Slashdot Mirror
X-37 Flies but Runs Off Runway
mknewman writes "The X-37 drop test was completed today with a lift by White Knight. It had a successful flight but it ran off the end of the runway."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
It took off, it didn't explode ... two out of three aint bad, right?
I hadn't heard about this new project till I read the article. It's neat that Spaceship One's "White Knight" is being used to haul a DARPA-sponsored project into the Ether! This truly heralds a new age of independent aeronautics.
Phoenix, Boston, Little Rock, see a pattern?
The author was insuccessful in spelling "successful."
Obviously the runway wasn't long enough.
*sigh* You poor, poor, uneducated man. Don't you know that all you have to do to fly is to throw yourself at the ground and miss?
You're neither facetious nor a troll. You just can't R->C->P.
The article is about something that in fact hasn't been done before. This is the first time they were able to let it go from the White Knight.
Or is there some joke in your post that I'm not getting?
I am the inventor of the hilarious refrigerator alarm.
I don't mean to be facetious, or a troll
So what did you mean to be? A dumbass who can't read?
"Brakes? We don't need no stinkin' brakes!"
Gary Dunn
Open Slate Project
i mean come on worse things have been marketed and sold to us :D
I Predict A Riot
"USA will likely use this project for warfare and opression." You're probably right about that. From the article:
:)
DARPA picked it up in 2004 for its potential military applications. As far back as 2001, NBC News producer Robert Windrem reported that the craft could be adapted to serve as a "space bomber."
Considering they are thinking about adapting it into a space bomber, I think we can safely say that it will be used for "warfare"
This is not a sig. This is a llama-duck. Quack.
you can walk away from is a good landing
antipaucity
Both companies make civilian aircraft and rockets, and both do defense contracting.
Sure, and both have vowels in their corporate name, and both are run by men who wear pants to work and not togas. But on what many see as the key point of whether a company is willing to try radically new and different ways of getting into space, ways independent of the heavy hand of NASA bureaucratic design requirements -- and this is the "independent" I suspect the OP meant -- they're as different as chalk and cheese.
Boeing, like all aerospace majors, has tended to be very cautious about space vehicle design, perhaps in part simply because the cost-plus nature of major NASA and DoD contracts has meant there's less incentive to innovate. Why try some weird new design that may fail if the same old boring design, just multiplied by sixty, will work fine? So what if costs $bazillions? Your profit margin is guaranteed no matter how bloated the budget gets. And that does not even get into micromanagement by Congress, changing the mission requirements every 9 months at random, and institutional conservatism in NASA/DoD.
What many people hope is that a small company that is independent of this process, in the sense that they don't have any long history with the Feds, or gigantic conventional-warfare contracts to preserve, can be more innovative, and break the apparent barrier to lowering access to space costs that seems to have solidified in the past 20 years. It seems to these people incredible that it costs no less (or at least not much less) to put x pounds in orbit in 2006 than it did in 1969. They suggest it arises from fossilization in the big aerospace industry, fused with too-close a relationship to NASA/DoD, who are themselves paralyzed by the fickleness of Congress' support and the lack of any clear vision from the President.
Whether this is a true diagnosis of the situation remains to be seen, and people like Scaled, SpaceX, X-Cor, Virgin Galactic, et cetera will prove it one way or the other fairly soon.