🚀 go-pugleaf

kentm@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent) writes:

>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.

AAARRRGGGHHH!!!

The main reason the shuttle failed is that it tried to do too much.
It was specced to be a cheap reusable satellite launcher/crew launcher/space
station/satellite retreiver/glider.
Lets not fall into the same trap with DC-1. Lets settle for cheap reusable
satellite launcher and take it from there. The shuttle can be kept flying
for those tasks where their flexibility is needed until the DC-1 or something
else takes over those functions.

>>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?

Probably. I wouldn't want to risk it. _Why_ risk it? To get funding? If the
politicians set the technical agenda, the project is in big trouble.

-- 
================================================================================
| Dominic Herity,  dherity@.cs.tcd.ie,                      | Something clever |
| Computer Science Dept, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland.| coming soon to a |
| Tel : +353-1-6772941 ext 1720 Fax : +353-1-6772204        |signature near you|