Pictures of Cold War aircraft. (5 Viewers)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Well if we're talking lifting bodies (NASA image):

0Image1.jpg
 
In the late 1970's the "T" designation for US military became less popular.

The reason was that of the types of aircraft, A, B, C, F, T, U, etc., Trainers were given the lowest logistics priority. At one time it was common to put "T" as a prefix for two seat versions of fighters, like the TF-51 and TF-80, and at one time a TF-15 was planned, but no one wanted their airplanes to get the lowest priority. And T-39's used for VIP transport were designated CT-39 to prevent the generals' airplanes from getting low priority.
 
Well if we're talking lifting bodies (NASA image):
I went out to the Edwards airshow around 1980 and saw the "flying mockup" of that lifting body; it was made out of plywood. I think it was limited to tow tests.

In the late 60's everyone assumed that the next manned spacecraft would be a lifting body. But when the decision was made to build the Space Shuttle, NASA was desperate to envelope ALL space launch requirements with the Shuttle and enable it to be the ONLY launch system used by the US. That meant they had to include USAF polar orbit launches out of Vandenberg AFB. The most popular orbits out of VAFB are Sun Synchronous, and that requires a trajectory that is actually a bit West of due South. And due to the rotation of the Earth, that meant if the Shuttle had to abort and land on the first orbit it would be coming down thousands of miles West of the West Coast of the US, with no place to land. Scott Manly has said that he found a USAF mission requirement for a once-around mission but in reality given that the Shuttle was manned it HAD to be able to land on the first orbit in case of a life support problem or a medical concern for crew members. That meant the Shuttle had to have wings, so it could glide in the atmosphere and reach the West Coast. And in turn that made the vehicle much larger, heavier, more expensive, and less viable as a space booster. The Shuttle as conceived was not a very good idea but making it "One Size Fits All" was utterly disastrous.
 
I went out to the Edwards airshow around 1980 and saw the "flying mockup" of that lifting body; it was made out of plywood. I think it was limited to tow tests.

In the late 60's everyone assumed that the next manned spacecraft would be a lifting body. But when the decision was made to build the Space Shuttle, NASA was desperate to envelope ALL space launch requirements with the Shuttle and enable it to be the ONLY launch system used by the US. That meant they had to include USAF polar orbit launches out of Vandenberg AFB. The most popular orbits out of VAFB are Sun Synchronous, and that requires a trajectory that is actually a bit West of due South. And due to the rotation of the Earth, that meant if the Shuttle had to abort and land on the first orbit it would be coming down thousands of miles West of the West Coast of the US, with no place to land. Scott Manly has said that he found a USAF mission requirement for a once-around mission but in reality given that the Shuttle was manned it HAD to be able to land on the first orbit in case of a life support problem or a medical concern for crew members. That meant the Shuttle had to have wings, so it could glide in the atmosphere and reach the West Coast. And in turn that made the vehicle much larger, heavier, more expensive, and less viable as a space booster. The Shuttle as conceived was not a very good idea but making it "One Size Fits All" was utterly disastrous.
ℹ️
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back