[cosmicfish]

Originally Posted by tsofian

Again to each their own. A lot of these programs ran many hours on the equipment, It was rejected from military service because of expense, or political reasons or changes in specifications or because programs ran too long.

I would not rush to statements like that. I've worked professionally with experimental and production aircraft and their systems, test vehicles often have significant differences from production, and the tests they go through represent a tiny fraction of what a production model goes through. Going into production is always a gamble because of all the things you can't know from the limited testing time available, as well as all the small changes from test to production. Those gambles are relatively small when you have alternatives, but TMP won't have backups if these aircraft turn out to have fatal flaws.

Originally Posted by tsofian

Both the XC-142 and the AH-56A were very close to entering service when they got cancelled. The CL-84s did really well during test.

The XC-142 was never more than a prototype, the CL-84 was much the same, and the AH-56 was still being developed and lacked a true final design. Those vehicles in production would have had some very important differences, and I doubt that the vehicles actually produced would have been fully functional - there is simply no reason for that functionality on these test beds, that is not the engineering process works.

FWIW, the CL-84 was an excellent design that could have been developed into an excellent vehicle. The demonstrated performance was good enough that it probably would have required only minimal changes for production... but it still never got there.

Originally Posted by tsofian

The Project fielded a lot of stand alone equipment such as Science 1 and Mars 1, Hamm suits, fusion packs, lasers, freeze tubes the silly computer system the holograms at Prime Base, the autodcocs, the three vehicles from Operation Lonestar, the autogyro, FACEME and that is just a quick list.

So? Those items where developed entirely within the Project for their own purposes. Most of the issues I mentioned would not be a problem for something developed entirely in-house - they could presumably developed all the way to production, they could be tested discretely for decades (with the exception of the gyro), and since they did all the engineering and production they could ensure the knowledge and part base without having to make entire government programs disappear.

And for what it is worth, the vast majority of the items you mentioned were either narrative necessities (like fusion) and/or stupid ideas that should not be referenced (like MARS 1). A great many of them were little used in game or never at all, and if/when they WERE used they were generally shown to be bad ideas.

Originally Posted by tsofian

Crap the Stoner system itself falls into the category of not ever really accepted for service.

"Limited production" is a lot different than "not ever really accepted for service". Thousands were made and they were used for decades. But the Stoner wasn't that great of an inclusion for Morrow either.

Originally Posted by tsofian

Also remember the aircraft aren't carrying any fuel accept for a little bit of heavy hydrogen, so they can probably carry a bit more playload.

We don't have any real engineering comparison on the fusion plants other than that they can be used as a more-or-less 1-to-1 replacement for the conventional power systems. Morrow vehicles don't seem to outperform their conventional predecessors, I am not sure why you would assume that you could do that with these vehicles. Remember that your "little bit of heavy hydrogen" has to last a very long time and comes with a lot of shielding.

Originally Posted by tsofian

As for making this equipment disappear that is the easy part-the prototypes would be bought as scrap and listed as destroyed.

That is not my experience with experimental aircraft. They are rarely scrapped, there is almost always more to be learned from them, especially after you have invested so much. Experimental aircraft listed as destroyed were almost always destroyed in testing, not just left to rust into scrap or sold for parts. When they are no longer viable they are stripped down and sent to museums, but relatively few make it that far.

Originally Posted by tsofian

The final decision comes down to the PD.

Sure, that doesn't mean that the arguments against should not be considered.