Dream Chaser

It is a terrible PR, IMHO. What is there hide if 1) we know that it crashed, 2) Mark Sirangello said that it's repairable despite the flip-over?
 
You know, rocket science is hard. Spaceship 1 had a landing gear failure, and White Knight one had wheel depart the aircraft due to shimmy. SpaceX's first two launches failed, and their last launch had a major anomaly when the second stage failed to properly relight. The DC-X had a much more spectacular landing gear failure, yet is considered one of the most successful rocket programs of all time.

This gear failure is embarrassing, but not anything like a show stopper.

Disclaimer: I worked briefly for SNC about 15 years ago, but had nothing to do with landing gear design. :)

Seriously, SNC has some real innovators at all levels of the company, they are a national asset.
 
JimNtexas said:
You know, rocket science is hard. Spaceship 1 had a landing gear failure, and White Knight one had wheel depart the aircraft due to shimmy. SpaceX's first two launches failed, and their last launch had a major anomaly when the second stage failed to properly relight. The DC-X had a much more spectacular landing gear failure, yet is considered one of the most successful rocket programs of all time.

This gear failure is embarrassing, but not anything like a show stopper.

Disclaimer: I worked briefly for SNC about 15 years ago, but had nothing to do with landing gear design. :)

Seriously, SNC has some real innovators at all levels of the company, they are a national asset.
Click to expand...

Oh I don't think this will be a show stopper either. Can't wait until they start orbital flights.

I was glued to the internet in Iraq 2004 following Spaceship One all the way. Watched the first shot into space on AFN live. Love that stuff.

Why the nose skid though? Trying to save on brakes or something?
 
Last edited:
Looks remarkably like the old dynasoars. I guess one lifting body aircraft is going to look a lot like the next. I can only wish them the best of luck. We need programs like this if we're ever going to really make it in space. NASA is and was a dead end.
 
Steingar has a point. However, it's not as simple. IIRC Charlie Bolden once said that one of the major tasks he oversaw NASA performing was the stewardship of the old infrastracture. Many gigantic test stands and technical areas could not be built anymore because of EPA. They are fairly useless nowadays, but once the commercial space companies grow to need them... we'll have them waiting. And it may happen sooner than some expect. For example, SpaceX is going to test their methane engine in Stennis fairly soon, perhaps in 2014. Nothing they have in McGregor is big enough and they cannot make it quiet enough. They also used NASA Glenn's vacuum chamber in Plum Brook already, although that one is probably possible to reproduce should a need arise. It's just a honking big building and some equipment.
 
steingar said:
Looks remarkably like the old dynasoars. I guess one lifting body aircraft is going to look a lot like the next. I can only wish them the best of luck. We need programs like this if we're ever going to really make it in space. NASA is and was a dead end.
Click to expand...

Too bad you didn't notice that was a NASA facility they were using.

Dryden Flight Research Center.

And there was almost certainly a lot more than just the runway involved.

We need programs that adequately test their safety critical systems.
 
MAKG1 said:
Too bad you didn't notice that was a NASA facility they were using.

Dryden Flight Research Center.

And there was almost certainly a lot more than just the runway involved.

We need programs that adequately test their safety critical systems.
Click to expand...
The Commercial Crew Launch operators like SNC and SpaceX are not the ones to be worried about when it comes to suitability, reliability and durability testing - since NASA is their customer the requirements are/will be there - this isue with the DC test article will end up being a small speed bump with respect to the overall program.

The big difference between now (commercial development) and the late '50's/early 60's (USAF and NASA development) is the 24 hour news cycle, not the dangers and risk associated with developmental flight test.

The real safety issues will result from the far less regulated Commercial Launch activities centered around Tourist operations. The regulatory language is deliberately vague, and the current 800lb gorrilla in the room is a company with zero record of producing commercially viable designs, even when hundreds of millions of dollars are spent (said as a fan of this company).

I suspect that most of the Commercial Launch operations will try and maximize the use of 'informed consent' for Space Flight Participants as a way to minimize what they actually do to test/establish pedigree on their vehicles and systems. It will be up to FAA's AST office to sort the wheat from the chaff with respect to adequate/suitable analyses and optimistic prognostications prepared by people with little practical experience/knowledge but big dreams.

I believe the operational risk will be from underfunded and poorly lead organizations - and understand that 'underfunded' could and will be measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

'Gimp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top