#1
|
|||
|
|||
CATS?
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
CATS?
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! | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|