The old saying, "if we knew what we were doing it wouldn't be research" has some truth to it. Also, that the most exciting words to hear in a lab aren't "Eureka!" but "huh ... that's odd..."
But there is a difference between fundamental and applied (or, if you prefer, engineering) research. And it can get really annoying when something unrelated to the actual experiment you're trying to run slows you down.
Reminds me of the old X-3. Remember that? (Or the cartoon it spawned: Roger Ramjet?)
I'll admit I also find it a little weird that NASA is the one doing the research and not the USAF, this stuff used to all be in their purview. Then again, they just might not care? Which also makes me wonder if any of the US aircraft manufacturers or airlines are backing any of this?
And to your query re NASA versus USAF...NASA--particularly back when it was still NACA--was much more R&D-oriented than the USAF. Indeed it still was years later: I went to work for a living in 1981, at a time when NASA was in charge of the X-29 FSW program...which was built and tested by Grumman, with some funding and participation by both the Air Force and DARPA.
Technology demonstrators are generally not intended as prototypes for deployables. So it would make more sense to have an entity that has the tech demo charter separate from the people who use stuff for a living.
According to Wikipedia, the X-59 is being built by Lockheed Martin. Also, the underlying concept--minimizing or eliminating the sonic boom--goes back at least as far as the Reagan Administration and the "Orient Express," aka the Rockwell X-30.
I worked for Grumman when the X-29 came out. The Grumman Test pilot rolled it and the USAF had him escorted out of there as soon as he landed. The USAF are not at all into 'fun' (I know, I was in it). So I always thought it was built for them, as they ran the test program.
Yeah…Grumman were an interesting bunch. I suspect there’s no more Grumman on Long Island anymore, alas. Sad. I’m old enough to remember when CAPT Nori Endo—then PMA-241—announced in the weekly staff meeting that Leroy Grumman had died!
Never got out to Calverton, alas. Made a couple trips to Bethpage, notably in connection with some ECPs we were negotiating with Grumman on behalf of one of our FMS customers, JASDF.
My fave: JASDF had requested that we replace the E-2C’s USN seats with USAF ones, for the perfectly sensible reason they had about a zillion USAF aircraft in their inventory and these would have been the first USN ones. The line (from Grumman’s proposal): “This ECP does not take into account anthropometric differences between USN and JASDF pilots.”
The old saying, "if we knew what we were doing it wouldn't be research" has some truth to it. Also, that the most exciting words to hear in a lab aren't "Eureka!" but "huh ... that's odd..."
But there is a difference between fundamental and applied (or, if you prefer, engineering) research. And it can get really annoying when something unrelated to the actual experiment you're trying to run slows you down.
Or you hear, "Oh, S**T!" And I've heard both... sigh
Reminds me of the old X-3. Remember that? (Or the cartoon it spawned: Roger Ramjet?)
I'll admit I also find it a little weird that NASA is the one doing the research and not the USAF, this stuff used to all be in their purview. Then again, they just might not care? Which also makes me wonder if any of the US aircraft manufacturers or airlines are backing any of this?
I was going to make the same X-3 comparison! :-)
And to your query re NASA versus USAF...NASA--particularly back when it was still NACA--was much more R&D-oriented than the USAF. Indeed it still was years later: I went to work for a living in 1981, at a time when NASA was in charge of the X-29 FSW program...which was built and tested by Grumman, with some funding and participation by both the Air Force and DARPA.
Technology demonstrators are generally not intended as prototypes for deployables. So it would make more sense to have an entity that has the tech demo charter separate from the people who use stuff for a living.
According to Wikipedia, the X-59 is being built by Lockheed Martin. Also, the underlying concept--minimizing or eliminating the sonic boom--goes back at least as far as the Reagan Administration and the "Orient Express," aka the Rockwell X-30.
I worked for Grumman when the X-29 came out. The Grumman Test pilot rolled it and the USAF had him escorted out of there as soon as he landed. The USAF are not at all into 'fun' (I know, I was in it). So I always thought it was built for them, as they ran the test program.
I was only peripherally aware of it as I was at NAVAIR, working on Grumman programs at the time--my first two assignments were E-2C and F-14.
So I was only aware of the X-29 from Grumman brochuresmanship! :-) Along with their other USAF program, the EF-111 mod program... :-)
Anyhow, thanks for the story! :-)
I worked out of Calverton. I was in the Flight Test group.
Man I miss Grumman.
Yeah…Grumman were an interesting bunch. I suspect there’s no more Grumman on Long Island anymore, alas. Sad. I’m old enough to remember when CAPT Nori Endo—then PMA-241—announced in the weekly staff meeting that Leroy Grumman had died!
Never got out to Calverton, alas. Made a couple trips to Bethpage, notably in connection with some ECPs we were negotiating with Grumman on behalf of one of our FMS customers, JASDF.
My fave: JASDF had requested that we replace the E-2C’s USN seats with USAF ones, for the perfectly sensible reason they had about a zillion USAF aircraft in their inventory and these would have been the first USN ones. The line (from Grumman’s proposal): “This ECP does not take into account anthropometric differences between USN and JASDF pilots.”
…I assume I need not translate! :-)
Bethpage I think is still there. Most of the runway is gone. Calverton is completely gone.
This is a cool project. Those kids at NASA are pretty clever.