I have the film of that accident. The design MD was building was called "DC-X" and it's *still* the most promising Single-Stage-To-Orbit design. Problem was, when NASA did the select for the X-33 project, the design they picked had "more technical risk" than the MacDac design (which was a scaled up model of DC-X). DC-X had flown on 5 previous flights, including one where a ground problem (buildup of fuel gas under the improvised "pad" causing an explosion at liftoff) had ripped half the side of the rocket off. (talk about a robust design... imagine that happening on a space shuttle and see what happens, or any other expendable launch vehicle). The X-33 is now in *deep doodoo*, since all the technical risk means that *several* components dont work. (starting with the fuel tanks, a critical component if there ever was one...) oops. we wasted 5 years. Now Nasa wants to do it again, with the Space Launch Initiative. Just Say No.
Slashdot Mirror
I have the film of that accident. The design MD was building was called "DC-X" and it's *still* the most promising Single-Stage-To-Orbit design. Problem was, when NASA did the select for the X-33 project, the design they picked had "more technical risk" than the MacDac design (which was a scaled up model of DC-X). DC-X had flown on 5 previous flights, including one where a ground problem (buildup of fuel gas under the improvised "pad" causing an explosion at liftoff) had ripped half the side of the rocket off. (talk about a robust design... imagine that happening on a space shuttle and see what happens, or any other expendable launch vehicle). The X-33 is now in *deep doodoo*, since all the technical risk means that *several* components dont work. (starting with the fuel tanks, a critical component if there ever was one...) oops. we wasted 5 years. Now Nasa wants to do it again, with the Space Launch Initiative. Just Say No.