/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16121997
i've made my peace with the delta wings over the years. were they oversized? yes, but blame the crossrange requirement for that, not the body geometry. they kept leading edge peak temp low enough that the thing could be built with 1970s materials, and they provided enough margin for error that you never had an entry go significantly off-course in 135 tries. most importantly, nobody ever had an issue landing the thing, which is more than dreamchaser will ever be able to say.

>>15495776
Reminder
>By late December, details had emerged that "a high-ranking agency official"—"William Gerstenmaier, the agency's top human exploration official and the one who made the final decision"—"opted to rank Boeing's proposal higher than a previous panel of agency procurement experts." More specifically, Sierra Nevada asserted in their filings with the GAO that Gerstenmaier may have "overstepped his authority by unilaterally changing the scoring criteria."
>On January 5, 2015, the GAO denied Sierra Nevada's CCtCap challenge, stating that NASA made the proper decision when it decided to award Boeing $4.2 billion and SpaceX $2.6 billion to develop their vehicles. Ralph White, the GAO's managing associate counsel, announced that NASA "recognized Boeing's higher price but also considered Boeing's proposal to be the strongest of all three proposals in terms of technical approach, management approach and past performance, and to offer the crew transportation system with most utility and highest value to the government."

>>14500538
>They only had one hard landing bro
>without actually destroying the test article
>just took four years to repair it
Jesus, the amount of cope in this short post.