had to build a full scale model and swing it from a cable! The US had the advantage of trying out the designs in the computer first. And, I’ve seen some of the Russian space probes-in areas that were not critical, they really turnedout some crude-looking stuff! Of course, they didn’t have the budgets that NASA had!
Indeed ralph. The general consensus I tend to hear nowadays, even out of Russia herself, is that between the space program, the Warsaw pact, and the nuclear sub program… the Soviet Union lived way, way, WAY beyond it’s means for 40 years or so after WW2. Obviously, there was no shortage of intellectual capacity or commitment and their technicians and scientists truly deserve the highest praise possible for being able to achieve what they did under the circumstances they did, but geez, it sent 'em broke. When that Berlin wall came down, it was as much to do with being bankrupt as it was anything else.
Still, I’m told the gorgeous MIG-29 was, and remains, at a pilot’s level - arguably the sweetest flying jet fighter of all time. And yet, when 24 of 'em came into West Germany’s hands after the reunification, one of 'em up ended up back in Fort Worth Texas for evaluation and the American techs were just blown out how rough the surface panels were - rough and tough rivets all over the place apparently!
Anyways, sorry about the digression there - but it all kinda ties in somehow! 
As for an earlier version of a Space Shuttle? Certainly, the heat issues of re-entry are what seems to be the greatest challenge - without doubt. In many respects, it’s amazing there haven’t been more deaths to be honest… for both the USA and the former Soviet Union…