Home - Search - Browse - Alphabetic Index: 0- 1- 2- 3- 4- 5- 6- 7- 8- 9
A- B- C- D- E- F- G- H- I- J- K- L- M- N- O- P- Q- R- S- T- U- V- W- X- Y- Z
Robo vs Dynasoar
Robo vs Dynasoar
Robo and Dynasoar cutaway views, to scale. Robo, from fore to aft: coolant tanks for active structure cooling during re-entry; landing gear; avionics bay; cockpit for single crew; equipment pay; propellant tank bay; nuclear weapon (ejected through rear); transtage for maneuvering in space. Dynasoar: nose skid; cabin for single crew; conditioned payload bay for experiments, weapons, or additional crew; equipment/transition section with cooling equipment, large hydrogen tank for electrical power generator; transtage for maneuver in orbit.
American manned spaceplane. Cancelled 1963. The X-20A Dynasoar (Dynamic Soarer) was a single-pilot manned reusable spaceplane, really the earliest American manned space project to result in development contracts.

AKA: X-20A. Status: Cancelled 1963. Payload: 450 kg (990 lb). Thrust: 71.19 kN (16,004 lbf). Gross mass: 10,125 kg (22,321 lb). Unfuelled mass: 7,435 kg (16,391 lb). Height: 14.50 m (47.50 ft). Span: 6.34 m (20.80 ft).

Cancellation in December 1963 came only eight months before drop tests from a B-52 and a first manned flight in 1966.

DynaSoar evolved from the German Saenger-Bredt Silverbird intercontinental skip-glide rocket bomber. Walter Dornberger, former head of Peenemuende, was at Bell Aircraft in the 1950's and developed the Sanger-Bredt concept through various iterations (Bomi and Robo). In typical Pentagon fashion the final development contract went instead to Boeing. Politics resulted in its primary purpose changing during its life (manned space bomber, high speed test vehicle, reconnaissance platform), with the launch vehicles at various times including Titan I, Titan II, and finally Titan IIIC. Cancellation in December 1963 came only eight months before drop tests from a B-52 and a first manned flight in 1966.

The Dyna-Soar itself would have been developed into Dyna-Soar II, III, X-20X, and Dyna-MOWS (Manned Orbital Weapons System) versions which would have run the gamut of missions - orbital supply, satellite rendezvous and inspection, reconnaissance, research, and orbital bombing.

After its cancellation, the Air Force pursued further development of manned spaceplanes through the Prime, Asset, X-23, and X-24 programs, with suborbital launch of subscale lifting body designs. B-52 drop tests of the X-24A and X-24B lifting body designs continued into the mid-1970's. Reportedly there were also black programs leading to suborbital flight and re-entry of a full-size unmanned lifting body patterned after the NASA HL-10. In the end, the Air Force was pressured by the Nixon Administration to accept participation in the space shuttle program in lieu of separate development of their own designs.

The klaxon sounds in the hardened silo deep beneath the earth. A space-suited astronauts run from the ready room, grabs the bar over the hatch, and hoists his legs into the cockpit. The ground crew attach his suit hoses, check that he is strapped into the ejection seat. The pilot closes the hatch above him. The blast doors open, the rocket is raised to the surface of the earth. Minutes later the Titan roars from the silo, launching the Dyna-Soar space bomber on an intercontinental nuclear strike mission.

This was the original vision of Dyna-Soar, the penultimate manned space bomber project of the 1950's. Following evaluation of the Robo space bomber proposals in the summer of 1957, the decision was made to combine several parallel Air Force and NACA manned spaceplane projects into a single effort. These included the SR 126 Robo; the System 459L Brass Bell hypersonic reconnaissance vehicle; and the System 610A Hywards follow-on to the X-15. The secret form DD-613 was completed on 23 August 1957 for System 464L with the confidential description 'Hypersonic Glide Rocket Weapon System', the confidential nickname 'Dyna-Soar' (for Dynamic Soarer), and the unclassified title 'Hypersonic Strategic Weapon System'.

The proposed project would develop a manned, winged vehicle that would be rocket-boosted to hypersonic speed at an altitude above 30 km. It would then glide from 10,200 to 40,800 km, depending on the mission. The project was to be completed in three phases:

The argument for the weapon system were quite similar to those aired 45 years later. The Air Force was concerned that by the 1970's the ballistic missile would not be able to strike hardened targets with the necessary accuracy. They certainly couldn't hit mobile targets. Boost-glide was a more attractive alternative than air-breathing advanced turbojet or ramjet engines as a B-70 bomber follow-on. A rocket-propelled glider could fly at the entire speed range from Mach 5 to Mach 25 as required by the mission. Air-breathing systems would be much more complex, more difficult to develop, and only operate at lower speeds. Rand Corporation studies indicated anything below Mach 9 could be vulnerable to Soviet air defenses by 1965.

The Dyna-Soar could attack enemy targets from any direction. At its low approach altitude enemy radar systems would only provide three minutes warning of the attack, as opposed to twenty minutes for an ICBM. Unlike a ballistic missile, it could be recalled or retargeted during the mission. On the reconnaissance mission, it could glide over enemy targets between 45 and 90 km altitude, providing better resolution than orbiting satellites at much higher altitudes. The data would be available for analysis within hours of the overflight, compared to having to wait for days for recovery of the capsules from spy satellites. The enemy would also have no warning to conceal its activities, unlike a satellite in its predictable orbit.

The Air Force considered 12 contractors as capable of bidding on the program. Nine vendor teams submitted bids by March 1958. These were broken into two groups: vehicles which would be accelerated to orbital velocity at 120 km altitude and achieve global range by actually being in orbit; and sub-orbital vehicles that would reach near-orbital speed at 90 km altitude and glide around the planet. The proposals may be summarized as follows:

Satelloid Proposals

Boost-Glide Proposals The evaluation board found the Martin-Bell and Boeing proposals as most attractive, since they offered the entire range of capability from lower-mach boost-glide through orbital velocity in a single vehicle. Bell had five years of Bomi, Brass Bell, and Robo studies behind it and was by far the potential contractor with the greatest expertise in the area. Boeing's concept of a passively-cooled structure was considered superior to the active-cooling of Bell's design if it could be pulled off. Both companies received $ 9 million one-year contracts to refine their designs, leading to a competitive down-select.

During the study period, something extraordinary happened: Boeing's configuration evolved from its original Buck Rogers concept, festooned with fins, to something nearly identical to Bell's glider. Boeing's March 1958 configuration was essentially a tetrahedron; triangular planform with a diamond cross-section. That shape was driven by the desire to eliminate thermal stresses by using a determinate truss primary structure. But Boeing already recognized that the ventral fins were thermally untenable and would have to go. They were driven to a flat-bottomed configuration with distinct wings to reduce heating and improve landability. By the time of the final proposals in June 1959, the competing glider systems were nearly indistinguishable, except that Bell's glider used a more sophisticated double-delta wing, foreshadowing the space shuttle of 15 years later. In a shock move, Boeing was selected for the glider in June 1959.

This was Bell's swan song. The small but innovative company had invested millions of its own money in the Bomi and Dyna-Soar. But Bell was considered more of a prototype house by the Air Force. In World War II they were relegated to production of fighters to be sent to the Soviet Union on lend-lease. Although they had built the first American jet aircraft and the X-1, the first aircraft to break the sound barrier, they had not won a full-scale development contract for a manned aircraft since 1955. Boeing, on the other hand, was the premier builder of SAC's B-52 bombers and Minuteman ICBM's. To compensate it for the loss of the B-70 competition at the end of 1957, it was perhaps considered logical for it to build the successor.

On the other hand the service greatly preferred Martin's booster proposal (Titan I for the suborbital tests, Titan C for global flights). Boeing's vague proposal was to use Atlas-Centaur for suborbital flights, and a booster 'to be determined' for orbital flights. The contract awards for Dyna-Soar, were announced on November 9, 1959. By then the program was had gone down to two phases, and then back to three phases - a suborbital test Phase 1, an orbital test Phase 2, and an operational weapon system in Phase 3.

The selection of the Titan C for the Phase 2 booster was controversial. This was a Titan II booster stage topped by a new liquid oxygen/hydrogen upper stage. Even though Aerojet already had the engine under test in Sacramento, the Eisenhower administration wasn't interested in developing yet another new orbital launch vehicle. There were also elements in the Air Force pushing their Space Launching System family of modular launch vehicles. And there was an Air Force requirement, beyond Dyna-Soar, for development of a large booster for its SLV-4 requirement. This new vehicle would be needed by the late 1960's for launch of ten-metric ton reconnaissance satellites into low orbit and heavy communications, ELINT, and early warning satellites into high orbits. Production of Titan I boosters for Phase 1 was authorized while a decision on the orbital booster was deferred.

The first development contract was not issued until April 1960. While glider development continued at Boeing, the booster kept changing. By January 1961 it was decided to use the Titan 2 instead of the Titan 1 for the suborbital flights. In July 1961 the Air Force recommended production of its visionary Space Launching System for the SLV-4 requirement. The A-388 'Phoenix' variant of the modular booster would provide Dyna-Soar's ride to orbit. This was overturned three months later and the Titan 3 became the heavy-launch vehicle for the USAF. A month later, at the end of 1961, it was decided to dump the Titan 2 sub-orbital phase of Dyna-Soar launches, and use the Titan 3 alone for Dyna-Soar launches.

Meanwhile development of the glider was proceeding well. By the end of 1962 critical design reviews of all major subsystems had been completed. Major breakthroughs had been achieved in high temperature materials and fabrication of parts for the airframe was underway. Delivery of the first Dyna-Soar was to be made by October 1964 and first orbital launch by the end of 1965. While the first glider test would be 14 months later than the original July 1957 schedule, the first orbital flight was expected six months earlier.

Dyna-Soar was seemingly doomed from birth over controversy over its mission and the lack of a strong sponsor. The Eisenhower administration wanted to limit it to suborbital missions (so as not to infringe on the new NASA agency's mission of manned orbital flight). Once Eisenhower was replaced by Kennedy, the catastrophic new Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, began to work his malignant magic. There was no weapons system immediately resulting from Dyna-Soar. Nor did he believe there was any need for the military to waste so much money on an aeronautical research vehicle. The back-and-forth was extremely tedious and can be traced through the chronology below. Suffice to say after reviews, audits, and special studies ad nauseum the project was killed by McNamara in December 1963.

It was replaced by the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL), equipped with a Gemini capsule, also launched by a Titan 3 booster. McNamara killed a project in being, with drawing release nearly 100% complete, and the first spacecraft one month away from final assembly. Expenditures were under control and Boeing had already spent $ 253.5 million of its $ 530 million development budget. Captive-carry flights would have begun within the year. In its place was a vague concept not even studied in any detail yet. After six years of development, it would in turn be cancelled in 1969 after wasting $ 1.5 billion. It was a typical example of McNamara's criminally poor judgment.

If Dyna-Soar and the Space Launching System had been completed, the United States would have had by 1965 a modern modular launch vehicle launching a reusable manned spaceplane -- something it now hopes to accomplish with the Delta IV / OSP by 2010. The nation could have been spared the false premise of the shuttle program and had a space station ferry in being by the beginning of the 1970's. It might even have been flying well into the 21st Century, while the Gemini, Apollo, and Shuttle were consigned to the trash heaps of history.

Technical Description of the Dyna-Soar


The glider had a 72.48 deg straight delta wing with a flat bottom. The aft fuselage was ramped, found desirable to provide directional stability at transonic speeds. It was 10.78 m long, with a wingspan of 6.34 m and a wing area of 32 sq m. The design provided a hypersonic lift-to-drag ratio of from 0.8 to 1.9 at hypersonic speeds. This was sufficient to give it a maximum cross-range of 3150 km. This meant if it had to divert from a planned landing at Edwards Air Force base, California, it could land anywhere from Juneau, Alaska, to Talaro, Ecuador, including any airfield in the continental United States. The Dyna-Soar's unique wire-brush skids allowed it to land even on compacted earth runways as short as 2400 m.

The glider had a design mass of 5,055 kg with a 450 kg return payload for the 3150 km cross-range. This design mass was based on the original expected performance of the heat shield materials. Tests prior to cancellation of the project indicated higher-than-expected emissivity of the heat shield. This meant the flight vehicle could have a mass of 6,400 kg with a return payload of 1800 kg at the 3150 km cross range. This capability was to be exploited in planned follow-on versions.

In orbit the glider remained attached to the third stage of the Titan 3. This transtage was a restartable rocket capable of enormous maneuvers. Before ignition it had a gross mass of 12,250 kg, of which 10,300 kg was storable nitrogen tetroxide/Aerozine-50 propellants. The transtage would fire initially to place the Dyna-Soar in orbit. Available remaining propulsion would depend on the mission initial orbit and glider mass. On a typical mission it was expected the total mass (glider+transtage) orbited would be 12,700 kg, leaving the transtage with 5700 kg of propellants, enough for a single maneuver of over 2 km/sec. Such huge maneuvers would greatly complicate the enemy's ability to predict the overflight path and time of the Dyna-Soar on a reconnaissance, bombing, or satellite interception mission.

The Air Force was especially interested in exploring the possibilities of 'synergistic' orbital maneuver. This would involve the X-20 entering the upper atmosphere, and using its aerodynamic maneuverability to change the orbital plane. The transtage would then boost the spacecraft back into orbit. This would change the maximum plane change from 15.8 deg for the pure propulsive engine burn to 20.3 deg for the 'synergistic' turn.

In the fairing between the glider and the transtage was a solid-propellant abort rocket adapted from the Minuteman third stage. This would be used for aborts during launch to blast the glider away from the booster. On orbit, it could be used for emergency retro-fire in case of a transtage propulsion failure.


The internal structure of the X-20A was a truss structure of Rene 41 steel. This was designed to compensate for thermal expansion of the hot structure during re-entry. Within the body truss were four bays - forward pilot's compartment, a central equipment compartment, aft equipment bay, and secondary equipment bay.

The upper wing, body, and inside fin surfaces were also of Rene 41. Coated molybdenum was used for the leading edge panels and the lower wing surface. The nose cap was of zirconium. Maximum re-entry temperatures during a maximum lateral range re-entry would 2010 deg C at the nose-cap, 1550 deg C on the wing leading edge, and 1340 deg C on the wing lower surface. The internal structure would stabilize at 980 deg C.



The X-20 would not be controllable throughout its speed range with purely manual controls. Therefore a control augmentation system was provided, which could operate in four control modes, all of them fly-by-wire. A side-arm controller provided pitch and roll inputs while yaw commands were via conventional aircraft rudder pedals. The pilot was able to use these controls for manual flight of the Titan 3C launch vehicle during the boost to orbit, if needed. In space, these controls commanded one of two redundant hydrogen peroxide thruster systems for orientation. During re-entry, the control system operated a mix of thruster and aerodynamic controls until the glider reached a dynamic pressure of 0.68 bar. From that point purely aerodynamic controls were used. The thrusters were shut down and the remaining hydrogen peroxide propellant was pumped overboard. Over 8,000 pilot-hours were spent in X-20 simulators before the program was cancelled. These showed the glider's longitudinal and lateral handling characteristics were rated between good and satisfactory in the speed range Mach 1 to Mach 27.

The inertial navigation system was developed by Honeywell at their Saint Petersburg, Florida facility. It used an adaptation of the inertial measurement unit developed for the Bomarc-B missile and later adapted for the Centaur upper stage. The guidance computer was the same used in the Hound Dog missile. The system was tested in-flight in an F-101B fighter and on a high-speed sled at Holloman AFB. After the X-20 cancellation, the system was tested at extreme speed and altitude in the X-15.

For the re-entry the pilot was provided with a unique 'energy management display' which consisted of a series of transparent overlays on a cathode-ray tube. The system was driven by the guidance computer, which changed the overlays every 300 m/s as the re-entry progressed. Two dots were projected on the cathode-ray tube. One showed the current angle of attack and bank angle of the glider; the other the angles the pilot would have to fly to reach the selected airfield. The overlay included a line indicating air vehicle structural limits to ensure the pilot did not over-maneuver the aircraft. The guidance system could store a maximum of ten airfield locations.


The internal compartments of the Dyna-Soar were encased in 'water walls' which provided passive cooling. These reduced the 980 deg C re-entry equilibrium temperature of the airframe truss structure to 90 deg C and allowed the pressure shells of the compartments to be of conventional aluminum. Cooling systems in the compartments further reduced the maximum internal temperature to 46 deg C. The pilot compartment was pressurized to 0.5 atmosphere, equivalent to an altitude of 5500 m, but with a mixture of 43.5% oxygen and 56.5% nitrogen. The payload compartment was pressurized at 0.7 atmosphere with 100% nitrogen. The other two bays were not pressurized, but had nitrogen purging systems in the case of fires.

The pilot's compartment housed the inertial guidance system, the flight control system electronics, pilot displays, controls, ejection seat, and gas supplies for windshield cover jettison and landing gear extension. The pilot had a view at all times through two side windows. The three-piece forward windshield was covered by a heat shield during ascent, orbital operations, and re-entry. It was only blown off when the glider had slowed below Mach 6, for use on landing. However tests by Neil Armstrong with a modified F5D Stingray fighter showed landing could be safely made using only the side windows if this failed to jettison. The ejection seat could only be used at subsonic speeds between 1,000 and 130 kph.

The equipment compartment provided just over two cubic meters of volume, to be occupied during flight tests with the 450 kg of the Test Instrumentation Subsystem. This processed and recorded data from 750 sensors that captured glider temperature, pressure, loads, subsystems performance, pilot biometrics, and heat flux.

The aft equipment bay was a narrow compartment containing the liquid nitrogen supply, the hydrogen peroxide propellant tanks, and some power system controls.

The large secondary power bay was dominated by the huge liquid hydrogen tank. This worked with two redundant liquid oxygen tanks to provide propellant for the unique Auxiliary Power Unit that provided 12 kVA 400 cycle AC power for the Dyna-Soar. It also housed the glycol secondary cooling system.

Mission Profile

For the 'single-orbit' test flights, Dyna-Soar would be boosted from Cape Canaveral by the Titan 3C and transtage to 7.53 km/s at 98 km altitude. It would then coast to an apogee of 146 km over South Africa. The transtage would be jettisoned over the Indian Ocean, and the long re-entry glide would continue from there until landing at Edwards Air Force Base, California. For multi-orbit flights, booster cut-off would be only 20 m/s faster and 600 m higher. But then the glider would coast to 183 km altitude, where the transtage would fire to circularize the orbit. After three circuits of the earth, the transtage would fire again over Angola to brake out of orbit, with the return demonstrating the spacecraft's cross range capability and the landing again at Edwards.

Growth Versions

Heavier and more capable versions of the Dyna-Soar were planned to follow on the basic ten-flight program. These could use both refurbished gliders from the basic program and new-build spacecraft. The basic vehicle had the capability for a 450 kg return payload and 300 m/s delta-v capability. Expected improvements were as follows:

Following the funded ten-flight test series, the Dyna-Soar could be used in a number of roles. While the space bomber mission was no longer discussed by late 1963, it would be a useful platform for other Air Force missions. The basic X-20A could be modified to accommodate the following payloads:

Longer-term, the X-20X was a follow-on version for space station ferry missions. The interior of the glider was substantially rearranged to provide for four passenger seats behind the pilot. The aft equipment bay was eliminated and all equipment was moved to the secondary power bay. The abort motor was eliminated. That and the performance improvements listed resulted in substantial space and mass margins for large payloads in a bay in the transition section between the glider and transtage. Grappling arms provided for docking of the entire upper fuselage with a space station.

The X-20 was pushed as an alternate to the Gemini as a space station ferry vehicle in the twilight days of the program. If only it had been accepted, the US would have had a space station and winged ferry vehicle flying before the end of the 1960's.

Crew Size: 1. Habitable Volume: 3.50 m3. Spacecraft delta v: 900 m/s (2,950 ft/sec).


Brass Bell American manned combat spacecraft. Study 1956. Hypersonic manned reconnaissance spaceplane project of the 1950's. Predecessor to Dynasoar.

Hywards American manned combat spacecraft. Study 1956. Hypersonic manned test spaceplane project of the 1950's. Predecessor to Dynasoar.

M1 Manufacturer's designation for [Mars M1] mars orbiter.

M2b Version of M2 lifting body proposed in 1958 as an alternate to the Dynasoar winged glider configuration.

SAINT II American manned combat spacecraft. Cancelled 1961. At the beginning of the 1960's, the USAF examined a number of approaches to a manned spacecraft designed to rendezvous with, inspect, and then, if necessary, destroy enemy satellites.

Asset American manned spaceplane. 6 launches, 1963.09.18 (ASSET 1) to 1965.02.23 (ASSET 6). One part of the Dynasoar manned spaceplane project was ASSET ( 'Aerothermodynamic Elastic Structural Systems Environmental Tests') .

Dynasoar 3 Planned Dynasoar first manned single-orbit flight. The flight would have been devoted to demonstrating pilot control of the spacecraft and evaluation of the systems (this was to have followed two unmanned flight tests). Project cancelled December 1963.

Dynasoar 4 Planned second manned Dynasoar single-orbit flight. Objectives were to demonstrate maneuver in orbit and during re-entry, and systems evaluation. Project cancelled in December 1963

Dynasoar 5 Planned third manned Dynasoar single-orbit flight; would demonstrate maneuver in orbit and during re-entry, and systems evaluation. Project cancelled in December 1963.

Dynasoar 6 Planned fourth manned Dynasoar single-orbit flight; would demonstrate maneuver in orbit and during re-entry, and systems evaluation. Project cancelled in December 1963.

Dynasoar 7 Planned fifth manned Dynasoar single-orbit flight. Would demonstrate reuse of a minimally-refurbished spacecraft flown on an earlier mission. Project cancelled in December 1963

Dynasoar 8 Planned sixth manned Dynasoar single-orbit flight. Would demonstrate maneuver in orbit and during re-entry, and a precision recovery. Project cancelled in December 1963

Dynasoar 9 Planned first multi-orbit flight and seventh manned flight of Dynasoar would have the objectives to demonstrate maneuver in orbit and during re-entry, and a precision recovery. Project cancelled in December 1963

Dynasoar 10 Planned eighth manned flight, second multi-orbit flight, and final flight of the Dynasoar program would have the objectives to demonstrate maneuver in orbit and during re-entry, and a precision recovery. Project cancelled in December 1963

Family: Spaceplane, US Rocketplanes. People: Saenger. Country: USA. Spacecraft: Dynasoar Glider, Dynasoar AS. Launch Vehicles: Titan I, Titan II, Titan IIIC, Astro IV, Soltan, Titan C, RBSS, Saturn I. Stages: Titan Transtage. Agency: Boeing. Bibliography: 148, 152, 158, 17, 18, 26, 36, 4288, 44, 47, 48, 483, 583.
Photo Gallery

Dyna SoarDyna Soar
Credit: USAF

B-52 overflies X-20B-52 overflies X-20
B-52 overflies Dynasoar after first drop test.
Credit: © Dan Roam

Credit: © Mark Wade

Credit: © Mark Wade

Boost-Glide VehiclesBoost-Glide Vehicles
US Boost-glide vehicles of the 1950's: From left, Bomi, Robo single and parallel booster versions, Boeing Dynasoar with Titan 1 and Titan 2 boosters

Credit: © Mark Wade

X-20A VariantsX-20A Variants
Credit: © Mark Wade

Credit: © Mark Wade

X-20 cockpitX-20 cockpit
View of the X-20 cockpit. In addition to single crew member, payload bay behind cockpit could have accepted additional crew member or 450 kg military/scientific payload.
Credit: © Dan Roam

X-20 DynasoarX-20 Dynasoar
X-20 Dynasoar in re-entry configuration
Credit: © Dan Roam


X-20A / Titan 1X-20A / Titan 1
Credit: USAF

X-20 / Titan 1X-20 / Titan 1
Credit: Lockheed-Martin

X-20/Saturn IX-20/Saturn I
Credit: © Mark Wade

X-20 Early ConceptX-20 Early Concept
Credit: Aerojet

X-20 Launch VehiclesX-20 Launch Vehicles
SLV-4 / X-20 Launch Vehicles - from left, Titan I, Titan C, Saturn I, Titan 3, Phoneix (SLS A-388)
Credit: © Mark Wade

X-20 DynasoarX-20 Dynasoar
X-20 Dynasoar at sunrise
Credit: © Mark Wade

X-20 DynasoarX-20 Dynasoar
X-20 Dynasoar in orbit
Credit: © Mark Wade

Titan 3 LV with X-20Titan 3 LV with X-20
The original mission of the Titan 3 booster was to launch the X-20 Dynasoar manned spaceplane into orbit.
Credit: © Mark Wade

X-20 3 ViewX-20 3 View
Credit: © Mark Wade

1933 December 15 - . LV Family: German Rocketplanes. Launch Vehicle: Saenger Antipodal Bomber.
August 1944 - . LV Family: German Rocketplanes. Launch Vehicle: Saenger Antipodal Bomber.
1946 May 1 - .
1952 April 17 - .
1954 April 1 - .
1955 January 4 - .
1955 May 12 - .
1955 September 21 - .
1955 December 19 - .
1956 March 1 - .
1956 March 20 - .
1956 June 12 - .
1956 October 1 - .
1956 October - .
1956 November 6 - .
1956 November - .
1957 February 14 - .
1957 April 30 - .
1957 June 20 - .
1957 June 20 - .
1957 October 10 - .
1957 October 14 - .
1957 October 15-21 - .
1957 November 15 - .
1957 November 25 - .
1957 December 21 - .
1958 January 25 - .
1958 January 31 - .
March 1958 - .
1958 March 18-20 - .
1958 May 20 - .
1958 May 20 - .
1958 May 20 - .
1958 May 20 - .
1958 June 16 - .
1958 June 16 - . LV Family: Titan. Launch Vehicle: Titan C.
1958 September 30 - .
1958 November 1 - .
1959 January 7 - .
1959 February 17 - .
1959 April 13 - .
1959 May 7 - .
1959 June 1 - . LV Family: Titan. Launch Vehicle: Titan C.
1959 November 2 - .
1959 November 9 - . LV Family: Titan. Launch Vehicle: Titan I.
1959 November 9 - . LV Family: Titan. Launch Vehicle: Titan I, Titan II.
1959 November 24 - .
1959 December 11 - .
1960 During the Year - .
1960 January 27 - .
1960 February 8 - .
1960 March 1 - .
April 1960 - .
1960 April 8 - .
1960 April 11 - .
1960 April 19 - .
1960 April 22 - .
1960 April 25 - .
1960 April 27 - .
1960 April 27 - .
1960 June 8 - . LV Family: Titan. Launch Vehicle: Titan I.
1960 June 9 - .
1960 June 27 - . LV Family: Titan. Launch Vehicle: Titan I.
1960 July 21 - .
1960 August 4 - .
1960 October 12 - .
1960 November 28 - . LV Family: Titan. Launch Vehicle: Titan I, Titan II.
1960 December 1 - .
1960 December 6 - .
1960 December 16 - .
1960 December 26 - . LV Family: Titan. Launch Vehicle: Titan IIIC.
1961 January 12 - . LV Family: Titan. Launch Vehicle: Titan I, Titan II.
1961 January 13 - . LV Family: Titan. Launch Vehicle: Titan II.
1961 January 25 - . LV Family: Titan. Launch Vehicle: Titan II.
1961 February 3 - .
1961 February 14 - .
1961 March 28 - .
1961 March 28 - .
1961 April 24 - .
1961 April 26 - .
1961 April 28 - . Launch Vehicle: Saturn I.
1961 May 4 - .
1961 May 12 - . LV Family: Titan. Launch Vehicle: Titan IIIC.
1961 May 29 - .
1961 July 11 - .
1961 August 1 - .
1961 August 5 - . LV Family: Titan. Launch Vehicle: Titan IIIC.
1961 September 11 - .
1961 September 28 - .
1961 September 29 - .
1961 October 7 - .
1961 October 13 - .
1961 October 27 - .
1961 November 16 - .
1961 December 9 - . LV Family: Titan. Launch Vehicle: Titan IIIC.
1961 December 11 - .
1961 December 26 - . LV Family: Titan. Launch Vehicle: Titan II.
1961 December 27 - .
1961 December 28 - . LV Family: Titan. Launch Vehicle: Titan IIIC.
1962 January 8 - .
1962 January 31 - .
1962 February 21 - .
1962 February 23 - .
1962 May 14 - .
1962 June 26 - .
1962 June 26 - .
1962 June 30 - .
1962 July 13 - .
1962 September 8 - . LV Family: Titan.
1962 September 19 - .
1962 October 10 - . LV Family: Titan. Launch Vehicle: Titan IIIC.
1962 October 15 - . LV Family: Titan. Launch Vehicle: Titan IIIC.
1962 October 16 - .
1962 November 1 - .
1962 November 5 - .
1962 November 26 - .
1962 December 19 - .
1963 January 11 - .
1963 January 18 - .
1963 January 19 - . LV Family: Titan. Launch Vehicle: Titan IIIC.
1963 January 21 - .
1963 March 15 - .
1963 March 30 - .
1963 April 12 - .
1963 May 9 - .
1963 May 10 - .
1963 May 27 - .
1963 June 8 - .
1963 June 18 - .
1963 July 3 - .
1963 July 12 - .
1963 July 22 - .
1963 July 31 - .
1963 August 9 - .
1963 August 30 - .
1963 September 3 - .
1963 September 12 - .
1963 September 23 - .
1963 October 7 - .
1963 October 23 - . LV Family: Titan. Launch Vehicle: Titan IIIC.
1963 November 14 - .
1963 November 18 - .
1963 November 29 - .
1963 November 30 - .
1963 December 4 - .
1963 December 5 - .
1963 December 10 - .
1963 December 10 - .
1963 December 11 - .
1963 December 13 - .
1963 December 16 - .
1963 December 19 - .
1963 December 20 - .
1963 December 27 - .
1964 Jan - .
1964 January 3 - .
1964 January 23 - .
1965 January 13 - .
1965 May - .
1966 January - .
1966 April - .
1966 July - .
1966 Late - .
1967 Early - .
1967 Spring - .
1967 Summer - .
1967 Fall - .
1967 December - .
1968 Early - .

Back to top of page
Home - Search - Browse - Alphabetic Index: 0- 1- 2- 3- 4- 5- 6- 7- 8- 9
A- B- C- D- E- F- G- H- I- J- K- L- M- N- O- P- Q- R- S- T- U- V- W- X- Y- Z
© 1997-2019 Mark Wade - Contact
© / Conditions for Use