The McDonnell Douglas DC-X Delta Clipper one third scale prototype of a SSTO suborbital recoverable rocket, able to steer with five aerodynamic flaps and eight engine gimbal actuators
Posted by Xeelee1123@reddit | WeirdWings | View on Reddit | 181 comments
purposeday@reddit
Good stuff. It’s important to reflect on occasion that we have very capable engineers. It’s the bean counters that ruin it.
Pootis_1@reddit
Eh SSTOs kinda suck
They keep coming up as an idea but their mass fraction is so minuscule unless you use like a nuclear lightbulb it's just not really worth it
ElSquibbonator@reddit
Radian Aerospace is currently trying to make an SSTO. However, theirs kind of cheats on the "single-stage" part, because it doesn't take off under its own power-- it uses a rocket-propelled catapult to accelerate it to hypersonic speed before leaving the ground.
Double_Minimum@reddit
Wait, who makes the centrifuge one that spins in a vacuum then blasts out the top with perfect timing? It has a counter weight and is spun up to like a few thousand RPM and released, but a rocket doesnt spin it up.
TechnicalParrot@reddit
I'm late but you might have been thinking of Spinlaunch
NedTaggart@reddit
Moving mass, you're right, but there is a market for moving humans.
flapsmcgee@reddit
Humans are heavy
NedTaggart@reddit
Compared to grasshoppers, yes, compared to Hubble, no.
legal_stylist@reddit
Starts adding up when you include the stuff humans need.
NedTaggart@reddit
You don't have to take it all at once. They launch unmanned resupply to iss all the time.
legal_stylist@reddit
Yeah, I’m just talking about the stuff needed to sustain life at all, not the supplies needed over time.
Pootis_1@reddit
A dragon capsule + service module is 12.5 tonnes
Pootis_1@reddit
The issue is that with an SSTO your options are either recovery or having a payload, engineering simply doesn't allow both.
And humans and the capsule they sit in are still ultimately still a payload like any other
speedyundeadhittite@reddit
Not for SDI's original requirements, relaunchable within 7 days was quite a thing in late 80s. Don't forget that the big brother of this was supposed to launch vehicles and people into orbit to run and maintain the whole SDI infrastructure, with very high launch counts.
Pootis_1@reddit
The thing is that TSTO reusable is actually possible without weird exotic shit, and whatever weird exotic shit your using to get a SSTO to marginally work will allow either a way smaller TSTO for the same payload or an incredible amount more payload for the same size.
alangcarter@reddit
And iirc the whole turnaround crew was six people working out of a trailer
speedyundeadhittite@reddit
By the time it was with NASA, yeah.
Old_Wallaby_7461@reddit
Yeah but an SSTO was just too much to hope for, then or now. If they pushed hard enough and the right set of engineers came along, they probably would've had something like Falcon 9 but bigger.
Starlink isn't that far off what Brilliant Pebbles was supposed to be, as far as it was a giant constellation of small satellites.
The_Demolition_Man@reddit
NASA was going to develop flyback liquid boosters for the shuttle, makes me wonder if they eventually would have made some for Delta Clipper
Inevitable-Wheel1676@reddit
We measure by profit instead of by purpose. It’s happened before, and we will right ourselves again. Sometimes on a long journey, you lose the plot and get into the weeds.
BlackbeltJedi@reddit
I would argue that a re-occurring problem suggests a systemic source.
GlockAF@reddit
Overwhelming greed?
BlackbeltJedi@reddit
Capitalism. The word is capitalism.
GlockAF@reddit
Ruthless, predatory, sociopathic hoarding disorder masquerading as a valid financial system
magnificentfoxes@reddit
I've always thought the same about mass transit. It doesn't need to make a profit, It's what it's purpose is that makes it important and worthwhile improving. Everywhere.
m00ph@reddit
Shuttle Mafia got ahold of it, and turned it into a research project, instead of development with existing technology.
purposeday@reddit
Interesting! 👍🏻👍🏻
m00ph@reddit
It was off the shelf parts, autopilot and gyroscopes from DC-10 and F-15, common rocket motors, etc. Then the shuttle Mafia got it, and turned it into research, aerospike engine, etc, which perverted the intent, which was to fly something that worked, not have endless studies. This is why so many old space nerds don't think NASA could do what Space X is doing, for example. And a staged system is better, if you can recover your booster, as Space X has clearly demonstrated.
Horror-Raisin-877@reddit
Beans do have to be counted. And engineers can’t make anything without beans. Too often bean counters get the wrath that should be directed at management.
ZachTheCommie@reddit
We're spoiled by mid 20th century aeronautical engineering during the space race, when NASA and defense contractors got a blank check from the government to turn sci-fi into reality.
purposeday@reddit
You’re absolutely right. I could have phrased it better. Sometimes people who were not elected to be a beancounter assign themselves to the task - politicians who favor one project over another.
speedyundeadhittite@reddit
This was linked very strongly to SDI requirements, when SDI went away, this was dumped on Nasa which -never- wanted a single stage to orbit, more the pork barrels, the better.
jar1967@reddit
Canceled in 1996 Thanks Newt
ajmmsr@reddit
I was under the impression that NASA took it over. And it’s first flight under NASA it went up and over and then down where it toppled over and blew up. Then it was truly over.
At least that is what Pournelle reported IIRC.
speedyundeadhittite@reddit
Thanks to Soviets collapsing and SDI going away...
EastofGaston@reddit
SDI?
speedyundeadhittite@reddit
SDI!
EastofGaston@reddit
Sexy Disposable Income
speedyundeadhittite@reddit
More serious answer, if you haven't yet found what it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative
80s was a mad time to live in. Space lasers pew pew!
EastofGaston@reddit
You just sent me down a rabbit hole my friend. Wow. I had asked chatGPT before you linked and was catching up and my mind is blown. Also from the wiki..
Imagine that.
But yeah this is one of the most futuristic things I’ve read about. Crazy. So it was ultimately a budget issue huh?
Looks like Pompeo wants to restart it.
Regarding OP’s post, a SSTO vehicle is something we’ve all dreamed about since we were kids but I guess it’s more practical for multiple stages? Because you’ll just be carrying dead weight after the fuel burns off?
speedyundeadhittite@reddit
Anyway, I forgot to mention, both the new and the old strategies required hundreds of launches in a short period, if not thousands. Think Starlink satellites but each of them are an enlarged AIM-9. The miniaturization of such satellites was only possible in 2010s, and the launch reusability arrived about the same time. Before that they were talking about 'battle stations' where hundreds of things the size of ISS would sit up there, waiting for the right time.
speedyundeadhittite@reddit
When you look into the SDI, you will find that most of it was just bollocks science, and couldn't made to work especially with 1980s tech. Afterwards they pivoted to a different strategy where they would have literally thousands of hunter sats patiently waiting for a launcher, and then intercept at the boost stage which is an incredible feat. The first ASAT test was also done part of this.
The whole point of it was actually very, very scary. For decades Mutually-Assured-Destruction (MAD) meant that if one side attacked first, the other side would ensure there would be no Earth to win. The possibility of using strategic nukes would be a moot point, effectively zero unless a mad man took over one of the countries. In 1980s that sounded unlikely although both Yeltsin and the Orange Shitgibbon have changed that idea forever.
Reagan and his people wanted a 'winnable' nuclear war. They wanted to be able to first-strike Russia, and then defend themselves against the counter-attack. It's even madder than the MAD. A lot of people like Biden considered the MAD as a block on using nukes. It was a mad idea, but it was better than destroying the world.
Breaking that stalemate was an utterly insane idea, whatever cool techs they demonstrated. I distinctly remember watching a laser on the ground being able to track the Shuttle on TV and how much a big deal it was.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1985/06/22/space-shuttle-succeeds-in-laser-test/a85ddc9a-05ff-4036-b435-8354e467af33/
speedyundeadhittite@reddit
Well, it was the case when the Soviets were around. Them disappearing caused a lot of budgets to shrink substantially, killing off SDI and many other mad science projects.
EastofGaston@reddit
Damn, It was a blind swing. Didn’t expect to be in the ball park.
speedyundeadhittite@reddit
I forgot to plug this. S.D.I. was also a metal band from 80s, damn I loved their albums, wore off the casettes. :P
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VPrQMN3H7M
benreeper@reddit
The average "Trekkie" never seems to know that the only reason that the US went to moon was because of the Soviet Union.
benjuuls@reddit
What’s SDI?
speedyundeadhittite@reddit
To explain it in a couple of words: Space laser pew pew Rusky ICBMs boom! programme.
SpaceInMyBrain@reddit
Strategic Defense Initiative. Too long to describe, I can only refer you to Wikipedia. The big point that's germane here is that it would need a very large budget, very large even in Pentagon terms.
archboy1971@reddit
I can’t even get them to change a retired employee’s address correctly , so any faith I have in the company doing something impressive has been tossed out the window (pun intended) for a while now.
Clear_Fun5018@reddit
There was advanced tech before Star Ship. Mr. Musk is not alone on matters of advanced tech, their were and are today other people who can do this stuff!!!!
GokhanP@reddit
That is the animation of the craft made by Haze Gray Art.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDTJ3J8R_wk
N33chy@reddit
Dear god thank you. I was pretty sure this wasn't real - namely how the sound mix consists of a repeating higher-pitch loop plus a jet engine noise, and that the visuals look way too crisp for when this thing would have flown.
bernardosousa@reddit
Also with that much banking, it would have lost a lot of altitude. I was thinking no way, how is this thrusting sideways and not falling?? Artist didn't play KSP enough.
N33chy@reddit
It would have to increase thrust to not fall, but that would also increase ground speed, and neither appear to be happening.
Yeh KSP is dope. Wish I still had time to play it :/
bernardosousa@reddit
I stopped playing KSP because of a severe case of adulting going on here...
lick_the_rick@reddit
I came here looking for this confirmation bias. The second I saw that I was like " That is a fucking animation!".
Girl_you_need_jesus@reddit
I thought I was going crazy, this looks incredibly fake with the shakey cam
Master_Locksmith7395@reddit
Very nice! Now, let’s make it in the shape of a tic-tac or pill capsule.
Mid_Atlantic_Lad@reddit
It also created the basis for the engineering and institutional knowledge that would be capitalized on by private firms in the early 2000’s such as SpaceX and Blue Origin. People forget that NASA is a government department, and one with a primary objective in research. Canceled or not, everything (except maybe the SLS) that NASA has done has in some way benefited the industry.
starkruzr@reddit
rip. what a cool design.
DiosMIO_Limon@reddit
Why “RIP”? Did they take away the Razorback?!
humblemandudebroguy@reddit
They can’t have the razorback
Sparta3DModels@reddit
its gone, gone, gone
Elias_McButtnick@reddit
Its legitimate salvage
British_Rover@reddit
"Hitch your tits and pucker up, it's time to peel the paint!"
disquieter@reddit
You can’t take the razorback.
2ndHandRocketScience@reddit
DON’T FUCKING TOUCH ME!!! Julie said calmly
Long_Cod7204@reddit
CGI is getting better all the time. Pretty cool. Should put this in a first person flying game.
start3ch@reddit
Why would you show this instead of the Real video from flight?
Actual-Money7868@reddit
So why didn't they use it ? Looks like it works.
photoengineer@reddit
Politics mostly. The success could have halted the gravy train to the usual folks. So it was cancelled in Congress.
It had a sort of rebirth via DARPA but met a similar fate.
Actual-Money7868@reddit
Just like project NERVA, it worked and brilliantly but it worked too well and was too easy for them to drag out endless projects and request tens/hundreds of billions in funding over the decades.
speedyundeadhittite@reddit
You might think radiating huge sections of the Earth is a worthy goal to get to Mars, I will continue to disagree as I have done since late 80s...
Actual-Money7868@reddit
You clearly don't know what project NERVA is. It wasn't meant be used on earth or in earth's atmosphere.
speedyundeadhittite@reddit
Yeah - you are right - there is no single instance of a rocket with its upper stage still on the stack failing in the history of rocketry on earth. My mistake.
Actual-Money7868@reddit
More than 30 satellites with nuclear reactors have been launched into space. Coal plants give off plenty off radiation as it is.
If you think we won't be launching more or using thermonuclear propulsion in the future you're wrong.
speedyundeadhittite@reddit
Not the size required in NERVA. That would require the size of a complete upper-stage Saturn V, compared to couple of kgs of Plutionium required for an RTG.
Actual-Money7868@reddit
I wasn't talking about RTG, I said nuclear reactors many of which have been sent into space.
NERVA can be applied to different sizes, don't go for a quick search on Wikipedia and then act like you know what you're talking about
speedyundeadhittite@reddit
I've spend enough energy with you. As they say, don't wrestle with pigs, and you're really enjoying the mud.
Actual-Money7868@reddit
Nice way to say you have nothing to say as you're wrong
speedyundeadhittite@reddit
I've got plenty to say, if only the person had capacity to understand, sorry. Moved on.
Apalis24a@reddit
Hell, we’ve already sent multiple nuclear-powered spacecraft to Mars. The two Viking landers and the Curiosity and Perseverance rovers were all powered by radioisotope thermoelectric generators. The Apollo landers carried RTGs used to power the surface experiment packages they left operating on the surface; the Voyagers, several of the Pioneer probes, Galileo, Cassini, New Horizons, etc. were all nuclear powered.
Each time one of them launched, anti-nuclear groups panicked and fear-mongered… and every time, NOTHING HAPPENED.
Actual-Money7868@reddit
The anti nuclear rhetoric is the numbers thing of the 21st century. Acting as if hundreds of not thousands of nuclear bomb tests didn't happen a couple of decades ago lol.
Apalis24a@reddit
A ton of it is funded by the oil and coal industries. Same thing with pushback against renewable energy sources like panic about windmills killing birds or tidal power killing whales or solar power frying animals with sun death rays. The more they can make people afraid of using sources of energy aside from fossil fuels, the longer they get to make money.
speedyundeadhittite@reddit
Coal and oil? We don't power rockets with those. Get a clue.
Apalis24a@reddit
We absolutely power rockets with oil. One of the most common rocket fuels is RP1, which is a refined variant of kerosene, which is distilled from oil.
Actual-Money7868@reddit
It's really sad and I hope we push on anyways.
Apalis24a@reddit
There have been dozens upon dozens of spacecraft launched with nuclear power sources and not one of them has failed during launch. The only time that one crashed to Earth is when the Soviets decided to abandon one of their satellites in orbit and let it freely return to Earth after it was dead, rather than boosting it into a graveyard orbit or dropping it into Point Nemo where it would be literally the furthest away from anyone on the planet.
By your logic, airliners should be banned because planes could crash; we should never have cars because sometimes they spin out on ice; one should never leave their house as sometimes people are struck by lightning.
speedyundeadhittite@reddit
You're really clueless. The reactor required for NERVA would be at least two order of magnitudes bigger than any of the tiny RTGs you're talking about.
Apalis24a@reddit
I’m clueless? Buddy, this is the stuff that I’m getting my master’s degree in.
speedyundeadhittite@reddit
I feel very, very sorry for your advisor. Poor, poor person. FYI - This kind of stuff was my master's degree in 90s.
Apalis24a@reddit
The fact that you didn’t even know that rockets use petrochemical fuels proves that you’re full of shit about having any kind of aerospace degree.
speedyundeadhittite@reddit
Not with nuclear loads required for NERVA, and you're really too young to remember various cleanups required for much smaller KOSMOS failures.
Apalis24a@reddit
Using NERVA in space won’t irradiate Earth, dude. Hell, the Earth is bombarded by more radiation from the sun every day than a thousand NERVAs could put out in a century. And, honestly, unless the engine has been damaged, it’s not spewing out radioactive exhaust; if it’s working correctly, it isn’t shooting out fissile particles in its exhaust. All that NERVA does is use the heat of a nuclear reactor to super-heat a propellant gas (usually hydrogen) via a heat exchanger. Heating a gas causes it to expand, but rather than combustion as the source of that heat, they use the heat of the reactor. It thus simultaneously produces electrical power for the spacecraft and produces heat for the engine. What’s better is that you could theoretically use any gas for it, not even needing it to be flammable - you could use nitrogen and it’d work just fine. And, you’d only need one propellant, rather than a fuel and an oxidizer, so it vastly simplifies the design as you only need a single propellant tank.
There are some designs for nuclear rocket engines that do expel radioactive materials in their exhaust, such as the batshit crazy Nuclear Salt Water engine: it uses fissile salts dissolved in water and separated to keep them JUST below critical mass; when injected into the engine, they reach critical mass and begin a nuclear explosion, with the injection rate balanced just right to be high enough to prevent it from fizzling out, but low enough that it doesn’t destroy the entire ship. As a result, you have a continuous nuclear explosion lasting for hours propelling the ship, producing unfathomable amounts of thrust… but if you sneeze, it’ll either stop working or it’ll explode, hence why it’s still only theoretical.
However, NERVA isn’t one of these designs. Unless you end up cracking open the reactor casing and cause the nuclear fuel to spill out, the exhaust will not be radioactive. Being exposed to radiation doesn’t “infect” the exposed material and make it radioactive; this is why you can pass river water through the heat exchanger of a nuclear power plant and then channel it back into the same river, now a few degrees hotter, but not radioactive. The only time something would become radioactive is if bits of radioactive material end up inside the thing, such as pulverized dust from a fuel rod that was blown up ending up in water. So long as they don’t come into direct contact and you don’t have the chance of pieces breaking away, the coolant won’t become radioactive. Typically, as an added measure of safety, they use a heat exchanger loop where you have a water channel, a coolant channel, and a sealed reactor core: the coolant flows through its channel, through a hole in the sealed reactor, the. Exits the reactor and then flows through a sealed water channel. That way, if, say, the coolant line leaks into the water channel, you’ll have coolant in the water, but neither of the two will directly touch the reactor; or, if it leaks into the reactor, you could have contaminated coolant, but it never directly touches the water. So, the exhaust from a NERVA will never be radioactive unless the reactor has been damaged enough that the reinforced casing of the reactor has cracked open… but, if that happens, you have far bigger issues to worry about.
Plus, it’s really only meant for use in space; it’s too expensive and has too little thrust to be used in a booster stage, but once in orbit - where thrust-to-weight ratio isn’t as important - a highly-efficient engine is extremely valuable. It’s not going to be chucked away to crash into the sea during a launch.
Apalis24a@reddit
Government.
It was pitched as part of the Strategic Defense Initiative, which would launch satellites into orbit that would shoot down Soviet ICBMs mid-course. However, the Soviet Union collapsed in the middle of the DC-X’s development, the SDI was subsequently shelved, and the money for large-scale launch capability for hundreds of military satellites evaporated.
jakinatorctc@reddit
I’m going off the top of my head and vague memory but it either exploded or caught fire after a landing attempt and the programs was cancelled after
Actual-Money7868@reddit
FFS we give up way too easily.
The_Demolition_Man@reddit
It was canceled because there was a different program that was also a fully reusable SSTO that was expected to work that was already being funded (VentureStar). That one ran into some fundamental materials technology problems and got canceled years later.
Mike312@reddit
I'd love to see them try again with the VentureStar using modern technology.
The_Demolition_Man@reddit
I would too for funsies, but it doesn't make business sense anymore because of Starship
30yearCurse@reddit
or perhaps you would be here talking about the waste of money this is, just launch a rocket and be done with it... ;)
Actual-Money7868@reddit
Not really when it would cheaper and simpler which has been shown with SpaceX
LordOfRuinsOtherSelf@reddit
Oh yes. Look what happens if we try again with a small uograde and again and again.
Actual-Money7868@reddit
Huh ? That's how things work. How do you think anything gets invented.
LordOfRuinsOtherSelf@reddit
I know right? The bean counters just... And Wah. Like that lander we have built, but they won't sent it, instead will send a mass simulator of the lander, because it's gone over budget. But it's built. Just put the built thing on the rocket, lrt it simulate itself? But no, the bean counters think they can dismantle and use the bits. Wah.
Jong_Biden_@reddit
The reason is more complicated, it's not just about putting the lander on the rocket, it's also operating it, having stations to recover telemetry, track and control it, all of which won't happen if the program doesn't have money.
LordOfRuinsOtherSelf@reddit
I know I was over simplifying things for cheap shots.
speedyundeadhittite@reddit
NASA didn't want to spend any budget, they alread had Shuttle and it cost over a billion for each launch - it was easy to say this wasn't needed.
It was originally designed for SDI, so would have been a military implementation.
MrDonDiarrhea@reddit
A landing leg didn’t deploy and it tipped over. But funding was already cut at that point afaik
TraceyRobn@reddit
In summary: Politics. It was too cheap and competed with more expensive projects.
speedyundeadhittite@reddit
Pretty much this tbh, plus with Soviets disappearing, spending money on R&D became a lot harder.
Actual-Money7868@reddit
Oh I got that impression 100%
mrcanard@reddit
Did space x use similar elements in the development of their produce lines.
Apalis24a@reddit
From what I can tell, the DC-X used variable thrust of the engines to steer, while SpaceX uses thrust vectoring by swiveling the engines on a gimbal to point the thrust in different directions. Still, the techniques used to land are quite similar, throttling up at the last minute to cancel out the velocity right before touchdown - a maneuver nicknamed a “suicide burn”, but marketed by SpaceX as a “hover-slam”.
Either way, MD walked so that, two decades later, SpaceX could run.
mrcanard@reddit
Thanks,
Key_Radio_4397@reddit
Kerbal is really starting to pay off long term for some.
Stypic1@reddit
I wonder if this is possible to see on Flightradar
Apalis24a@reddit
Not any more - it was destroyed in 1996 when one of its four landing legs buckled and collapsed after it landed following a successful test flight, causing it to tip over and explode.
Stypic1@reddit
This is good quality for a video from 1996
GeologistOld1265@reddit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin-dza-dza!
Pootis_1@reddit
The technology developed for this thing is what allowed SpaceX to put how it does reusability into practice
Apalis24a@reddit
Yep - MD walked so SpaceX could run two decades later. It’s just a shame that so many people buy into Elon’s hype and think that either SpaceX or himself personally invented this technology. Don’t get me wrong, SpaceX’s engineers managed to develop it into a full-scale operational vehicle, but they didn’t come up with everything from scratch. It was the culmination of decades of prior research by numerous different groups.
Distinct_Register171@reddit
Looking at the size of it I doubt it carried enough fuel for more than that short flight. Building it large enough to haul enough fuel for it's intended mission and still be able to get off the ground would probably not be possible.
Apalis24a@reddit
The DC-X was a sub-scale prototype; the full-size one was going to be the Delta Clipper, with a payload to orbit of up to 4,500 kilograms. This here was the Delta Clipper eXperimental (DC-X), which was a technology testbed that made suborbital hops.
Unfortunately, funding for the program was cut before the full-scale version could be built. It was meant to launch satellites for the Strategic Defense Initiative, but the collapse of the Soviet Union meant that the SDI was shut down, and funds evaporated overnight.
bless-you-mlud@reddit
I was a fan, but I'm not sure it would have worked as intended. The payload would have been minuscule. The rocket equation is a heartless bitch.
Apalis24a@reddit
The full-scale Delta Clipper (what you see here is the prototype: the DC-X, or Delta Clipper Experimental, which was a sub-scale, suborbital test platform) was planned to have a payload to orbit of up to 4.5 metric tons (9,900 pounds). Not an enormous amount, but not bad for an SSTO.
It’s a shame that the shuttering of the SDI following the collapse of the Soviet Union meant that funding for the project evaporated almost overnight.
Top-Information1234@reddit
Look at the quality of this footage!
Apalis24a@reddit
Here’s what the actual flight footage looked like. I don’t know why they didn’t use anything better than a home VHS by the look of it, but you can see why someone made a CG animation so you could actually make out what was happening.
Economy-West-4690@reddit
I like space x better
Apalis24a@reddit
This thing flew two decades before SpaceX. They walked so that SpaceX could run.
Smergu@reddit
wait: Suborbital SSTO?
Apalis24a@reddit
It was a suborbital, sub-scale prototype / demonstrator for a planned much larger SSTO. The DC-X was the suborbital prototype, but the full-scale version would be the Delta Clipper. It’s a similar situation to how the X-33 was made as a prototype for the planned VentureStar.
OldWrangler9033@reddit
Yep, but government and budget hawks get their sway.
alien_eye@reddit
It`s 3D animation
Apalis24a@reddit
It was also real. This is just a 3D animation because the actual videos of it are pretty low quality VHS footage.
Mightypk1@reddit
I assume this is cgi?
Apalis24a@reddit
This is an animation of it, but there’s real footage of its test flights.
_-Event-Horizon-_@reddit
That particular video may or may not be CGI, but there are live action video of this technology demonstrator out there that show it in flight (including the transition from vertical to horizontal flight) so if this is CGI then it is indicative of the actual capabilities of design.
DCX was a very interesting design, because, if I recall correctly, it required nose-first re-entry which is why the transition from vertical to horizontal flight and full rotation was required. Both were proven feasible before the project was canceled.
Mightypk1@reddit
Yeah see how pixelated and shaky that camera is, along with all the smoke and stuff, this video in the post is 100% cgi
N33chy@reddit
Another commenter confirmed this.
Even if he's wrong about the source I still won't believe it until there is a credible source.
Mightypk1@reddit
Yeah, McDonnell ended in 1992? So even if it was then, this camera looks too good, and even if it was more modern, there's things that don't quite look 100% real, not even counting the anti gravity rocket thing
Horror-Raisin-877@reddit
Hmm, not sure about that, I remember seeing this same footage at the time. I think it’s real.
speedyundeadhittite@reddit
There were similar footage, but not this.
Horror-Raisin-877@reddit
I see, thanks.
photoengineer@reddit
Yes this is CGI.
francis2559@reddit
SSTO
suborbital
Apalis24a@reddit
It was a subscale, suborbital prototype / tech demonstrator for a planned SSTO. Think of it like the difference between the X-33 and the VentureStar. The DC-X was the prototype that flew, the Delta Clipper was the planned full-size version.
Xeelee1123@reddit (OP)
Sorry, I posted it early in the morning. But SSTSO is a bit of a mouthful.
francis2559@reddit
No problem! Snark aside you got me to read the wiki, and SSTO was an eventual goal of the program, just more than this lil guy could manage.
On the one hand, the world that could have been! Apparently embarrassed NASA by how cheap and effective it was. Instead of learning from that, they dropped it and Blue Origin and Space-X ran with it because shockingly, the fundamentals hadn't changed. Ugh.
McFlyParadox@reddit
francis2559@reddit
The wiki suggested it was venturestar that was threatened, actually, and DC-X wasn't originally there's so they weren't too attached. But yeah, good points. Was thinking of SLS when I was writing the previous comment.
Xeelee1123@reddit (OP)
It was such a missed chance to not develop it. It’s doubly painful for me that Musk went with it.
speedyundeadhittite@reddit
They never wanted it to succeeed. Cancelled after a little problem with the landing gear.
Horror-Raisin-877@reddit
It was a proof of concept, never intended to go further. The experience gained is actively used today by others in the industry.
speedyundeadhittite@reddit
I was around at the time, and it always intented to go A LOT further. After DC-X, it was supposed to go to DC-Y and then eventually Delta Clipper would be a launcher itself. It was supposed to be a critical part of the SDI.
Horror-Raisin-877@reddit
Delta clipper and sdi itself were only concepts, a possible development path that might be followed, if this and if that. Not the same thing as a planned and funded project.
MrDonDiarrhea@reddit
Pretty sure some of the people behind the DC-X now works at Blue Origin and ULA (Tory Bruno told me on twitter some years ago)
workahol_@reddit
SSTSO
StrattonPA@reddit
Did they launch it from a hollowed out volcano?
Significant-Ad-3777@reddit
Apollo astronaut And 3rd man to walk on the moon Pete Conrad was on the controls for some of the flights.
Montreal_Metro@reddit
If you liked this donate to the Blender foundation.
beauh44x@reddit
That's some Buck Rogers/Flash Gordon shit there
xerberos@reddit
This is the video quality they actually had back then:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzXcTFfV3Ls
FuturePastNow@reddit
That's a VHS rip of a TV show. Video that was recorded on film can be insanely high quality if someone cares enough to find the original film and scan it.
OldWrangler9033@reddit
It shame they didn't continue to develop this rocket.
Substantial-Gear-145@reddit
Didn’t Pete Conrad crash this?
speedyundeadhittite@reddit
Nope, it was a leg maintenance problem caused by low budget and high workload.
itchygentleman@reddit
The last name i want to see next to rocket engines is "mcdonnell douglas" lol
recumbent_mike@reddit
That's actually two last names though
photoengineer@reddit
Rocketdyne made the engines.
Sh00ter80@reddit
Don’t worry— if the hydraulics go they’ll just steer ‘er in w selective engine power.
NoHopeNoLifeJustPain@reddit
First paper 1985, "fly a little break a little thinking". Fly since 1991, cancelled in 1996. We could have had Spacex stuff well before.
Plastik-Mann@reddit
Whoa!
Healthy-Confection66@reddit
Kinda looks like the flying elevator from the original Willy Wonka lol
Spacebotzero@reddit
Reminds me of what the Cash-Landrum folks saw.
Artevyx_Zon@reddit
This looks like something manufactured by Nova Galactic
top_of_the_scrote@reddit
tip of the dc thing
Dr-Eiff@reddit
I remember being very excited about that way back in the distant past.
whywouldthisnotbea@reddit
That's fuckin alien tech if I have ever seen it /s
Xeelee1123@reddit (OP)
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X
Source: https://nmspacemuseum.org/inductee/experimental-delta-clipper/