Talk:BAC Mustard

Third Paragraph
Could someone please verify the content of the third paragraph, and, if verifiable, edit it so that it is easier to understand? I would do this myself, but I do not have the time at present. Thanks. Vsst 19:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I would happily bet a grand that the third paragraph is a complete mickey-take by some would-be comedian... McTodd 15:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yup, deleted it. Looks like vandalism. Missed the bit about the cardinals, or I would have done this much earlier. Vsst 01:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * sorry about this, but i found the content of the third para. on this site:

www.newscientist.com/MUSTARDbishop, it does appear to have moved though, i am not quite sure to where. i was a bit surprised about the cardinals too, but it appears to be true. sorry about the confusion. 21st july 2007

Actually, I think it's True... McTodd 15:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Rename
Should we move this article to "Multi-Unit Space Transport And Recovery Device" rather than continuing to use the abriviation "MUSTARD" as the title?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsst (talk • contribs) 19:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Implication that design was copied?
Under 'History' the article says:

''Once this collaborative work was over, three American prototype similar-looking aircraft apppeared at Edwards Air Base. The Space Shuttle would later have a comparative design, and function. ''

This is a clear reference to the HL-10, M2-F2/3 and X-24 lifting bodies. Is there any evidence at all that these were copied from MUSTARD as opposed to being the fruits of extensive research taking place in both the US and the UK at the time into lifting body aircraft?

The connection with the Space Shuttle is also tenuous, although MUSTARD does resemble some of the 1960s design concepts for what evolved into it.

Unless there is a sourced reference, I suggest deleting this, and possibly replacing with a mention of other lifting body research vehicles, and of parallel-booster design concepts for the Space Shuttle Sjbradshaw (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Final spacecraft only sub-orbital ?
Intro says "The final spaceplane was to be capable of attaining such an altitude that it would be able to achieve a sub-orbital trajectory before also performing a controlled return." - a strange way to say it, since it was at orbital velocity to release its payload into orbit ? What was the highest altitude orbit it could circularise, and then reenter from ? - Rod57 (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)