(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 )