🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 19 Dec 1992 01:41:19 GMT, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) said:

HS> In article <BzFK5F.Dwn.1@cs.cmu.edu> MUNIZB%RWTMS2.decnet@consrt.rockwell.com ("RWTMS2::MUNIZB") writes:
>If lack of *flight-test* data is seen as the long pole in the tent 
>(holding things up), why isn't it being flown on the admittedly 
>experimental DC-X (and DC-Y)? 

HS> Because DC-X and DC-Y are *not* experimental in that sense.  They are
HS> proof-of-concept vehicles for single-stage-to-orbit launchers.  They're
HS> trying very hard *not* to be an experiment in any other way; in particular,
HS> they are *not* in the business of advancing engine technology if they can
HS> avoid it.

The DC-X is going to have a data collection system.  As I recall,
they're going to collect what I'd call a standard barebones set of
measurements--angles, rates, accelerations of the airframe, control
deflections, and other vehicle states, which probably include a
variety of engine parameters.

Flight data is always of great value for validating ground predictions
(e.g. CFD, wind tunnel, etc.) so the DC-X data will probably be of
greater value than one might originally think.  
--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot