Talk:BAC Mustard

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Spaceflight Low‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rocketry

	Rocketry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RocketryWikipedia:WikiProject RocketryTemplate:WikiProject RocketryRocketry articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Third Paragraph[edit]

Could someone please verify the content of the third paragraph, and, if verifiable, edit it so that it is easier to understand? I would do this myself, but I do not have the time at present. Thanks. Vsst 19:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would happily bet a grand that the third paragraph is a complete mickey-take by some would-be comedian... McTodd 15:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, deleted it. Looks like vandalism. Missed the bit about the cardinals, or I would have done this much earlier. Vsst 01:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry about this, but i found the content of the third para. on this site:

www.newscientist.com/MUSTARDbishop, it does appear to have moved though, i am not quite sure to where. i was a bit surprised about the cardinals too, but it appears to be true. sorry about the confusion. 21st july 2007

Actually , I think it's True... McTodd 15:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename[edit]

Should we move this article to "Multi-Unit Space Transport And Recovery Device" rather than continuing to use the abriviation "MUSTARD" as the title?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsst (talk • contribs) 19:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Implication that design was copied?[edit]

Under 'History' the article says:

Once this collaborative work was over, three American prototype similar-looking aircraft apppeared at Edwards Air Base. The Space Shuttle would later have a comparative design, and function.

This is a clear reference to the HL-10, M2-F2/3 and X-24 lifting bodies. Is there any evidence at all that these were copied from MUSTARD as opposed to being the fruits of extensive research taking place in both the US and the UK at the time into lifting body aircraft?

The connection with the Space Shuttle is also tenuous, although MUSTARD does resemble some of the 1960s design concepts for what evolved into it.

Unless there is a sourced reference, I suggest deleting this, and possibly replacing with a mention of other lifting body research vehicles, and of parallel-booster design concepts for the Space Shuttle Sjbradshaw (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final spacecraft only sub-orbital ?[edit]

Intro says "The final spaceplane was to be capable of attaining such an altitude that it would be able to achieve a sub-orbital trajectory before also performing a controlled return." - a strange way to say it, since it was at orbital velocity to release its payload into orbit ? What was the highest altitude orbit it could circularise, and then reenter from ? - Rod57 (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]