From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: DCX
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 18:22:54 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <9204040642.AA26117@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes:

>Already there's been talk along the lines of "why should we even bother to
>to do x, when DC is going to come along and solve all our problems?". This
>was the attitude taken when the Shuttle was being developed, and is a large
>part of the reason we don't have Saturn V now. 

Really?  What are we doing now that people are saying we should not do because
of Delta Clipper?  What programs have been cancelled or threatened because of
it?  Or are people simply saying that we shouldn't go ahead with some far-future
NASA project like the Advanced Launch System because DC is more promising?


>Note that this last entry is the only one that uses the phrase "expected to".
>Everything else is presented as accomplished fact.

John, have you ever read a marketing brochure?  They *all* sound like this.


>On the other hand, DC has to develop and man-rate the largest SSTO vehicle
>ever flown.

Pish-posh.  Boeing develops and man-, woman-, and child-rates new single-stage
vehicles all the time.  Being single-stage doesn't make the vehicle more
complex to design or operate; just the opposite.  You take the DC's biggest
advantage and make it sound like a liability.


>-It does not have to develop new thermal protection systems.  

>DCX doesn't, because it's not going into space, and it won't go fast enough
>to need thermal protection. DCY will probably need it, and DC definitely
>will, and from the technical discussion on sci-space, they haven't really
>decided whether to use water cooling, or carbon composites, or something
>else. Definitely some development work needs to be done.

According to the latest issue of Final Frontier (yeah, I know :-), the
Delta Clipper will use carbon-carbon composite: the same material used
for the Shuttle's nose cap and leading edges.  Though, in fact, NASA has
developed a number of thermal-protection systems as backups for the
Space Shuttle, any of which would work for the Delta Clipper.


>I wouldn't say that "could" has the same connotation as "quite possibly".
>I'm not certain, but I think Boeing doesn't get paid until a working and
>tested plane is delivered. (Maybe some Boeing people could comment on this.)
>That would take some of the pressure off of the customers.

Boeing definitely takes, and expects, deposits on new aircraft.  I'm not
sure whether they begin accepting money before the prototype has flown,
but it wouldn't surprise me.


>If Boeing starts making claims of this sort on a new design, when the subscale
>prototype of the subscale prototype is still under construction, and when
>many of the basic design principles have yet ever to be proven in actual use,
>I'll try to remember to point that out to them, in the interest of fairness. :-)

Does this apply to the NASP, too?  If so, I think you owe NASA about a hundred
letters.  What about Freedom?  :-)


>Seriously, we're not the enemy - we support DC, and think development should
>continue. One point made very clear by the experience of recent years is that
>a sure way to hurt a space project is to make extravagant claims that aren't
>quite met. That's certainly the case with HST - even with its current flaws
>it's a spectacular astronomical instrument, but just about anyone you ask on
>the street considers it a flat failure.

If Hubble had been sold less extravagantly, it never would have made it into
orbit.  So far, Delta Clipper has attracted any real negative attention, but
that's not to say it won't happen in the future.  If it starts to attract
attention of "concerned scientists," the program will need all the support
it can get.  "Cautious statements" involving probabilities don't sell with
the news media, which is the fourth and most powerful branch of the US
government, because the news media doesn't understand anything quantitative.
So when William Proxmire comes out of retirement to give DCX the Golden Fleece
Award, and Professor John J. Pompous, Nobel-prize winner in entymology calls it
an insanely dangerous plan that can't possibly work, the news articles will be
balanced.  "Balance" means adding statements such as this:  

"Even proponents of Delta Clipper admit that the project is fraught with risk.  
'We aren't 100% sure that it will work,' said John Roberts of sci.space.  'The
very low launch costs being promised for DC were also promised for the Shuttle, 
and they weren't achieved.'"

The nuclear-power industrial has been losing the battle with "environmentalists"
for years by making cautious statements such as these.





Newsgroups: sci.space,rec.models.rockets