Delta Clipper Experimental Advanced (DCXA)

[SKYSURVEYOR]

Great ! +1

B RDY!

Search : OMG UFO

[kffive]

I will be the first to call it "The Flying Out House."

[lwkmkam]

skygood

[dvh065]

Simple concept, flying fuel tank, even build with light material, it will have to carry useless empty fuel tank for the rest of the trip instead of effective payload. That why every rocket yesterday or today have separate stages or throw away tanks such as US space shuttle or Russian Soyuz. DC-X program being cancelled is highly predicted.

[millenniumf1138]

@dvh065 If the payload in question is crew for the ISS or other space stations, then it's effective payload isn't reduce by much with integral fuel tanks. There are plenty of heavy lifter designs which use disposable stages, while a small ship like this would be able to get crews to orbitquickly and cheaply. It would make space rescues a viable concept too, because of the relatively quick readiness time of the vehicle.

But stuff like this is better left to the private sector.

[dvh065]

@millenniumf1138 and how it slowdown from space re-entry speed and have enough fuel left to do the soft landing? Clear concept, good to try but myself I can't see it will work unless it have wings.

[millenniumf1138]

@dvh065 Fair points. A space plane concept actually does make more sense to me. I suppose I want ships like the Delta Clipper to be a reality because tail-landing reminds me of the old sci-fi movies from the 50s and 60s I used to watch as a kid.

[RecklessTornado]

................AND IT WAS CANCELLED!

[THEORIGINALEXSCAPER]

Now the social programs ARE NASA! My friend didnt speak to me for awhile because I smashed her dillusion. Biliions and billions of tax dollars towards programs that literally go NOWHERE! But at least the NASA daycare centers are operating. I once saw a NASA technician on NASA TV working on the Space Shuttle external tank, who was dressed like Larry the cable Guy! I am not joking! My reaction at the time was that whoever he is, and whoever his supervisors are, they should all be fired!

[THEORIGINALEXSCAPER]

I informed her, to her displeasure, that it meant nothing to me. I (and a lot of us) have given up any hope that NASA will be anything more than another buerocracy (hope I spelled that right) using US tax dollars to keep some VERY intelligent people employed with good salaries, but are constrained by politics, and stupidity. It is a myth that the US people were bored with the moon landings. The media were disinterested because the money wasnt going to "social programs" . They wanted it killed.

[THEORIGINALEXSCAPER]

About a year ago, the current administrator of NASA revealed he had been informed by Pres. Obama, that one of the Adm. jobs was to reach out to the Muslim community. ? I have a female friend who saw me wearing a NASA shirt. She is very much into space travel, Star Trek, etc. She was very excited about the shirt and asked me about whether I was interested in the news Obama increased the NASA budget to 18 billion dollars. She is about 24. I am 47.

[THEORIGINALEXSCAPER]

NASA became a social experiment just like the US military. What kind of budget for non space mission programs? Go back to Kennedys 'We choose to go to the moon" speech. Its all about innovation, beating the Soviets, raising the bar, just to jump over it. Then raise it some more. Watch video of the Apollo mission control launches. See any skirts there? No you see men wearing ties (and pocket protectors), smoking, probably a little cursing, NOT being poliically correct! Tey got the job done!

[THEORIGINALEXSCAPER]

I think the reason our country is getting rid of all these experimental flight technology, is because they plan to release new technology that will probably make these obsolete. wonder what area 51 is doin?

MultiIPwnage 1 week ago

---------------------

Sorry to disappoint you.The reason nothing is getting accomplished with NASA is those that work there can read the handwriting on the wall. Dont rock the boat. Dont offend those who control the money, ie, politicians in DC.

[THEORIGINALEXSCAPER]

No bother, we'll do it to ourselves, of course...

[THEORIGINALEXSCAPER]

A program that was under development, operating and showed real potential, scrapped in favor of the VentureStar program. Which was nothing but neat CG animation. Till that program also was scrapped. On to ARES/ CONSTELLATION a return to the moon and beyond! Till it was scrapped. Now the new asteroid mission agenda. And our only access to space, the Space Shuttle. No, thats been scrapped too. The US currently has to count on Soyuz spacecraft. Maybe Kruschev was right. "We will bury you"

[MultiIPwnage]

I think the reason our country is getting rid of all these experimental flight technology, is because they plan to release new technology that will probably make these obsolete. wonder what area 51 is doin?

[MultiIPwnage]

Our government chooses fat desk moms and happy familys instead of going to space and makeing new technologys 

[moya138]

God this was out in the 60s i watched it fly out of new mexico , so its not a new idea.Any idea who built it , and why it got scrapped and really who they are???.Infact a bigger one that can carry 2 men of about 5 foot 2 inch landed in socorro in the 60s more advanced than this junk.It was reported by the police as a u f o, interesting but untrue.In fact i seen it , but i am not telling you who built it.

[USSSkipjack]

NASA wanted the darn Venture Star instead and went on funding that. They insisted on having the same huge payload as the shuttle for no appearent reason. The Venture Star was the most ambitious of the proposals and allegedly that is why NASA chose it, The Delta Clipper tried to achieve much less and would have had a much higher chance of success. Of course politicians dont care about that. They care about... other things, like the amount of jobs that go to what state... SLS a recent example.

[jag9998]

Wow, they were overworked. That was the most half hearted response to a disaster I've ever heard. "She's going over......" whatever, imma take a nap, lol

[jah2mail]

FOCC YOU!

[spacegeek5]

Its sad they canceled it

[GrigoriZhukov]

@spacegeek5 indeed...simple cheap easy to make. what a shame that concept doesn't stroke the egos in congress. or inflate the dicks of those running nasa.

[TheVladinator16]

As cool as this was (and it was pretty friggin cool), I'd be scared to death to be in that thing during a landing. I just don't think vertical landings like that are safe/realistic. It requires fuel to land, and what happens if the engine(s) goes out, parachutes? The shuttle had its flaws but the landing wasn't one of them.

[StellarBlue1]

Let us not argue here folks. There is plenty of vehicles available for us to share. Now, myself, I am waiting for the ElectroMagneticDrive (EMD) vehicles. Certainly, they must be on the horizon by now?? (yes, i am talking Saucer's)

[Membrane556]

The DCY the full scale orbital version of the DCX would not have lifted as much as the Venturestar. Only 4.5Tons vs 20 tons but it would have been a very cheap program to finish.

They certainly could have put a Gemini type capsule along with a pusher type escape system on top of it and got a very cheap to fly vehicle.

You would not need most of the equipment module as the DCY would provide those functions so a LAS would be in the mass budget.

[Qulopuaa]

I do not understand why the same program that controlled the flight could not be used to control its legs.. or was the legs rigid..bad choice and the craft was doomed from the beginning.

[Membrane556]

It also was axed because it was a competitor to the X-33 program which itself was killed mostly for political reasons in 2001.

[wolfekeeper]

Ah, but isn't it true that if something goes wrong with a glider you're dead?

But actually... no, in either case.

You just eject. Ejection seats give you much more g-force than the main engines, so you have quite a lot of leeway, and engines are about as reliable as wings, and have a much lower landing speed.

[Larsosborne]

There are so many things factually wrong with this video. Stupid TLC....

[shunbaron]

from what you got this video?

[Xytan4]

That's why I'm not a fan of the VTOL idea, if some thing goes wrong as you're going up or coming down, you're dead. Horizontal takeoff is much safer, if some thing happens you have a nice long runway to slow down. And if you're in the air when some thing happens you won't fall like a rock because you have wings and can safely glide down. Unless that some thing going wrong is your engines exploding, then you are Shit Out of Luck. XD

[geminiwoe]

"She's going over" LMAO.. In truth, an amazing machine.

[silver760]

I wonder what dickhead designed that aircraft with such narrow landing gear?It's blatantly obvious,even to a simpleton,that it makes it extremely unstable.It wouldn't have cost much in weight or money to have fitted some retractable stabilising booms/arms to prevent it from toppling over while launching and landing.That oversight cost them the program,I wonder if the idea for this craft came from area 51 and the study of UFO's?

[CapitanoGUC]

@silver760 the could just buy some old buran shutles - thay are way more efficient then the space shuttle ...:-/

[smoluk1]

Fail .org! Also key the Keyboard Cat to play them off!

[jersey123rich]

If you like this, consider it's possible relation to this ufo story in texas about 5 years earlier.

youtube.com/watch?v=iIyAW8n2OL­o

[applesweeter]

Dear All,

I have some question about psychology:

(1) Why do we love aspace travel?

(2) Why do we enjoy to design and to build new space craft?

(3) Why do we like to be "space tourist" for space holiday?

(4) What will be the most desirable design space craft in the coming future that will fit our life-style?

THANK YOU IN ADVANCE for your creative ideas and brainstorm!!! :)

[GendPzTrSchmidt]

@applesweeter We are curious, we prove our creative and intellectual abilities engineering those crafts and we prove our awesomness flying those things which shows every woman that it's worth it to get fucked by us. It's a peacock-tail.

[ColonelPercyFawcett]

@applesweeter

Answer on an _another_ "Why": wiki, Advanced_Automation_for_Space_­Missions

[TimmyHaag]

WTF?!

[Skytroop]

This was Pete Conrad's brainchild.

[Enderwiggan1]

amazing machine

[tim22ism]

This should be replaced by a German Vril machine!

[widowmaker4542]

Thank NASA for killing it. This was a great prototype with relatively low $. If it doesn't take off vertical and glide back in, NASA doesn't want it. It will take a generation or two to retire from NASA before VTOL is seriously considered. Sadly, I don't think we have any Pete Conrad prototypes out there that can drive the program. He is sorely missed.

[1138thz]

@widowmaker4542

The loss of the DCX, Venture Star ect was part of the price for keeping the death trap STS flying. Not to mention all the planned interplanetary probes that were never flown because of the money gobbling nature of the STS..Fuck the post Apollo NASA administrators . Hopefully SpaceX and Orbital Research can fix a few things.

[Rubashow]

@widowmaker4542 Wouldn't it take far too much fuel to land vertically?

[johnsmdm]

they should put landing pods on the bottom that flair out on the bottom upon landing sirs...just push a button pilot...

[Hiraghm]

What about a heat-resistant inflatable skirt? Just before the weight is transferred to the landing gear, the skirt is deployed, holding the ship upright.

[tdetko]

My dad worked on SSTO designs beginning in 1960. NASA just wasn't ever interested in cheap, simple, efficient rocketry- they wanted something that funded the entire aerospace beauracracy- and the Shuttle was that monster.

[Florhusband]

What killed this project was a combination of politics, unrealistic demands, on/and/off funding and just plain exhaustion. The people controlling that last flight were overworked and the spacecraft fell prey to that odious problem - pilot error due to fatigue.

[kirkmach32]

Major accomplishments of the complex kind, punctuated by a fatal major fail of the simplest kind. Sad.

[valcan321]

Well nasa is looking for a shuttle replacement so wtf nasa and dont tell me you cant make it even more efficent today.

We need something like this NOW not in 20 years.

[Membrane556]

NASA dropped it for dubious reasons a real shame too because if they stuck with it we'd be flying the DCY today and not have any worry about a successor to the shuttle.

It really was a very elegant concept a pure RLV designed to do one thing get stuff into space cheaply.

The good news it seems private enterprise will resurrect the concept.

[jdmdecal]

what if they got that thing up like a plane to 60,000 or 70,000 feet then let the rockets go nutz. that 90 % fuel used for the 1st three minutes of flight would be saved for Delta V . Jshaw lets get some big funding and get it rite. sick of this snail progress.

[justin76pa]

I used to be into rocketry during the 90's. This was supposed to be scaled up 3 or 4 times. The designers were shooting for a rocket with a height of 120 feet. This rocket was onlt about 40.

[Jshaw71]

thanks for the video, this ended in 1996? wth? i never heard word one about this vechile... nasa needs this vechile, or the delta clipper, both will cutdown drastically on launch costs, but one thing i can understand, why use a vertical take off postion, like a rocket, for al this time man has been working against gravity, when lauching, why not work with gravilty, and have a vechile takes off like a jet, instead of a rocket, it make smore sense to me...

[Hiraghm]

I heard about it at the time.

At the end of the book "Fallen Angels" (it can be found in etext on Baen Book's website), the Delta Clipper design is described and employed.

[johnsmdm]

hiraghm keep your nose out of alien business got it hunh!

[bitpart2]

this was the future...so0oo impressive - let's pull this one back off the shelf

[toryvic1984]

Apollo = FAIL