Talk:Boeing X-20 Dyna-Soar

Artists impressions
The artists impressions are fine when they reflect and illustrate known designs, but speculating on models not even mentioned in the text is not appropriate for the images. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * These illustrations were done by a Boeing corporate illustrator and they were based off the blueprints for the actual spacecraft. This is a common practice in the aerospace industry. Some of these illustrations can be seen in an official USAF film from that era describing the program. I'll see if I can find an actual primary source for the illustrations the next time I'm in the aerospace library at the downtown central branch of the Seattle Public Library.
 * [] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sordidatus (talk • contribs) 05:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Dyna-soar = Dinosaur. Pun intended?
It seems like a pretty obvious pun to me, but I don't see it mentioned anywhere. Is it intended? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.1.229.206 (talk) 11:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Operation Paperclip error?
Article references German scientists brought to the US by the CIA under Operation Paperclip. It says this was after World War 1, but the Operation Paperclip article says it was after WW2. Fix maybe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.195.198 (talk) 08:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The CIA reference is slightly off base -- the CIA was established in 1947, PAPERCLIP was in 1945:46. The  OSS, the CIA's predecessor, may have been involved in the PAPERCLIP program but that's unclear, the references I've seen suggest it was an Army effort.  MrG 65.102.202.14 (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Description
Third part: "After the equipment bay". It should be "Behind the equipment bay" or am I wrong? --DrJos (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC) (Dutch speaking)

CGI Pics are OR and I'm deleting
maybe I will leave one at the bottom but not three at the top. 72.0.187.239 (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't, or you will be reverted. OR does not apply to images. - BillCJ (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * fine but its bad MOS so removed on those grounds lol BillCJ better luck next time. 72.0.187.239 (talk) 05:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The Development section is so much more appropriate for a location of the small monochrome NASA mockup photo. Bill's version works. Binksternet (talk) 07:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * yes agreed it was low-res. I will try the high res schematic this time. we do need to emphasize first-hand info when possible though, even in pics. 72.0.187.239 (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that first-hand info can be a good emphasis. If there's very little available, then artist's renderings are suitable, especially ones that were contemporary. Binksternet (talk) 00:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

SR-91: Aurora Relation
Anyone know if the X-20 has any relation to the SR-91 Aurora project? From reading about both they seem to be very similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.177.80.3 (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

SpaceShipTwo
SpaceShipTwo clearly is not similar to the X-20. The X-20 is an orbital spacecraft, SpaceShipTwo isn't and can never be. Even if you launched it from a rocket (as the X-20 was designed for) the very lightweight construction would simply not survive the rigours of orbital launch, flight and re-entry. Therefore I am removing the link. GrampaScience (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Buran
Let's look at the following sentence:
 * These characteristics made Dyna-Soar far more advanced in concept than the other human spaceflight missions of the period. The much larger Shuttle would also be boosted into orbit by large rockets for launch, and the final design would also pick delta wings for controlled landings, but it (and the Soviet Buran) would not fly until decades after the X-20 cancellation.

What is the point of this sentence? It's stating that the Dyna-Soar was ahead of its time, that, like the Shuttle nearly 20 years later, it would be sent to space with large boosters and use delta wings to land. Placing comments about the Buran in here are simply irrelevant. The Buran (which of course is a copy of the American space shuttle), had it flown before the Space Shuttle, would be placed in the sentence and the American space shuttle would be excluded, but that's not how history unfolded. The point of the sentence is to show the time delay between the formation of the ideas as part of the Dyna Soar program and the eventual inclusion of them later on. Now your edit summmary, in terms of physical dimensions, Buran was closer to the Dyna-Soar than the Space Shuttle, may very well be correct, but that's just not the point being expressed in the sentence. Perhaps if the cargo/payload specs were the focus here, it would be relevant, but it's about its flight, not its capacity. 98.82.189.203 (talk) 05:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The contention that the Dyna-Soar project was a progenitor for future projects is entirely feasible as the program itself devolved into a research and development program. The initial design for the Space Shuttle was much closer to that of the Dyna-Soar and consequently that of the Buran. The decision to create a "space truck" spurred on by American military interests required a massive redesign as the spacecraft would no longer be able to be launched in the conventional manner, seated on top of rocket boosters. The Buran in being a smaller doppleganger for the Space Shuttle actually was much more reflective of the design concept of the Dyna-Soar, and not only used a similar launch system as envisioned for the Boeing spacecraft but also relied on an aircraft planform that would allow the spacecraft to fly back into the atmosphere and land as a glider, almost the same mission profile identified for the Dyna-Soar. Both the Space Shuttle and the Buran (and conceivably any other spacecraft) with a similar configuration and design owe their existence to the research carried out in concert with the Boeing Dyna-Soar and later X-planes like the Martin X-23 and Northrop X-24, all of which explored various shapes and designs intended for sub-orbital, orbital and space flight. I'll revise the passage accordingly. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC).
 * Everything you said is completely true . . . and completely irrelevant to the edit I made. The design heritage of many products is similarly traceable, there is little, if anything, unique to this sequence.  What is notable in this passage is the passage of time between the initial idea's creation and the actual application of the idea, in other words, the distance in years between the Dyna-Soar's planning stages and the lift of of STS-1.  That the Buran came along later is peripheral to this.


 * Let me ask you this: If the Chinese now created--in 2011--a similar (yet not identical) shuttle system that could be traced also to the Dyna Soar (like the Space Shuttle and Buran), would that also merit inclusion in this sentence?  I think it's clear that feeling a need to include everything that is a descendent of Dyna Soar is not only needless, it's counter-productive. 98.82.189.203 (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the lede in the Dyna-Soar article provides a precis or summary of the salient elements of the article. Nothing wrong with making the connection from the X-20 to the Space Shuttle as there is an indirect relationship of the earlier program to that of the "spaceplane" concept. At the time of its development in the early 1970s, the NASA manned space program relied almost entirely on a ballistic projectile vehicle where the "manned" part was almost an adjunct. The first Mercury astronauts campaigned vigorously to have even the modicum of control over the space flight component of the missions, which initially were entirely ground-controlled and operated autonomously. There wasn't even a porthole window in the original design, one of the first changes demanded by the Mercury 7. The Boeing X-20 for the outset was more "plane" than "spacecraft" and followed the direct evolutionary line established by the NASA X-planes, culminating in the X-15, that actually achieved altitudes of 67 miles above sea level, qualifying as an orbital vehicle. Although there is evidence that Rockwell used the research data derived from the X-20, a number of intermediary programs were in existence, including the X-23 and X-24 projects that explored atmospheric reentry and lifting body concepts later to be incorporated in the Space Shuttle. As to the continuing influence of the spaceplane concept, even recent work on the Rockwell X-30 represents a connection, as much as other spaceplane projects that owe their existence to the concept the Dyna-Soar embodied. FWiW, have you looked at the recent changes in the article? Bzuk (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC).
 * To start with, I think your last edits to the article are quite good; you improved significantly on my last, (hasty) edit, and at this point I am pleased.


 * Regarding the lengthy history you provided--I know that I need to presume good faith, and to not think that you were trying to be patronizing. Indeed, a lot of what you said in your last post here is not understood by the general public.  As I am not an expert in these areas, it's only safe for you to presume that you're telling me that which I did not know.  However, as it happens, until the point with the sentence beginning, Although there is evidence that Rockwell used the research data derived from the X-20, I was already quite cognizant of everything you detailed.  Yes, I actually do understand the fundamental difference between the two means of achieving orbit; such an understanding does not require intricate knowledge.


 * But my original point remains, and as I tried unsuccessfully to explain earlier, that point is outside of the technical realm which you obviously understand quite well. My point centered on good writing; more specifically, on forming sentences and a paragraph with logical uses of grammar and sequencing of facts. I gather that you remain oblivious to my concern, but this, I will presume, is my fault--a failure on my part to adequately communicate my (very minor, I must admit) concern.  But now the point is moot; the article looks good, and the issue, in my opinion, is resolved. 98.82.189.203 (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Rest assured that I do have a nodding acquaintance with syntax and context but ultimately, as you deduced, most observers do not know the background of the spaceplane and that it still remains a viable concept, with a number of state-of-the-art projects being considered by both military and civil organizations. As to my meandering diatribe above, I tend to be the kind of person that if you ask me the time, I will tell you how to construct a watch; just another know-it-all in this wikywackywonderland, we both inhabit. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC).
 * I actually had already visited your userpage; it was for that reason that I didn't ask you if English was your native language. As to the popular notion of the spaceplane, I think most people do regard it as viable; unfortunately, a sizeable number of those people also equally believe in the viability of StarTrek-style transporters and food replicators.  As for myself, I think the decision to pursue missle-launched space travel is perhaps the epitome of American short term thinking.  While development of a spaceplane would almost surely have cost us the race to the moon, we would today be so much better off, in terms of our capacity for entering orbit.  Indeed, I soured on the space shuttle long before 1981--as a close follower of our space program, I had been awaiting a space shuttle system where the booster itself was also going to be manned and would land like the shuttle (one remnant of this original plan is the fact that the shuttle is frequently called "the orbiter"; originally the "space shuttle" would not have been used as a term as we use it now, as it was originally going to refer to the two-piece system, with an Orbiter and a Booster.)  When I saw the final design rolled out, I was not a happy camper. Another example of doing things on the cheap--unless of course you factor in the cost in lives on Challenger, a disaster which the original design would have precluded. 98.82.189.203 (talk) 03:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Rather than "doing it on the cheap", other than the proverbial lowest contractor bid phenomena, the Space Shuttle was "hijacked" by the folks who wanted a truck, not a station wagon. That decision alone, created a spaceplane the size of a DC-9 airliner. It only takes one stroll through its bay (and I have done that) to realize the dimensions of the configuration predicated all other aspects of the program. BTW, English isn't my native language, it's Canajan. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 07:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC).
 * Very interesting; I didn't know that.. For over thirty years I've operated under the notion that they were trying to take the easy route out.  So you're saying that the shuttle system I read about 40 years ago would have had a smaller orbiter?  If so, given the direction we've taken, the loss is even worse than I'd thought. Back when the STS was first launching in the early 1980s, my read on the cost for launching payloads was markedly different than that propagated by the media.  They were talking about its great affordibility, and it seemed to me to be much more expensive than throw-away ballistics.  That, of course, has since been borne out, I think, but what it means to me, if I understand you correctly, is that we could've saved oodles of money by just launching big payloads on Titan IIIs and maybe some Saturn IBs or even a new booster if necessary, at cheaper cost, and then could've used the savings to develop a truly long-lasting and economical space plane.  Well, it'll still happen some day.  I just won't be around to see it. 98.82.189.203 (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In the 1970s, during the initial design process, in a search for broad support from the US government, and recalling the old adage, "you can't be Buck Rogers, without bucks...", NASA gladly accepted an offer from US military authorities, including some clandestine "black" funds, to add some quite specific alterations to the SST project in order to have a payload bay large enough to house military hardware and satellites. That decision alone made the Space Shuttle a veritable space truck, and led to a completely different launch system that was fraught with not only technical problems but involved a risky, read dangerous situation where the orbiter was positioned next to the booster and fuel tanks. The past conventional thinking and now current proposed designs go back to placing the payload on top of the rocket, allowing for at least a modicum of safety in the event of a colossal failure during launch. Using a smaller capsule system, one for the manned mission and an unmanned cargo vehicle makes the most sense from the standpoint of effective use of the reliable solid fuel boosters extant and to "fit the vehicle" to the job required, which would essentially be maintaining the International Space Station, and occasional satellite repair and outfitting missions. Any future lunar, Mars or outer space programs would probably require dedicated spacecraft. The Russian space program relies heavily on a similar set of space craft, and despite early failures, is now the only way into space (other than Chinese and possible Indian forays). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC).
 * Thanks for the insight. See you around . . . 98.82.189.203 (talk) 02:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Legacy
The reference in the Legacy section to Buran being smaller than Dyna-Soar seems questionable. Is it meant to say "larger" rather than "smaller", or "Clipper" instead of "Buran"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex.K.NY (talk • contribs) 02:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

What hardware was actually built
What hardware was actually built (hard to tell from the article) ? Something was rolled out in 1962 - was it a mockup, construction pathfinder, drop test article or what ? What else built ? What done with what built ? - Rod57 (talk) 23:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)