How long before they resurrect the X-33 program?

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.

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).

Were there fundemantal flaws in the X-33 program which doomed it? If I
remember correctly the composite fuel tank problem was virtually resolved
when the program was scrapped. Also, I heard some rumours about instabillity
of the airframe during various flights stages (reentry).

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 14:58:02 +0200, in a place far, far away,
"Ultimate Buu" made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

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.

Hopefully, a very long time, since that's not the case.

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),

Good thing your opinion is humble, since there's no basis for it.

Were there fundemantal flaws in the X-33 program which doomed it?

Yes. There was actually very little to recommend it.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

Rand Simberg wrote:

Were there fundemantal flaws in the X-33 program which doomed it?

Yes. There was actually very little to recommend it.

Well, I rather liked the Rockwell and McD X-33 designs. I think both
could have been made to work with vastly less effort than the LockMart
version.

--
Scott Lowther, Engineer

"Any statement by Edward Wright that starts with 'You seem to think
that...' is wrong. Always. It's a law of Usenet, like Godwin's."
- Jorge R. Frank, 11 Nov 2002

"Ultimate Buu" wrote in message
...
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

Go read up on some basics on reasons why launch costs are so high.
a good place to start: http://www.ghg.net/redflame/launch.htm

( Hint : chasing some magic technological panacea isnt going to help )

-kert

"Ultimate Buu" writes:
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.

First of all, SSTO is not "the only way forward".

Second, X-33 was a failure on the day that NASA chose the contractor
(and design). They chose the most technically challenging of the
three proposals. The project failed. NASA's conclusion is that we
currently lack the technology necessary to do SSTO. Unfortunately,
the conclusion does not necessarily follow. X-33 might not have been
a failure if one of the other designs were chosen.

The designs rejected had axisymmetric fuel and oxidizer tanks. By
launch vehicle standards, X-33 had extremely complex shapes for its
tanks that were extremely difficult to design and manufacture. Is it
any wonder that this is what killed the program?

Having NASA go back to try SSTO again is asking for another failure.
Where is the motivation to do it right after the first failure? NASA
would first have to accept the blame for the X-33 failure. Instead,
they blamed it on the technology. :-P

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

Scott Lowther writes:
Well, I rather liked the Rockwell and McD X-33 designs. I think both
could have been made to work with vastly less effort than the LockMart
version.

Exactly. NASA chose the most technically challenging of the three
designs. I'm sure a design with axisymmetric tanks would have made
things much easier (both the Rockwell and McD X-33 designs had
axisymmetric tanks).

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

On 21 Jul 2003 13:53:01 -0400, in a place far, far away, jeff findley
made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

"Ultimate Buu" writes:
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.

First of all, SSTO is not "the only way forward".

Second, X-33 was a failure on the day that NASA chose the contractor
(and design). They chose the most technically challenging of the
three proposals.

They also chose a contractor with little incentive to make it a
success. Just the opposite, in fact.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

Ultimate Buu wrote:

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.

I was wondering: when will they figure out that SSTO is the only way forward

It's the best way, IMHO, but...

and that they need to revive the X-33 program,

Why that?

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,

Why?

if you take all costs into account
($100+ million per flight),

Why should a small TSTO cost anything like that to fly? If we can
take the B-52/X-15 as a crude example, things can be relitively cheap.
Operating costs aren't going to scale up drastically just because your
second stage can go to orbit.

so there's very little point in replacing the
Shuttle with OSP+ELV.

What's that got to do with all other TSTO designs out there?
Espically if it doesn't have to have the Shuttle's payload capacity?

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).

Nothing says those can't be made acceptably safe. Certainly no
shuttle accident so far has involved cryo engines. Are you suggesting
hydrocarbons and solids are inherently safer?

Were there fundemantal flaws in the X-33 program which doomed it? If I
remember correctly the composite fuel tank problem was virtually resolved
when the program was scrapped.

Last *I* heard, they were about to give up and go with aluminum.
Which ialso involved some additional redesign due to weight, and
differing expansion/contraction issues.

Also, I heard some rumours about instabillity
of the airframe during various flights stages (reentry).

Don't know. Subscale models seemed to handle terminal maneuvering and
landing well, though.

I have to protest the idea Lockmart had little incentive to make the x-33
work... they invested more of their own money into that project than any
company has since Boeing bet the farm on the 747. From the linear aerospike
engine to the flight dynamics and servicing procedures, it looked a winner,
only the composite tank problem sank it. I remain convinced the plug was pulled
too early, and that x-33 and Venture Star would have worked great eventually.
They should have got an extension to develop the tank issue further. I feel one
of the biggest problems we have in our space programs is the constant tug in
different directions, the changing tides as political and budgetary plans are
formed, then killed and replaced with "new directions" every 4 years or less...
Just once, I'd like to see ANY of these goddamn experimental projects supported
all the way thru flight hardware and operational test before we crumple it all
up and get out yet ANOTHER sheet of clean paper. Too many chefs in the
kitchen, or too many stooges all putting the yeast in the beer vat... hardware
is not the ultimate problem, it's the wetware.....

On 22 Jul 2003 00:45:33 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(MSu1049321) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

I have to protest the idea Lockmart had little incentive to make the x-33
work... they invested more of their own money into that project than any
company has since Boeing bet the farm on the 747.

But much less money than they would have lost if the Titan and Atlas
had been put out of business.

From the linear aerospike
engine to the flight dynamics and servicing procedures, it looked a winner,
only the composite tank problem sank it. I remain convinced the plug was pulled
too early, and that x-33 and Venture Star would have worked great eventually.

You remain a slave to Lockmart propaganda.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers: