X-43A flight delayed.

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 17:25:27 GMT, "Dosco Jones"
wrote:

Star Wars? Do you actually know what DC-X was?

A low-altitude SSTO technology demonstrator by SDIO. SDI was commonly
nicknamed "Star Wars" by its detractors. DC-X was initiated in 1990 during
Bush-41's administration, but flew under Clinton's.

Well yeah, but it had nothing to do with weapons systems.

If it had nothing to do with a weapons system, DC-X would not have
been developed under the auspices of the Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization (BMDO, previously Strategic Defense Initiative.)

Brian

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 17:25:27 GMT, "Dosco Jones"
wrote:

Star Wars? Do you actually know what DC-X was?

A low-altitude SSTO technology demonstrator by SDIO. SDI was commonly
nicknamed "Star Wars" by its detractors. DC-X was initiated in 1990
during
Bush-41's administration, but flew under Clinton's.

Well yeah, but it had nothing to do with weapons systems.

If it had nothing to do with a weapons system, DC-X would not have
been developed under the auspices of the Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization (BMDO, previously Strategic Defense Initiative.)

Brian

DC-X was MD project for commercial space, i.e. name "Clipper". Project
needed more funding than MD had in bank. Lockheed had NASA in VentureStar
pocket - no funding there for MD. Graham seduced Dan Quayle to provide
meager funds from SDI budget. Excuse was Brilliant Pebbles fiasco but that
never changed project goal of multipurpose commercial space vehicle.

TH

Dosco Jones wrote:
"star wars" program? Define it however you like. DC-X was a ******* child
that no one but the project team from McDonnell Douglas wanted to
acknowledge.

Wasn't DC-X a competitor to the shuttle replacement (the one won by the
concept which could have yieoldded VentureStar) ?

Also, wasn't it a vertical takeoff and vertical landing system that actually
had flown, and landed succesfully, but right after landuing, one leg broke,
the thing toppled and then belw up ? Or was that a different one ?

If I have thing right, are there TECHNICAL reasons why this concept has no
value ? Wouldn't such a vehicle concept be perfect for a Mars landing ?

"John Doe" wrote in message ...
Dosco Jones wrote:
"star wars" program? Define it however you like. DC-X was a *******
child
that no one but the project team from McDonnell Douglas wanted to
acknowledge.

Wasn't DC-X a competitor to the shuttle replacement (the one won by the
concept which could have yieoldded VentureStar) ?

Lockheed and NASA saw it as a competitor, yes. The difference was that DC-X
flew a number of flight tests (take-off and landing, hover, move
horizontally, etc). VentureStar was a jobs program.



Also, wasn't it a vertical takeoff and vertical landing system that
actually
had flown, and landed succesfully, but right after landuing, one leg
broke,
the thing toppled and then belw up ? Or was that a different one ?

You're thinking of the right vehicle, but the facts are slightly different.
The leg didn't break. An exhausted ground team forgot to hook up the
pneumatic hose that drove the leg actuator. The leg never extended when the
vehicle landed, and so the ship fell over and exploded.


If I have thing right, are there TECHNICAL reasons why this concept has no
value ? Wouldn't such a vehicle concept be perfect for a Mars landing ?

There were quite a few things left to work on. The DC-X and DC-XA flights
were SSRT demonstrators only. The DC-Y vehicle would have led into
suborbital flight testing, but it was never funded or built. Would it work
on Mars? I have my doubts that the air there is thick enough for the
"swoop-and-stall" portion of the intended DC-Y flight profile. I'll leave
the experts to address this point.

Dosco

Dosco Jones wrote:

"John Doe" wrote in message ...
Dosco Jones wrote:
"star wars" program? Define it however you like. DC-X was a *******
child
that no one but the project team from McDonnell Douglas wanted to
acknowledge.

Wasn't DC-X a competitor to the shuttle replacement (the one won by the
concept which could have yieoldded VentureStar) ?

Lockheed and NASA saw it as a competitor, yes. The difference was that DC-X
flew a number of flight tests (take-off and landing, hover, move
horizontally, etc). VentureStar was a jobs program.

DC-X was not a competitor for the X-33 contract won by Lockheed-Martin.

The McDonnell-Douglas (before the Boeing takeover) competitor had a ring
of RL-10 engines around a single SSME type engine in the middle for the
text vehicle. Their concept operational vehicle would have had a set of new
engines around the base, no doubt with an engine out capability.

Since the McDonnell-Douglas and North American Rockwell designs were
not picked neither one of them was not only never flown, but there was never
even an attempt to construct them.


Also, wasn't it a vertical takeoff and vertical landing system that
actually
had flown, and landed succesfully, but right after landuing, one leg
broke,
the thing toppled and then belw up ? Or was that a different one ?

You're thinking of the right vehicle, but the facts are slightly different.
The leg didn't break. An exhausted ground team forgot to hook up the
pneumatic hose that drove the leg actuator. The leg never extended when the
vehicle landed, and so the ship fell over and exploded.


If I have thing right, are there TECHNICAL reasons why this concept has no
value ? Wouldn't such a vehicle concept be perfect for a Mars landing ?

There were quite a few things left to work on. The DC-X and DC-XA flights
were SSRT demonstrators only. The DC-Y vehicle would have led into
suborbital flight testing, but it was never funded or built. Would it work
on Mars? I have my doubts that the air there is thick enough for the
"swoop-and-stall" portion of the intended DC-Y flight profile. I'll leave
the experts to address this point.

Dosco

The engine concept sounds good for a Mars lander. However, a booster
design for single-stage earth to orbit travel probably is not a good candidate
for a Mars vehicle.

I don't believe what you refer to as the "swoop-and-stall" maneuver even
in earths atmosphere depended on aerodynamic lift or control surfaces.
The multi-engine powered landing would be far better on a Mars without
landing fields than any other type of landing.

I think a large vehicle might be a bit big to put into bags and then
let bounce over the surface.

Mike Walsh

On 17 Feb 2004 14:11:50 -0500, jeff findley
wrote:

"Jacques van Oene" writes:
The X-43A is a high-risk, high-payoff flight research program.
Designed to fly at seven and ten times the speed of sound, and
use scramjet engines instead of traditional rocket power, the
small, 12-foot-long X-43A could represent a major leap forward
toward the goal of providing faster, more reliable and less
expensive access to space.

Again with the air-breathing, space launch vehicle religion. I'm
wondering if the guys working on the program believe in the
air-breathing, space launch vehicle religion, or if they're just using
the religion to gain political (monetary) support for the program.

They were trying to do this back in the '60s, when they almost melted
a hole in the X-15 carrying a dummy scramjet at hypersonic speeds. So
it's take 40 years to get the experiment back on track.

No one was as cynical about it then. You need to read "Runway To
Orbit" (Iliff) for a perspective on what the aerodynamics side of NASA
does.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 18:49:35 GMT, "Dosco Jones"
wrote:

DC-X was a McDonnell Douglas program. It's true that the funding came from
SDIO, but only because the NASA powers of the time didn't think the program
could get anywhere. Gen. Graham convinced the white house otherwise and so
funding was pulled out of the SDIO budget to fund DC-X. Does that make it a
"star wars" program? Define it however you like. DC-X was a ******* child
that no one but the project team from McDonnell Douglas wanted to
acknowledge.

NASA didn't have any money to spend on it, which is different from not
being interested in it. NASA was certainly interested in it or they
wouldn't have assigned a team of engineers to participate from very
early on. We went down to Long Beach to participate long before there
was anything more than a good idea. I thought it was really a neat
idea and would have stayed on the program if I could have.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

"Dosco Jones" writes:

I admit I came in late on this thread. I was a DC-X program fan, even
though it was clear the program was doomed from the start. It never had
enough funding or support from the establishment.

The DC-X and DC-XA programs were very successful test programs (up
until the vehicle was lost due to a ground processing error). What
never showed up was funding for a follow-on DC-Y vehicle. Instead,
NASA gave us X-33. :-P

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

In article , Mary Shafer wrote:

They were trying to do this back in the '60s, when they almost melted
a hole in the X-15 carrying a dummy scramjet at hypersonic speeds. So
it's take 40 years to get the experiment back on track.

No one was as cynical about it then. You need to read "Runway To
Orbit" (Iliff) for a perspective on what the aerodynamics side of NASA
does.

Is this available yet? I never heard anything more...

--
-Andrew Gray

On 23 Feb 2004 23:19:55 GMT, Andrew Gray
wrote:

In article , Mary Shafer wrote:

They were trying to do this back in the '60s, when they almost melted
a hole in the X-15 carrying a dummy scramjet at hypersonic speeds. So
it's take 40 years to get the experiment back on track.

No one was as cynical about it then. You need to read "Runway To
Orbit" (Iliff) for a perspective on what the aerodynamics side of NASA
does.

Is this available yet? I never heard anything more...

The GPO is supposed to have it by about now. That is, it went to them
before the new year and they said sixty calendar days, more or less.
I don't think there's going to be any real fanfare when it's actually
put on sale, though.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer