Xref: utzoo sci.aeronautics:77 sci.space:14278 sci.space.shuttle:3704
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!apple!sun-barr!decwrl!shelby!eos!eugene
From: eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: X-30, Space Station Strangles NASP
Message-ID: <5292@eos.UUCP>
Date: 29 Sep 89 20:36:38 GMT
References: <4983@omepd.UUCP> <1989Sep29.164255.28849@utzoo.uucp>
Reply-To: eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya)
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Calif.
Lines: 23

Yeah, I think Henry and I agree on this one.  We need more X-30
type programs.  And its not clear what kinds of directions are needed.
We sort of got side tracked from the X-15/X-20 lines of doing things.

Some years back I was looking at X-15 flight paths.  These weren't trivial
tests, they had to fly all the way to Utah to launch and get to EAFB.
Imagine what troubles would have been.

The X-30 will require immensly area to test in.  Saw a proposed test course
for it in a meeting.  You have to keep to US airspace.  I do not think
its just a matter of having ground facilities, or different vehicles.
There's a lot of research required for sustained hypersonic flight.
We don't have nearly enough knowledge as we would like, and then only
on the low end.  So many questions so little time.

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene
  				Live free or die.