

If I may offer a constructive criticism, perhaps you should decide if you
love vehicles or the use they are put to. I, myself, think the F-86 is
a beautiful aircraft, but rest assured, I wouldn't even think of flying
it in combat today. Most of us want access to space and judge vehicles
on how they perform.


Not to this degree.


Why?


Your wrong. The DC approach is very tollerent of failure. It also has
the advantage of far greater reliability do to its reusable nature (Shuttle
isn't reusable, it's salvagable).


The flip over happens at a very low speed, not supersonic. If the DC-X
shows the flip over works, it will work unless the laws of physics change.


The final DC-1 will have fully intact abort throughout the entire flight
envelop. Upon re-entry for example, it can loose about 80% of available
thrust and still land safely.


Everything can suffer from catastrophic failure but that's not the same
thing. Shuttle simply isn't a fault tolerent design, SSTO is.


You don't put your patients in conditions where there is no way out. You
wouldn't for example, give a patient a drug and not monitor them for
harmful side effects would you?


You are very much in the minority. If the DC series fails to make orbit, it
will still be a very worthwhile effort. It will show us EXACTLY what we do
need to do to build SSTO.


Again, refering to the DC-1, it will provide fully intact abort theroughout
the flight envelop. Shuttle doesn't. DC is fault tollerent, Shuttle isn't.


Not true. Build a passenger pallet (a fairly easy thing to do) and it will
carry passengers.


I would suggest you talk to the DC-X crew themselves. Their original
schedule had an operational DC-1 flying in 96.


Your ignoring the dammage it does. Mannes space has a reputation for being
unreliable and hugely expensive. Shuttle supporters only make it easy for
opponents of manned space to kill it.


The only way to prove those things is to build it.

  Allen
