*grin* Now you understand why alot of people were royally pissed when NASA crashed it.
I never knew until today that the machine was that big - I thought it was actually a smaller prototype that flew - was it full size? Or was that the smaller prototype (quite possibly, I imagine)?
DC-X was roughly a 1/3-scale model of a hypothetical full-size vehicle. The follow-on DC-Y was suppose to be between a 3/4 to full-size test vehicle to test high-altitude flight characteristics. It wasn't going to be specifically designed to reach LEO, but a full-size test vehicle would, in the words of one engineer, "scare the hell out of orbit".:-)
Just a note. DC-X under the DOD was a (relatively) cheap, low-profile X-project with modest, but specific, goals. Nobody expected much to come out of it. VentureStar is a much more expensive, high-visibilty project with more grandiose, but less specific, goals. Look for some serious lobbying efforts by Lockheed-Martin.
XOR aim.exe with the libfaim library file and save the result as a data file. When AOL requests a checksum, XOR the section of the data file with the library file to calculate the checksum and send the back result to AOL. Simple.
If nothing else, determining the rightful owner of the XOR of two separately copyrighted files will be amusing.;-)
The engineer(s) who came up with this are the kind of people NASA was looking for with it's "Better, Faster, Cheaper" program. I hope NASA finds more engineers like this.
Finding engineers that believe in "better, faster, cheaper" is easy. Finding NASA managers and bureaucrats that believe in it is the tough part.:-(
Let's face it, we don't have all of the facts. NASA knew that costs would be high from the start, so that means that they had to budget accordingly (remember formula: you pay taxes to Fed, Congress approves spending, agencies spend). NASA had to have gotten approval for this high profile project. Granted, costs ballooned and schedule slipped, but will we ever know why? Not likely.
Oh geez, we have all the facts. It was a fixed-cost contract, cost overruns were to be payed for by Lockmart. Any number of engineers said the design was flawed to begin with. Too many bleeding-edge technologies that had to work, first time, on budget, with no margin for error. Of course it failed. Lockmart said they wouldn't pay for the cost overruns and NASA said "Ok, you don't have to". End of story.
I would love to hear what the grunts have to say about why it was canned. Personally, I think LM had some minor problems, NASA had some minor problems, but the biggie was the $1.6T tax cut by W. Who's going to run the essential gov services if we cut revenue (you know...taxes)? He had to cut funding all around in order to cover his booty.
It's nice of you to say some of it is Lockmart's fault and some of it is NASA's fault and most of it is Bush's fault (gotta get in that gratuitous slam). The fact is that VentureStar had "minor trouble" like the Hindenberg had "minor trouble" or the Titanic had "minor trouble".
Alright, the DC-X had redundancy built-in, I won't argue with that. But OTOH, no Air Force man would ever accept a spacecraft that *needed power* to stay up in the air... Commercial airplanes don't just have more than one engine, they also have *wings* to glide down to safety (well, kinda) in case of total power failure.
I'm not certain why you insist on spacecraft having wings. Even a well-designed lifting-body has the flight characteristics of a well-aimed brick. As far as "no Air Force man would accept...", last I checked, helicopters don't have wings and there are plenty of them in the Air Force. If landing on rocket power bothers you, the Roton from Rotary Rocket is an interesting twist on the DC-X vehicle design.
Now, I know originally the X-33 was supposed to be unmanned, but we all know that that was going to change sooner or later, no? Selling to the military (incl. NASA) means catering to the people that will fly/operate your technology, not just its niftiness.
I'm not certain what your point is. Yes, X-33 was suppose to be unmanned. Yes, that may have changed in any follow-on vehicle. Naively I assumed that safety, reliablilty and cost were more important to the military and NASA than "niftiness". And arguably, it was VentureStar's "niftiness" that sold NASA's management on Lockmart's proposal instead of Rockwell's or MacDouglas'.
Also, you're forgetting who the competitors were: a near-bankrupt McDonnel Douglas (soon to be picked up by Boeing), a down-and-out Rockwell (ditto) and Lockheed-Martin Skunk Works, the Air Force's own private development lab. Who do you think the military would trust more?
Again I'm not sure of your point. The original DC-X was developed by McDouglas under a DOD contract. And I've heard nothing about the military "suggesting" to NASA who should receive the X-33 contract. NASA is more than capable of screwing things up on their own.
And if the DC-X was so cheap, how come hasn't Boeing picked it up and used it for their own commercial purposed instead of SeaLaunch?
Same reason Lockmart won't pickup the VentureStar on their own dime, and Rockwell didn't develop their proposal on their own. Realistically we're about 2 generations from commercial profitability on any of those designs.
I am no LM apologist, and I am genuinely sorry that all this money was wasted, but technology, tests and experience are never lost and will be used again (witness, e.g. the Boeing 747). Besides, I always thought Rockwell's proposal made the most sense...
Actually I'm surprised that NASA didn't pick Rockwell's design too, though for the more cynical reason that it was the closest to NASA's idea of "Son of Shuttle". Personally, I was rooting for DC-Y.
I am tired of all the DC-X supporters here: the DC-X was an unbelievably cool idea that was executed well, but had one major flaw: no failsafe, no possibility of recovery in case of failure (parachutes don't work if you're close to the ground) which was demonstrated by the loss of the DC-Y.
Excuse me? Do you have any idea what you're talking about? DC-X had the best possible failsafe. Multiple, independently throttled and gimbaled engines. The DC-XA (not the DC-Y) was lost after it landed because someone didn't reconnect a pneumatic line to a landing gear during the pre-flight check. So it tipped over and crashed after landing. That hardly invalidates the concept.
If you lost an engine on liftoff on a DC-X derivative spaceship. You would still have enough power to stop and hover on the remaining engines until you use-up enough fuel to land. That's the whole point of using multiple engines. That's why all commercial airplanes have at least two jet engines.
The X-33 (or shuttle), on the other hand. Once you light those engines, you're committed, you have to fly, there is no failsafe if you lose an engine. Your "failsafe" consists of flying 100 miles, 1000 miles, or half a world away.
However, the X-33 did develop some kick-ass new thermal tiles,
Not tested, X-33 never flew.
it proved the concept of the aerospike engine
How? X-33 never flew. They just did some ground testing. Which is all anyone has ever done with aerospike engines. Nobody has flown aerospike engines, least of all Lockmart.
NASA is a unique American institution. They have been surviving for the last 3 decades on the good reputation of the Apollo project while turning into one of the most ossified bureaucracies in the US government. The shuttle, ISS, and X-33 are the most visible examples of this.
Expect to see even more "cheaper, faster" but not "better" space exploring craft in the future.
There's no problem with "smaller, cheaper, faster" by itself, only with the way that NASA does it. Before "smaller, cheaper, faster" was a success with, like, the Lunar Prospector or NEAR project, NASA could ignore it and it worked. Once NASA realized they could get money for SCF projects, then they just use it as a buzzword for whatever the project-of-the-month is. X-projects suffered a similar fate. Got a project you can't get money for? Rename it an X-project and try again. That doesn't work? Rename it a SCF project and try again. Yep, it makes me sad also.
One solution I might suggest is to split NASA into two agencies. One to only operate the shuttle and ISS, and the other to do space research and development, both science and engineering. Keep all the managers in the first agency and transfer all the scientists and engineers to the second. I think there would be some overlap, but very little.
The XML-RPC HOWTO is here...
on
ESR On XML-RPC
·
· Score: 1
can you show some relvent data as to back this up?
To back what up? That the US is overly dependent on spy satellites for enemy intelligence? That if an enemy can disable those spy sats with cheap picosats loaded with exposive warheads (a.k.a., ASATs), then US forces are essentially blind? That finally someone in the Airfarce was smart enough to figure it out?
why use explosives when a rock (or any hard object) will do?
A 'rock' would require a direct hit with a fairly high relative velocity to damage a hostile satellite. And to hit a hostile satellite at those velocities would require a fairly sophisticated guidance system.
But a small satellite with a shrapnel warhead would only have to come close at much lower velocities, which means a smaller, simplier guidance system.
I, for one am glad to see that the technology exists to allow people to easily commute in a clean, lightweight vehicle such as this.
I notice you didn't say safe.:-)
Also, since there's no cargo space, virtually no safety features, and it's virtually unuseable in rain, snow, or on ice, I think I'll keep my "silly attachment" to my car, thanks.:-)
Egad, you've never heard of any of them? I'm surprised. They're all solid, I guess what you'd call midlist authors. Baen Publishing is one of the biggest privately held publishing companies in the country, specializing in science fiction and fantasy, owned and operated by Jim Baen. Checkout the sci-fi section of your local bookstore, a goodly percentage of the books will have Baen's little rocket logo on the spine.
Well, since the SegaOS and WindowsCE game development kits are expensive and scarce, it might make a nice Linux-based games platform. Could SDL be ported to it easily?
Console systems are sold with the most common demoninator of hardware. You want wireless controllers, you buy them separately. Similar to your computer, you want dual headed video, you buy it separately (ok, arguably, you could special order it, but that's basically the same thing).
I will stick to my CPU. I can do more and play more than any console.
Different classes of games, though there's some overlap. Consoles are generally better for arcade style games, computers are better for thinking style games, but as I say there is overlap. Nobody's forcing you to buy XBox.:-)
Re:Freedom to innovate... new interfaces?
on
First Looks At XBox
·
· Score: 1
Wow that's even more stupid than I expected. I cannot think of a single advantage to a USB port with a non-standard physical connector.
I think the real reason is that USB connectors are a little flimsy and gamepad connectors have to be rugged enough to be plugged and unplugged by 3-year olds and other mechanically challenged gamers.
As for MS "redesigning" the USB port - while initially it sounds like an assinine thing to do, it actually does make sense (at least to me). Otherwise, folks are going to see the port and try plugging in all sorts of USB device, and become quite confused and frustrated when nothing happens.
I think the real reason is that USB connectors are a little flimsy and gamepad connectors have to be rugged enough to be plugged by 3-year olds and other mechanically challenged gamers. But it would have been nice if they had put one real USB port on the back. For *ahem* expansion *ahem*; keyboard, mouse, linux...
OTOH, assuming they didn't change change the electrical spec's, it should take about 10 minutes to make an Xbox gameport-to-USB-adaptor.:-)
Another point is that Microsoft makes some of the best development software in the world and DirectX is a very mature programming library. Miles better than anything Sony or Sega puts out for their game systems. Game developers are not going to lack for tools to do their jobs.
Re:I have two reservations about hot fusion resear
on
The Quest For Fusion
·
· Score: 1
Actually that is not correct - several of the protype machines have reached or exceeded break-even.
I seem to recall hearing that, but I didn't want to claim it without proof.
The issues of radioactivity are important, but you have to remember that the induced radioactivity is not as severe a problem by a long shot as that of spent fuel.
Mmmm, without a working fusion power reactor design to compare, I can't be certain that will be the case. I'm not a nuclear power engineer, but it seems to me the inside of a fission power reactor is relatively mild compared to the inside of a fusion power reactor. The radioactive flux (for lack of a better term) on the internal components will be much, much higher, so we have little idea on how much radioactive waste a fusion plant would create. But again, we have nothing to compare it with yet.
Another interesting benefit of this technology is that if there is a failure you can easily turn it off.
In theory anyway.
There is no problem with potential thermal runaway,...
There are fission reactor designs that solve the thermal runaway problem, like the CANDU previously mentioned on Slashdot.
... but the potential impact of the technology is so great that we are foolish to not be spending more on it.
I'm not certain I'm completely in agreement with this anymore. Not that I want to shutdown hot fusion research, but I've been hearing this argument for the last 30 years and it's wearing a little thin.
"Of course, he's merely an electrochemist and not a *ahem* real physicist, so his experiments can be discounted."...
That was a mild bit of sarcasm on my part. Personally, I'm a cold fusion agnostic, but then I'm a mere engineer myself and not a *ahem* real physicist either.
Slashdot Mirror
Control? You could land the DC-X on a dime and have change left over.
*grin* Now you understand why alot of people were royally pissed when NASA crashed it.
I never knew until today that the machine was that big - I thought it was actually a smaller prototype that flew - was it full size? Or was that the smaller prototype (quite possibly, I imagine)?
DC-X was roughly a 1/3-scale model of a hypothetical full-size vehicle. The follow-on DC-Y was suppose to be between a 3/4 to full-size test vehicle to test high-altitude flight characteristics. It wasn't going to be specifically designed to reach LEO, but a full-size test vehicle would, in the words of one engineer, "scare the hell out of orbit". :-)
Even better is the latest SAS update here.
Just a note. DC-X under the DOD was a (relatively) cheap, low-profile X-project with modest, but specific, goals. Nobody expected much to come out of it. VentureStar is a much more expensive, high-visibilty project with more grandiose, but less specific, goals. Look for some serious lobbying efforts by Lockheed-Martin.
Typical of NASA to crash and burn a successful project in favor of spending a billion dollars on smoke and mirrors.
XOR aim.exe with the libfaim library file and save the result as a data file. When AOL requests a checksum, XOR the section of the data file with the library file to calculate the checksum and send the back result to AOL. Simple.
If nothing else, determining the rightful owner of the XOR of two separately copyrighted files will be amusing. ;-)
Finding engineers that believe in "better, faster, cheaper" is easy. Finding NASA managers and bureaucrats that believe in it is the tough part. :-(
Ok, you got me on that. *grin* Which is why I threw in the pointer to Rotary Rocket. Best of both worlds, DC-X failsafe reliablity and wings. :-)
Oh geez, we have all the facts. It was a fixed-cost contract, cost overruns were to be payed for by Lockmart. Any number of engineers said the design was flawed to begin with. Too many bleeding-edge technologies that had to work, first time, on budget, with no margin for error. Of course it failed. Lockmart said they wouldn't pay for the cost overruns and NASA said "Ok, you don't have to". End of story.
I would love to hear what the grunts have to say about why it was canned. Personally, I think LM had some minor problems, NASA had some minor problems, but the biggie was the $1.6T tax cut by W. Who's going to run the essential gov services if we cut revenue (you know...taxes)? He had to cut funding all around in order to cover his booty.
It's nice of you to say some of it is Lockmart's fault and some of it is NASA's fault and most of it is Bush's fault (gotta get in that gratuitous slam). The fact is that VentureStar had "minor trouble" like the Hindenberg had "minor trouble" or the Titanic had "minor trouble".
I'm not certain why you insist on spacecraft having wings. Even a well-designed lifting-body has the flight characteristics of a well-aimed brick. As far as "no Air Force man would accept ...", last I checked, helicopters don't have wings and there are plenty of them in the Air Force. If landing on rocket power bothers you, the Roton from Rotary Rocket is an interesting twist on the DC-X vehicle design.
Now, I know originally the X-33 was supposed to be unmanned, but we all know that that was going to change sooner or later, no? Selling to the military (incl. NASA) means catering to the people that will fly/operate your technology, not just its niftiness.
I'm not certain what your point is. Yes, X-33 was suppose to be unmanned. Yes, that may have changed in any follow-on vehicle. Naively I assumed that safety, reliablilty and cost were more important to the military and NASA than "niftiness". And arguably, it was VentureStar's "niftiness" that sold NASA's management on Lockmart's proposal instead of Rockwell's or MacDouglas'.
Also, you're forgetting who the competitors were: a near-bankrupt McDonnel Douglas (soon to be picked up by Boeing), a down-and-out Rockwell (ditto) and Lockheed-Martin Skunk Works, the Air Force's own private development lab. Who do you think the military would trust more?
Again I'm not sure of your point. The original DC-X was developed by McDouglas under a DOD contract. And I've heard nothing about the military "suggesting" to NASA who should receive the X-33 contract. NASA is more than capable of screwing things up on their own.
And if the DC-X was so cheap, how come hasn't Boeing picked it up and used it for their own commercial purposed instead of SeaLaunch?
Same reason Lockmart won't pickup the VentureStar on their own dime, and Rockwell didn't develop their proposal on their own. Realistically we're about 2 generations from commercial profitability on any of those designs.
I am no LM apologist, and I am genuinely sorry that all this money was wasted, but technology, tests and experience are never lost and will be used again (witness, e.g. the Boeing 747). Besides, I always thought Rockwell's proposal made the most sense...
Actually I'm surprised that NASA didn't pick Rockwell's design too, though for the more cynical reason that it was the closest to NASA's idea of "Son of Shuttle". Personally, I was rooting for DC-Y.Excuse me? Do you have any idea what you're talking about? DC-X had the best possible failsafe. Multiple, independently throttled and gimbaled engines. The DC-XA (not the DC-Y) was lost after it landed because someone didn't reconnect a pneumatic line to a landing gear during the pre-flight check. So it tipped over and crashed after landing. That hardly invalidates the concept.
If you lost an engine on liftoff on a DC-X derivative spaceship. You would still have enough power to stop and hover on the remaining engines until you use-up enough fuel to land. That's the whole point of using multiple engines. That's why all commercial airplanes have at least two jet engines.
The X-33 (or shuttle), on the other hand. Once you light those engines, you're committed, you have to fly, there is no failsafe if you lose an engine. Your "failsafe" consists of flying 100 miles, 1000 miles, or half a world away.
However, the X-33 did develop some kick-ass new thermal tiles,
Not tested, X-33 never flew.
it proved the concept of the aerospike engine
How? X-33 never flew. They just did some ground testing. Which is all anyone has ever done with aerospike engines. Nobody has flown aerospike engines, least of all Lockmart.
Can you say "boondoggle" boys and girls? There, I knew you could.
Expect to see even more "cheaper, faster" but not "better" space exploring craft in the future.
There's no problem with "smaller, cheaper, faster" by itself, only with the way that NASA does it. Before "smaller, cheaper, faster" was a success with, like, the Lunar Prospector or NEAR project, NASA could ignore it and it worked. Once NASA realized they could get money for SCF projects, then they just use it as a buzzword for whatever the project-of-the-month is. X-projects suffered a similar fate. Got a project you can't get money for? Rename it an X-project and try again. That doesn't work? Rename it a SCF project and try again. Yep, it makes me sad also.
One solution I might suggest is to split NASA into two agencies. One to only operate the shuttle and ISS, and the other to do space research and development, both science and engineering. Keep all the managers in the first agency and transfer all the scientists and engineers to the second. I think there would be some overlap, but very little.
The XML-RPC HOWTO is here.
To back what up? That the US is overly dependent on spy satellites for enemy intelligence? That if an enemy can disable those spy sats with cheap picosats loaded with exposive warheads (a.k.a., ASATs), then US forces are essentially blind? That finally someone in the Airfarce was smart enough to figure it out?
A 'rock' would require a direct hit with a fairly high relative velocity to damage a hostile satellite. And to hit a hostile satellite at those velocities would require a fairly sophisticated guidance system.
But a small satellite with a shrapnel warhead would only have to come close at much lower velocities, which means a smaller, simplier guidance system.
I notice you didn't say safe. :-)
Also, since there's no cargo space, virtually no safety features, and it's virtually unuseable in rain, snow, or on ice, I think I'll keep my "silly attachment" to my car, thanks. :-)
9 out of 10 for coolness, though.
The funniest story I've heard is a letter addressed to (*ahem*, quite some time ago of course):
:-)
Mark Twain
God knows where
Several months later, the sender received the reply:
God did
Egad, you've never heard of any of them? I'm surprised. They're all solid, I guess what you'd call midlist authors. Baen Publishing is one of the biggest privately held publishing companies in the country, specializing in science fiction and fantasy, owned and operated by Jim Baen. Checkout the sci-fi section of your local bookstore, a goodly percentage of the books will have Baen's little rocket logo on the spine.
Well, since the SegaOS and WindowsCE game development kits are expensive and scarce, it might make a nice Linux-based games platform. Could SDL be ported to it easily?
Console systems are sold with the most common demoninator of hardware. You want wireless controllers, you buy them separately. Similar to your computer, you want dual headed video, you buy it separately (ok, arguably, you could special order it, but that's basically the same thing).
I will stick to my CPU. I can do more and play more than any console.Different classes of games, though there's some overlap. Consoles are generally better for arcade style games, computers are better for thinking style games, but as I say there is overlap. Nobody's forcing you to buy XBox. :-)
I think the real reason is that USB connectors are a little flimsy and gamepad connectors have to be rugged enough to be plugged and unplugged by 3-year olds and other mechanically challenged gamers.
I think the real reason is that USB connectors are a little flimsy and gamepad connectors have to be rugged enough to be plugged by 3-year olds and other mechanically challenged gamers. But it would have been nice if they had put one real USB port on the back. For *ahem* expansion *ahem*; keyboard, mouse, linux...
OTOH, assuming they didn't change change the electrical spec's, it should take about 10 minutes to make an Xbox gameport-to-USB-adaptor. :-)
Another point is that Microsoft makes some of the best development software in the world and DirectX is a very mature programming library. Miles better than anything Sony or Sega puts out for their game systems. Game developers are not going to lack for tools to do their jobs.
I seem to recall hearing that, but I didn't want to claim it without proof.
The issues of radioactivity are important, but you have to remember that the induced radioactivity is not as severe a problem by a long shot as that of spent fuel.
Mmmm, without a working fusion power reactor design to compare, I can't be certain that will be the case. I'm not a nuclear power engineer, but it seems to me the inside of a fission power reactor is relatively mild compared to the inside of a fusion power reactor. The radioactive flux (for lack of a better term) on the internal components will be much, much higher, so we have little idea on how much radioactive waste a fusion plant would create. But again, we have nothing to compare it with yet.
Another interesting benefit of this technology is that if there is a failure you can easily turn it off.
In theory anyway.
There is no problem with potential thermal runaway, ...
There are fission reactor designs that solve the thermal runaway problem, like the CANDU previously mentioned on Slashdot.
I'm not certain I'm completely in agreement with this anymore. Not that I want to shutdown hot fusion research, but I've been hearing this argument for the last 30 years and it's wearing a little thin.
That was a mild bit of sarcasm on my part. Personally, I'm a cold fusion agnostic, but then I'm a mere engineer myself and not a *ahem* real physicist either.