"Ultimate Buu" :

"Earl Colby Pottinger" wrote in message
...
"Ultimate Buu" :

I wonder how long it will take them to figure out that the OSP is a step
backwards and that without a specific plan to put all cargo on a) ELV's or
b) a new shuttle derived cargo vehicle will put the safety of Shuttle
pilots
even more at risk (NASA engineers are already complaining that they
aren't getting enough hands-on experience to maintain proficiency)
whilst actually INCREASING the costs for maintaining a manned U.S.
presence in space.

X-33? You are joking right? 1.2 Billion dollars and they did not
even get the parts assembled, much less flying. And as it was they were
already scaling back the goals for the X-33 program near the end.

Look, 1.2 billion and all you get is a pile of parts. ROTON was a
failure,
but it still got off the ground. DC-X flew and only costed about 60
million
(some people claim really about 150 million) but it flew. SpaceShipOne is
about 20 million and is test flyng right now. John Cramer has done test
hops
and will be flying in the next year after spending less than 4 million.

The definition of success shouldn't be judged by whether it flew or not.
The
DC-X and Roton were prototypes which had very limited capabillities (the
DC-X couldn't even rise above the clouds and the Roton was barely a mockup).

And the X-33 was not a prototype? With that definition of success
considering the orginal goals required a flying machine you are a shoe-in to
get a job at NASA. 1.2 Billion for an un-assembled prototype that has not
tested a single thing it was to do, and you don't want it to be called a
failure. But cheaper prototypes not from NASA that did fly don't count? And
clouds? What do clouds have to do with it? X-33 can't even roll out the
hanger much less reach clouds.

The X-33 was supposed to go (sub) orbital on its maiden flight and perform
in a way similar to the Shuttle, but without any booster rockets or
external
fuel tanks. That's pretty impressive!

It would be impressive if it did it. But it can't.

And what do you think the X-33 was. It was not a shuttle, it was a prototype
period. And they could not even get it assembled after spending 1.2 billion.
Please repeat that number. 1.2 billion and even an assembled proto-type.
That is why we don't need X-33 again!

But you want the people who could not build a sub-orbital (and the X-33
was just that) to continue the waste more money.

I was wondering: when will they figure out that SSTO is the only way
forward and that they need to revive the X-33 program, or start a new
program based on experience gained there. IMHO almost any TSTO is
going to be almost just as expensive to run as the Shuttle, if you take
all
costs into account ($100+ million per flight), so there's very little
point
in replacing the Shuttle with OSP+ELV. Safety should be somewhat
better, but only slightly (they will still be using cryogenic, liquid
fuelled
engines and have a similar reentry compared to the Shuttle).

I am a full blooded DC-X and SSTO fan. But I also know that SSTO is not
written in stone as the only way or the best way at present to get into
space. There as many interesting TSTO designs, and some of them have very
little overhead in mating stages and good recovery modes from system
failures. Why must you assume that NASA must go SSTO or nothing?

If SSTO is beyond our current technological capabilities then we shouldn't
attempt it and go with TSTO instead.

Now that was a dumb conculsion. Where do you see me say that SSTO is beyond
our abilities in the above statement? Please learn to read. I said that
because SSTO designs exist does not mean TSTO designs should not be looked
at. Always choice the best design for a job, not because a design is your
religion.

But I'm still not clear on why the X-33 failed
(besides it being over budget, but that's not too important
if its goals could have been met).

Oh boy, don't you sound like a NASA management type. If you can't meet your
budget how are you going to afford to fly it. Or did you forget the original
budget was only $800 million? 50% overbudget and not even an assembled
machine is not my idea of people I want to give more money to.

It failed because is was the worse design choosen.

If it wasn't technologically feasible then why did they start it in the
first place?

Because NASA does not care about easy cheap access to space, plus they got
lot of money to empire build with