jim@foobar.hf.intel.com (Jim Garver) (03/17/89)
In article <94193@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> macs@sun.UUCP (Manuel Cisneros) writes: > >but as for the nature of the beast, I think that the Shuttle is considered >more of a lifting body than a delta wing aircraft, which the Blackbird is. >Shuttle= TAKE OFF on top of a rocket, go really high, orbit the earth a few >times, glide back (with no chance for a go-around), land on a runway) that >it is very likely that the two don't share a whole lot of technology. > Okay, what was the nature and mission of the DYNASOAR? I believe this was the next step after the X-15. The whole airforce program to fly into space was cancelled and the focus shifted entirely on rockets, if I remember correctly. Was Kennedy responsible for this policy change? Where would we be now if the airforce program had continued? Probably already flying hypersonic airliners maybe. -- Jim Garver <tektronix!psu-cs | uunet!littlei>!foobar!jim WA7LDV & N3170N jim@foobar<.hf.intel.com|.uucp> Development Tools Operation, Intel Corp. 503-696-2094 Hillsboro, OR >> 3.860 28.490 146.52 Mhz <<
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (03/18/89)
In article <274@foobar.hf.intel.com> jim@foobar.UUCP (Jim Garver) writes: >Okay, what was the nature and mission of the DYNASOAR? ... Nature? Small spaceplane launched on an expendable booster. Mission? Well, that's a good question. A very good question. And that has more than a little to do with its cancellation -- the USAF simply couldn't come up with a convincing use for it. -- Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
ahiggins@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Andrew Higgins) (03/20/89)
From: jim@foobar.hf.intel.com (Jim Garver) > Okay, what was the nature and mission of the DYNASOAR? I believe this was > the next step after the X-15. The whole airforce program to fly into > space was cancelled and the focus shifted entirely on rockets, if I remember > correctly. Was Kennedy responsible for this policy change? Where would > we be now if the airforce program had continued? Probably already flying > hypersonic airliners maybe. Interesting that you should ask now, because we just passed (on December 10) the 25th anniversary of Dyna Soar's cancellation. I believe that Robert McNamara (Sec. of Defense) had much of the responsibility for cancellation. The funds earmarked for Dyna Soar were redirected to the Air Force's Manned Orbiting Lab (MOL) which was seen to complement the Gemini program, rather than compete with it. Needless to say, the MOL was was a doomed project as well. -- Andrew J. Higgins | Illini Space Development Society 404 1/2 E. White St apt 3 | a chapter of the National Space Society Champaign IL 61820 | at the University of Illinois phone: (217) 359-0056 | P.O. Box 2255 Station A e-mail: ahiggins@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu | Champaign IL 61825 ^^^^^^ "When the Waters were dried an' the earth did appear,...The Lord He created the Engineer" - Rudyard Kipling
fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (03/21/89)
In article <274@foobar.hf.intel.com>, jim@foobar.hf.intel.com (Jim Garver) writes: > Okay, what was the nature and mission of the DYNASOAR? I believe this was > the next step after the X-15. The whole airforce program to fly into > space was cancelled and the focus shifted entirely on rockets, if I remember > correctly. Was Kennedy responsible for this policy change? I think Eisenhower is to be credited (?) with ruling that the American manned space program *must* be run by a civilian agency.
fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (03/21/89)
In article <94977@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>, fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: > In article <274@foobar.hf.intel.com>, jim@foobar.hf.intel.com (Jim Garver) writes: > > Okay, what was the nature and mission of the DYNASOAR? I believe this was > > the next step after the X-15. The whole airforce program to fly into > > space was cancelled and the focus shifted entirely on rockets, if I remember > > correctly. Was Kennedy responsible for this policy change? > > I think Eisenhower is to be credited (?) with ruling that the American > manned space program *must* be run by a civilian agency. > Wrong-o. DynaSoar and MOL were both alive years after Eisenhower retired. Try LBJ.
smb@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Steven M. Bellovin) (03/22/89)
In article <94977@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>, fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: > I think Eisenhower is to be credited (?) with ruling that the American > manned space program *must* be run by a civilian agency. There's a wonderful book, ``The Political History of the Space Program'', that I'd recommend to all readers of this book. It is quite true that Eisenhower *tried* to keep the space program civilian, but failed in the face of the public reaction to Sputnik. The story is quite fascinating. First, in the 1950s there were two separate efforts in this country to launch a satellite, the Army's Explorer program, using a converted Redstone missle, and the Navy's Vanguard, which was designed from scratch as a satellite launcher. Despite pressure from the military -- which knew around 1950 or 1951 how valuable spy satellites could be (there was a Rand Corporation study) -- to move forward, Eisenhower favored Vanguard. His reasons weren't entirely altruistic, of course. First, it was assumed that the USSR would claim that an American satellite was violating Soviet air space (and they did indeed make that claim a few years later). If the first American satellite was purely scientific, and under the auspices of the International Geophysical Year, it would be much easier to defend. And that, of course, would set a precedent. For that matter, if the Soviets launched first, that would be an even better precedent. It's easy for the U.S. to launch a satellite that doesn't pass over the Soviet Union; the converse is much harder. Thus, certain people in the administration didn't even care much if the Soviets ``won'' the race to orbit. Finally, the book claims that Eisenhower was concerned with the centralization of technology and innovation that would be concommitant with a militarized space program. To my way of thinking, that claim is not as well supported by the evidence, but it's still worth thinking about. Anyway, the Soviets did launch first, and the U.S. public panicked. This was made even worse when the first Vanguard blew up on the pad. Ike gave the go-ahead to von Braun and the rest of the Army team; they launched their converted missle successfully before Vanguard got off the ground. Another tidbit from the book: a primary purpose of the civilian space program was military technology development. More precisely, the Powers that Be in the Pentagon realized that if there was another war, it would not be possible to develop a state-of-the-art aerospace industry from scratch. Engineers (and for that matter factories and manufacturing techniques) take years to train; there would be no time to build up the necessary cadre in time to make a difference in the next war. Thus, they felt, the government had to maintain the industry just to keep the design capacity available. The civilian aircraft industry was fine, but there were many aspects they weren't interested in. And a large-enough defense aircraft procurement policy was politically unsupportable. The space program, though, would push the state of the art, and could masquerade as pure science. And of course, the military did have their own uses for orbiting satellites anyway. --Steve Bellovin
smb@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Steven M. Bellovin) (03/25/89)
Several people have written me asking for a precise citation to the book I mentioned earlier. It's ``The Heavens and the Earth: A Political History of the Space Age'', by Walter McDougall, Basic Books, 1985. I believe it won a Pulitzer Prize.
steve@eos.UUCP (Steve Philipson) (03/28/89)
In article <11347@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> smb@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Steven M. Bellovin) writes: >Anyway, the Soviets did launch first, and the U.S. public panicked. ... >Another tidbit from the book: a primary purpose of the civilian space >program was military technology development. ... > ... And of course, the military did have their own uses >for orbiting satellites anyway. The public had good reason to panic. By 1957 large boosters had existed for some time, and even larger boosters were in the offing. What the soviets accomplished was not just a neat trick and technological first of putting a satellite into orbit -- they had demonstrated that they had solved the guidance problem of putting a hunk of metal into a desired orbit. This meant that they could also put a nuclear warhead up, and probably drop it down onto our heads. For the first time, the continental US was under direct threat of nuclear attack. Indeed, this was something to panic about. We have had a space research program that has largely been civilian, but military objectives and goals have been there since the beginning. -- Steve (the certified flying fanatic) steve@aurora.arc.nasa.gov