DC-X Delta Clipper

Attachments

  • img20786_2048x2048.jpg
    img20786_2048x2048.jpg
    231.5 KB · Views: 161
  • img20785_2048x2048.jpg
    img20785_2048x2048.jpg
    198.1 KB · Views: 88
  • img20784_2048x2048.jpg
    img20784_2048x2048.jpg
    160.4 KB · Views: 84
  • img20783_2048x2048.jpg
    img20783_2048x2048.jpg
    216.9 KB · Views: 92
  • img20782_2048x2048.jpg
    img20782_2048x2048.jpg
    239 KB · Views: 91
  • img20781_2048x2048.jpg
    img20781_2048x2048.jpg
    218.1 KB · Views: 91
  • img20780_2048x2048.jpg
    img20780_2048x2048.jpg
    224.4 KB · Views: 83
  • img20779_2048x2048.jpg
    img20779_2048x2048.jpg
    174.7 KB · Views: 81
  • img20778_2048x2048.jpg
    img20778_2048x2048.jpg
    227.3 KB · Views: 99
  • img20777_2048x2048.jpg
    img20777_2048x2048.jpg
    273.9 KB · Views: 91
  • img20776_2048x2048.jpg
    img20776_2048x2048.jpg
    334 KB · Views: 96
  • img20775_2048x2048.jpg
    img20775_2048x2048.jpg
    259.2 KB · Views: 101
  • img20774_2048x2048.jpg
    img20774_2048x2048.jpg
    231.5 KB · Views: 172
DC-X gets points for looking like an RLV should.

Aside from the Heavies' pointed strap-ons, the typical Falcon has all the grace of a cell phone tower.
 
publiusr said:
DC-X gets points for looking like an RLV should.

Aside from the Heavies' pointed strap-ons, the typical Falcon has all the grace of a cell phone tower.
Click to expand...
There are no beauty points. We in the spaceflight industry value performance over image
Plus you have a fringe mentality that is not shared by many
 
Maybe...but having Delta IIs as the end-all be-all wasn't going to get us towards the future of Kubrick's 2001.

As for saying beauty doesn't matter---could it be that the hostile Viking landscapes did more harm than good in popularizing Mars exploration?

Had DC-X had an Elon level billionaire behind it, who knows?

It and the MADV are similar at least.

Better lander than SSTO...
 
publiusr said:
Maybe...but having Delta IIs as the end-all be-all wasn't going to get us towards the future of Kubrick's 2001.
Click to expand...

They were never the end-all be-all. They were what we could afford at the time. Much like Falcon 9s. Why can't you understand this? It must not fit in your own world.
Again, much like 1969/1970, where the choice was shuttle or nothing. Space science had a choice in the 90's. One big mission every five years or 3 or so missions over the same span*. Delta II worked because much of the manpower was subsidized by GPS, much like Falcon 9 is helped by Starlink.
Nothing we are flying is going to get us to towards the Kubrick's vision.

* It's better than that. For the main part of the Delta II (NASA) program (1990-2011), we got 46 launches over 21 years. This is around 2.2 launches per year.
 
Last edited:
Nothing we are flying is going to get us to Kubrick?

I hope Starship can at least point in the right direction...if it works
 
Byeman said:
They were never the end-all be-all. They were what we could afford at the time. Much like Falcon 9s. Why can't you understand this? It must not fit in your own world.
Again, much like 1969/1970, where the choice was shuttle or nothing. Space science had a choice in the 90's. One big mission every five years or 3 or so missions over the same span*. Delta II worked because much of the manpower was subsidized by GPS, much like Falcon 9 is helped by Starlink.
Nothing we are flying is going to get us to towards the Kubrick's vision.

* It's better than that. For the main part of the Delta II (NASA) program (1990-2011), we got 46 launches over 21 years. This is around 2.2 launches per year.
Click to expand...
Compare that *niche* track record of about one launch every 166 days to both the absolute and relative statistics of the extremely versatile Soyuz ELV family (and *NO*, I am most definitely *NOT* a Russia fanboi, but facts are stubbornly facts). But please, feel free to throw the Delta I, III, and IV ELVs in the mix as well, and while you're at it, I'd also be curious how those particular efficiency/effectiveness measures in terms of launch rate and reliability would compare across the Ariane and Atlas ELV (1 through 5 [although clearly LM cheated there in the count system] respectively) families as well, let alone Musk's stable? Mentally narrowing Delta II down to space sprobe missions only back in the day is *EXACTLY* the kind of mindset we have to get *AWAY* from. Note specifically that when 2001 hit the screens in 1968, NASA was obviously already a well established entity, but the movie *explicitly* referred to a "United States Astronautics Agency" instead and never mentioned NASA once, and crewed LEO missions were serviced by Pan American (as well as Aeroflot, although not featured onscreen) - I'll leave the rest of the exercise to the student.
 
Last edited:
martinbayer said:
Mentally narrowing Delta II down to space sprobe missions only back in the day is *EXACTLY* the kind of mindset we have to get *AWAY* from.
Click to expand...
No. This isn't about now or before Challenger. This is about a ill-informed and uneducated posts made in the past about Delta II that thought it was "holding us back". When it really was about NASA changing it paradigm of funding only large flagship missions occasionally and flying smaller missions more often and having the outside entities manage the missions. Delta II enabled this and Falcon 9 is continuing it. Regardless of launch costs, larger satellites cost more. By using Delta II vs Atlas II and Titan IV in the 90's and 00's, NASA could do more and varied space science missions than using large vehicles or an HLV.
 
I didn’t know initially that you worked on Delta II. My thought was that it was a crutch. But we didn’t have Elon’s work yet..and I was venting my frustrations.

My apologies.
 
publiusr said:
I didn’t know initially that you worked on Delta II. My thought was that it was a crutch. But we didn’t have Elon’s work yet..and I was venting my frustrations.

My apologies.
Click to expand...
With NASA (2001-Present) , I have worked on 24 missions.
Delta II ICESAT/CHIPSAT, MER A, MER B, Kepler, STSS Demo, & GRAIL.
Atlas V MRO, SDO, Juno, MSL, RBSP, MMS, OA-4, 6 & 7, GOES-R, S, & T, Solar Orbiter; Mars 2020;
Delta IV Heavy - EFT-1
Falcon 9 - DSCOVR, Psyche
Ariane V - JWST.
I also supported the missions of Jason/TIMED, Contour, MAP, TDRS-K, MAVEN, TDRS-L, OSIRIS-REX, TDRS-M, Jason-3, PSP, Lucy, JPSS-2, HALO/PPE, Europa Clipper, SRL, GOES-U, I-HAB, and USDV by either console time or helping with long range planning.
 
Rhinocrates said:
A late iteration of the full-scale SSTO version. Payload is behind the semicircular double door in the middle. Earlier versions had a circular door flush with the cone.

View attachment 728883
Click to expand...
Funny how even a purportedly purely "ballistic" RLV system started to sprout aerodynamic ("gasp") surfaces in its final iterations...
 
Batman was really being a baby about his version of it...so they made the Batfins standard to lower costs.
 
Rhinocrates said:
A late iteration of the full-scale SSTO version. Payload is behind the semicircular double door in the middle. Earlier versions had a circular door flush with the cone.

View attachment 728883
Click to expand...

Neat pic, never saw that one before. Is there a 'side' view? Not really getting how the doors/bay works?

quellish said:
X-33 was intended to be a technology development program. It wasn’t intended to result in an operational vehicle.
Click to expand...

Oddly it was pointed out at the time that the required payload and speed "goals" of the X-33 could actually allow it to be used as a recoverable stage in some scenarios. Seems to have been part of the reason the Air Force gave up on the program when both the payload and speeds goals were lowered by LM.

Byeman said:
Nope, Rockwell's was unworkable. MCDAC should have won.
Click to expand...

How was Rockwell's unworkable? I know it was considered the most conservative design, but hadn't heard anyone state it was unworkable?

martinbayer said:
Funny how even a purportedly purely "ballistic" RLV system started to sprout aerodynamic ("gasp") surfaces in its final iterations...
Click to expand...

Hypersonic lifting body design hence the flat "bottom" and nose first entry profile to keep the speed up for cross-range. If used like Hazygreyart's video the high AoA entry slows down to fast to have a good cross-range, but that would work nicely for Starship. Not having the engines in the fire prone "engine bay" and protected by the "body-flap" would help a lot also but we're unlikely to see that.
(There's also the better heat tile attachment surface on this design as compared to a standard cylindrical body, but again not something SpaceX is likely to be allowed to do)

Randy
 
Maybe it was just considered "conservative" because it was the most similar to preexisting NASA designs (particularly the studies done at Langley before it, from AMLS to the X-2000 and WB-00X) and not that it was any more feasible than the others?
 
Byeman said:
As an eventual SSTO.
Click to expand...

Well it was primarily a research project (aka X-33) and it's proposed follow on would have had essentially the same performance as the other two designs. The figures for ALL the proposed follow-on designs was highly optimistic to say the least and as LM found out getting from point A to point B wasn't as easy as the contractors assumed.

Randy
 
Keep in mind that in this case, "SSTO" didn't just mean single stage to orbit, but also back to Earth. That was the kicker. It's not that difficult to build a rocket that can fly to orbit on a single stage with a small payload, because Atlas could do that.
 
blackstar said:
Keep in mind that in this case, "SSTO" didn't just mean single stage to orbit, but also back to Earth. That was the kicker. It's not that difficult to build a rocket that can fly to orbit on a single stage with a small payload, because Atlas could do that.
Click to expand...

So if you can refuel it in orbit it can come back down :)
And back to the Rockwell design that's why it had wings, so it didn't need to save fuel to return.

Randy
 
blackstar said:
Keep in mind that in this case, "SSTO" didn't just mean single stage to orbit, but also back to Earth. That was the kicker. It's not that difficult to build a rocket that can fly to orbit on a single stage with a small payload, because Atlas could do that.
Click to expand...
SLS could fly to orbit with a pretty sizable payload. Foam popcorning is one thing--TPS to get Starship back, quite another.
I wonder if something like an SLS based upper stage might be single stage-to-the-Moon if it had air start SSMEs and was atop Superheavy. It actually weights less than Starship fully laden.

The concept of rocket AS payload for wet workshops still needs advocacy.

The Rockwell might have been a good flyback...perhaps pointing towards Spaceliner
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50rfXksgOD0
 
RanulfC said:
Neat pic, never saw that one before. Is there a 'side' view? Not really getting how the doors/bay works?
Click to expand...
I'm afraid not. That's all I was able to find at the time, I think - it was buried in an old folder. As for the doors, judging by the seam down the middle, it would likely have been in two parts, hinged on the outer edges.

This might have been my source:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=5422.0
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2024-05-19 at 11.40.10 AM.png
    Screenshot 2024-05-19 at 11.40.10 AM.png
    225.5 KB · Views: 51
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom