In <4pd540$rl2@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> smize@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (Samuel
Mize) writes: 
>
>In article <31B84662.7930@lmtas.lmco.com>,
>Ken Garlington  <garlingtonke@lmtas.lmco.com> wrote:
>>David Weller wrote:
>>> 
>>> The "Delta Clipper" has done very well so far, with no disastrous
>>> failures.
>>
>>Didn't DC-X have a pad fire?
>
>As I recall from Aviation Leak, venting hydrogen built up under the
>"skirt" around the engines.  I *think* it happened in flight, and
>they landed it.  It may have been on the ground.
>
>The working components were intact, and I believe it was flyable, but
>they (sensibly) were going to check it over and replace the blown-out
>skin panels before flying it again.
>
>So, (1) it's a judgement call whether that was a "disastrous" failure,
>and (2) it wasn't a software failure anyway.
>
>But yes, they did have a fire.
>
>Samuel Mize
>
>
>
What�s the point?  The X in DC-X stands for experimental.  Experimental
vehicles have problems.  The DC-X flight control software is in Ada and
is all computer generated.  You would not want to maintain this code by
hand.
  The DC-X was flying in 18month from concept to the pad at white
sands.  This is the first craft of its type in the world.  Even after a
onboard explosion the flight control system remain stable and the
flight controller
 was able to land the DC-X.  That the point!  The system works.

Mahalo
Eugene