🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1e8qk2INNccc@spock.usc.edu> cbehre@spock.usc.edu (Charles Behre) writes:
>
>|>   What about the SSTO DC-Y?  It's my understanding that the DC-1 should be
>|> able to do just about everything that the shuttle can do (with the possible
>|> exeption of carry the SpaceLab).  And a lot cheapter to boot.

It will hopefully be able to perform crew transfer and small satellite launches
more reliably and for less money than the Shuttle or even expendables.  I don't
see it replacing all of the Shuttle's functions, but it's a start.

>What level of success would the DCX testing program have to show to make it a 
>viable candidate?  Does this program have the ability to fascinate congress and
>Al Gore if it demonstrates what it intendend to do? On the other hand, would a
>DCX program shifted to taking on the duties of a HL-20 be a disasterous 
>move in terms of the programs efficiency?

Crew transfer to the space station is already included in the standard view-
graph pitch.  Whether the potential cost reductions and increased access to
space will excite Congress is a question I can't answer.  NASP made a go of
it and failed, but DC is doing things a bit differently.  The main point in
DC's favor is they are FLYING.  Being able to show that the first $58 million
has already produced results should make funding for DCY easier to come by.

Of course with Congress, you never know.

Mike

-- 
Michael Kent                                   kentm@rpi.edu
McDonnell Douglas                              Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Tute Screwed Aero Class of '92                              Apple II Forever !!