Re: CATS?

[Joann Evans]

Mike Swift wrote:
>
> NASA working to promote the military, ha ha. They took the DC-X only
> because it was forced upon them,

Not true. Dan Goldin used discretionary funding to pick up the
project. No one made him do it, and by keeping it alive a little longer,
it was probably the *best* move he ever made.

> then got rid of it as fast as possible.

Remember, it was lost through a failure to re-connect a landing gear
pressurization line.

However, some of the tests done with it once it was in NASA's hands
were questionable. Espically the landing on a screened flame pit, when
it had already proven its ability to land just fine on hard desert. It
didn't need anything special, but let's *give* it the beginnings of
complex infrastructure, guys.

That idea actually *complicated* exhaust effects, and the ability of
the landing gear sensors to know when the ship had touched down, and
shut down the engines...

The only problem with NASA operating the DC-X was the tendency to
'NASA-fy' it.

And then there was the X-33 debacle, which was their idea of a
follow-on project, instead of simply going for a faster, higher DC-X....

> NASA sees the military as a competitor, and nothing more.
>
> Mike Swift

Well....it has problems with *anyone* that cuts into its percieved
turf.

[Henry Spencer]

In article >,
Joann Evans > wrote:
>[DC-X]
> However, some of the tests done with it once it was in NASA's hands
>were questionable. Espically the landing on a screened flame pit, when
>it had already proven its ability to land just fine on hard desert. It
>didn't need anything special, but let's *give* it the beginnings of
>complex infrastructure, guys.

This is a bit unfair. There was a reason for the tests of modified
landing surfaces on DC-XA flights 1 (the grating over the pit) and 2 (the
wet gypsum): when DC-X landed on flat concrete or gypsum, engine backwash
got parts of the base awfully hot, sometimes damaging the skin. This was
acceptable in an experimental vehicle with a limited flight schedule --
DC-XA went back to landing on concrete after the two experiments didn't
work out too well -- but exploring ways to avoid it was a perfectly
reasonable thing to do.
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |

[Len]

(Henry Spencer) wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> Joann Evans > wrote:
> >[DC-X]
> > However, some of the tests done with it once it was in NASA's hands
> >were questionable. Espically the landing on a screened flame pit, when
> >it had already proven its ability to land just fine on hard desert. It
> >didn't need anything special, but let's *give* it the beginnings of
> >complex infrastructure, guys.
>
> This is a bit unfair. There was a reason for the tests of modified
> landing surfaces on DC-XA flights 1 (the grating over the pit) and 2 (the
> wet gypsum): when DC-X landed on flat concrete or gypsum, engine backwash
> got parts of the base awfully hot, sometimes damaging the skin. This was
> acceptable in an experimental vehicle with a limited flight schedule --
> DC-XA went back to landing on concrete after the two experiments didn't
> work out too well -- but exploring ways to avoid it was a perfectly
> reasonable thing to do.

I spent quite a few years involved with the conceptual
design of Navy V/STOL aircraft which often have very
hot and erosive exhausts. I had several times suggested
use of a grid structure hanging over the water--but
nothing ever came of these suggestions.

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc. and Third Millennium Aerospace, Inc.
( http://www.tour2space.com )