🚀 go-pugleaf

In <19045@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes:

>        This somewhat confuses the issue, in that it tends to imply that the
>technology necessary to build a DC-1 was available a generation ago.  

Nope.  It clarifies the issue because the technology to build a DC-1
(or Hyperion, as McDonnell Douglas called its SSTO back then) was available 
a generation ago.  In fact, one of the original Shuttle designs (the SERV 
proposal, submitted by Chrystler) was a ballistic SSTO very similar to a
scaled-up DC-1.


>The S-IVB derivative would be a ***non-reusable*** SSTO, which is a different
>animal than a ***reusable*** SSTO.   

Then I guess the engineers who called it a reuseable rescue and recovery
vehicle must have been smoking something funny.

In the development stage, the vehicle would have recovered by parachute
and landed "upside down" on extendable legs.  

Later, the S-IVB's J-2 engine would have been replaced by an aerospike,
which would double as a heat shield.  The vehicle would then be capable
of reentering and landing "rightside up" and a Gemini capsule would be
added on top for manned missions.