Talk:Lifting body

message: The M-2 was a development of an earlier design in which I worked. Therefore my opinion is probably biased. However, I did receive three degrees in Engineering. In my opinion, if the X-24 design had been picked for the basis of the Space Shuttle, it would have been better. Look at the thick leading edges and compare them to the, relatively, thin edges of the shuttle.
The reason for the shuttle's thin wing was to give it higher lift to drag ratio probably because it had a need for lift to alter its entry trajectory. There may, or not, have been a military requirement for this. Of course, if the launch is made in the right trajectory, there is no need for this.
Perhaps if there is a follow up design...
::In order to get U.S. Air Force support (but not Air Force funding) for the Space Shuttle, NASA had to design a much larger craft than it needed. It had to add the larger 15x60 ft cargo bay and the larger cross range performance demanded by the Air Force. By doing this NASA got Air Force support before Congress for the Space Shuttle. Reubenbarton 14:26, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 2005-2006

message: How come the list here shows 1 flight yet the article on the HL-10 itself says 37?
thanks
:I don't know why it says 1 flight. Pages 193 to 200 of Reed's book list the specific flights, their pilots, and other details. You could count the number of HL-10 flights if you like. Aeronrd (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Also: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/history/pastprojects/Lifting/HL10/ indicates 37 flights of HL-10. Aeronrd (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of Flights - HL-10

message: The article to date is aircraft-heavy in its emphasis.  Increasingly, spacecraft are being designed for horizontal landing (VTHL, or HTHL), and lifting body design is often an explicit part of the spaceplane design.  Given the new NASA CCDev phase 2 proposals announced yesterday, at least of couple of which appear to be VTHL spacecraft with explicit "lifting body" design incorporated, I think it is probably time to evolve this article a bit to reflect both aircraft and spacecraft lifting body designs.  What do other's think?
If no objections surface, I will begin to incorporate a more balanced coverage of spacecraft lifting bodies, with sources, as I get the time to do it.  N2e (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your suggestion is a very good one.  I agree that the lifting aspect of spacecraft is not given adequate coverage at present.  Please add as much extra information as you can find. Dolphin (t) 23:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A good protion of the article, especially the Aerospace applications section, is about early designs for the space shuttle, and also mentions several other designs in the past for spacecraft with lifting bodies. The only photos are of lifting body X-planes that were used to research potential Space Shuttle designs. The article just needs updating, not "balancing". - BilCat (talk) 01:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  — I have belatedly begun to flesh out (update) the article to reflect spacecraft lifting bodies.  More work is needed, but then the entire article needs a good bit of work.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 04:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lifting body:  it's not just for aircraft any more 

message: Mentioned Dream Chaser but not the following lifting bodies:
   * Boeing X-37
   * ISS Crew Return Vehicle / X-38  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.251.66.179 (talk) 18:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mentioned Dream Chaser but not ... 

message: http://www.flickr.com/photos/joelogon/2644360795/
--Craigboy (talk) 13:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: I added a reference to Dale Reed's 1997 book: Wingless Flight. This book has many details from the history of lifting body research at NASA, and Dale Reed was one of the world experts on the topic.
I think there are many places in this article where a citation is needed, and someone could probably confirm or refute the claim with information in Wingless Flight.
The PDF is available online: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19980169231
Aeronrd (talk) 01:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dale Reed's book has many details 

message: The information regarding IXV ([]) is outdated... The february/2015 test flight has indeed taken place (Successfully; see http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31421200).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.231.146.126 (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  ESA IXV 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lifting body. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041105001911/http://centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/lifting_bodies/Tech29.htm to http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/lifting_bodies/Tech29.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Since Reed was working in 1962, I think the facility should be referenced as "Dryden", rather than "Armstrong."  It wasn't renamed for Neil Armstrong until after 1969.  Kelseymh (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but not sure on the exact wording. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 05:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armstrong Facility Anachronism?