.....NASA, Lockheed Martin Agree On X-33 Plan !

Just one month before Bush wins the White House~


Atlanta Inquirer
10-14-2000
NASA, Lockheed Martin Agree On X-33 Plan

NASA and Lockheed Martin have agreed on a plan to go forward with the X-33
space plane program, to include aluminum fuel tanks for the vehicle's
hydrogen fuel, a revised payment schedule and a target launch date in 2003.
The launch date is a contingent on Lockheed Martin's ability to compete and
win additional funding under the Space Launch Initiative. NASA and Lockheed
believe it is critical to continue work to solve the last remaining barrier
to low-cost, reliable access to space.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-79131028.html



And just a couple months later....just after Bush takes office.

First posted March 1, 2001

WASHINGTON -- NASA announced Thursday that the problem-plagued X-33 spaceplane
project, a venture that aimed to create a single-stage-to-orbit spaceliner, has
been scrapped. In addition, the American space agency announced that another
reusable rocket, the X-34, is being axed.
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches...el_010301.html



From...."the last remaining barrier", to "problem plagued" in just four months!
Eight million dollars away from a new tank, the 'last barrier', to realizing
reusable low cost to orbit, and it just vanishes into thin air.

Astonishing!

Someone should go to jail for this.


Jonathan

s

"jonathan" wrote in message
...

Just one month before Bush wins the White House~


Atlanta Inquirer
10-14-2000
NASA, Lockheed Martin Agree On X-33 Plan

NASA and Lockheed Martin have agreed on a plan to go forward with the X-33
space plane program, to include aluminum fuel tanks for the vehicle's
hydrogen fuel, a revised payment schedule and a target launch date in
2003.
The launch date is a contingent on Lockheed Martin's ability to compete
and
win additional funding under the Space Launch Initiative. NASA and
Lockheed
believe it is critical to continue work to solve the last remaining
barrier
to low-cost, reliable access to space.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-79131028.html

Note that the composite liquid hydrogen tanks were one of the technological
highlights of the chosen X-33 design. Unfortunately, they weren't ready for
prime time. The "trust us, we've done this before" sales tactic worked, but
the execution failed miserably.

I see no malice by the administration here, only incompetence in picking the
most technologically challenging X-33 proposal and actually expecting it to
lead to a mature flight prototype.

And just a couple months later....just after Bush takes office.

First posted March 1, 2001

WASHINGTON -- NASA announced Thursday that the problem-plagued X-33
spaceplane
project, a venture that aimed to create a single-stage-to-orbit
spaceliner, has
been scrapped. In addition, the American space agency announced that
another
reusable rocket, the X-34, is being axed.
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches...el_010301.html



From...."the last remaining barrier", to "problem plagued" in just four
months!
Eight million dollars away from a new tank, the 'last barrier', to
realizing
reusable low cost to orbit, and it just vanishes into thin air.

It really was problem plagued. If you had been reading these newsgroups at
the time, you'd be far better informed of the problems than you appear to be
today. Perhaps if you would use Google Groups to research this topic,
instead of reading news articles, you'd get a clue.

As one of many, examples, the aerodynamics of X-33 were very problematic.
As a result, the external shape of X-33 seemed to change daily. In
particular, the originally proposed fins on the two sides of the lifting
body gradually morphed into wings. Of course the contractor and NASA
refused to call them wings, since that would admit that the lifting body
concept wasn't as promising as first hoped, so I don't recall reading much
about that issue in the media, but it was hotly discussed in these
newsgroups.

Jeff
--
"Many things that were acceptable in 1958 are no longer acceptable today.
My own standards have changed too." -- Freeman Dyson

Jeff Findley wrote:
As one of many, examples, the aerodynamics of X-33 were very problematic.
As a result, the external shape of X-33 seemed to change daily. In
particular, the originally proposed fins on the two sides of the lifting
body gradually morphed into wings. Of course the contractor and NASA
refused to call them wings, since that would admit that the lifting body
concept wasn't as promising as first hoped,


It also grew the two vertical fins after wind tunnel tests showed it
wouldn't be stable.

Pat

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

"jonathan" wrote in message
...

Just one month before Bush wins the White House~


Atlanta Inquirer
10-14-2000
NASA, Lockheed Martin Agree On X-33 Plan

NASA and Lockheed Martin have agreed on a plan to go forward with the X-33
space plane program, to include aluminum fuel tanks for the vehicle's
hydrogen fuel, a revised payment schedule and a target launch date in 2003.
The launch date is a contingent on Lockheed Martin's ability to compete and
win additional funding under the Space Launch Initiative. NASA and Lockheed
believe it is critical to continue work to solve the last remaining barrier
to low-cost, reliable access to space.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-79131028.html


I see no malice by the administration here, only incompetence in picking the
most technologically challenging X-33 proposal and actually expecting it to
lead to a mature flight prototype.

Not malice, militarization.

My point is that few here seem to realize how ambitious our military
has become with their intended space capabilities. In their own words
below, the X-33 and X-37 would give them only a fraction of what
they /want/ for future military space operations.

"These demonstrators fill only small parts of the flight profiles
required to field and operate military space plane."

And it's quite clear the Pentagon now considers reusable and low cost to orbit
to be a very valuable future military capability. A capability our military
should have as soon as possible, but without making it available
to adversaries. Meaning secret!

The X-33 and X-37 were publicly canceled, but it's clear they
were simply taken over by the Pentagon to use the various
advances for some other ....far more ambitious....space capability.
Some future military space plane. It's not like they make their
goals a secret.

The X-33 and X-37 dropped off the face of the earth just as they
were about to become reality. Amidst an obviously choreographed
volley of criticism. The only reason you folks can't see that is because
you were here when it happened.

Looking back it's rather obvious the programs went black.

A few clips from the horses mouth below, which essentially says...


"take over X-33, X-37, also the NASA funding for SSO, then
cannibalize the technology for the future military space plane"



Military Spaceplane (MSP) and Reusable Launch Vehicle Study
AF Space Command


Space Forces

Providing Direct Combat Capabilities to
Promote Peace & Stability; Fight & Win
Rapid Aerospace Dominance
The Conceptual Framework for Employing
Aerospace Power in Future Joint Warfighting


X-33:

Demonstrates Launch Environment Dynamics

- Liftoff to Mach 11 (need Mach 15+)
- Opportunity to develop operational processes

X-37:

Demonstrates limited set of Re-Entry Environment Dynamics

- Heating and deceleration conditions from orbit to landing
- Opportunity to develop refurbishment protocols

These demonstrators fill only small parts of the flight profiles required
to field and operate military space plane.
X-33 and X-37 provide only limited advances in some technologies
enabling AFSPC capabilities but would help establish tech needs


..X-33 & X-37 have made significant contributions toward understanding achievable
vehicle performance, cost, and integration issues
..will improve system engineering tools and databases
..completion of programs would permit capture of vehicle integration and
operations data

X-33 Program Assessment

Program Plan

.. Complete 1 demonstration vehicle
.. 7 Flights
.. Max. Velocity: Mach 8-11
.. Launch site complete

..Perform an independent assessment of the X-33 and X-37 projects
.As an MSP demonstrator
.For a specific follow-on program

..NASA and AF need to harmonize space technology investments
.Incorporate SLI initiatives and funding

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:...k &cd=1&gl=us



From...."the last remaining barrier", to "problem plagued" in just four
months!
Eight million dollars away from a new tank, the 'last barrier', to realizing
reusable low cost to orbit, and it just vanishes into thin air.

It really was problem plagued.


Problems that were mostly solved by the time it was cancelled.
Even NASA and Lockheed stated the fuel tank was the
"last hurdle". An eight million dollar hurdle??? Not much
of a hurdle when we're talking about an important step
for a future shuttle replacement.

You guys just don't seem to see the military value low cost
to orbit can have. Bush/Cheney define the notion of
being pro-military industrial complex.



Jonathan

In sci.space.history jonathan wrote:

[Stuff about making "Crossbow" a reality deleted]

Problems that were mostly solved by the time it was cancelled. Even
NASA and Lockheed stated the fuel tank was the "last hurdle". An
eight million dollar hurdle??? Not much of a hurdle when we're
talking about an important step for a future shuttle replacement.

Any entity/organization operating in the bureaucratic seas will likely
say "this is the last hurdle" but often as not it is the "last hurdle
we know about right now" at least until the thing flies.

You guys just don't seem to see the military value low cost to orbit
can have.

I don't see where what has been posted before supports that, simply
that they don't believe the hype put-out about the X-33 being "that
close" to being ready.

rick jones
--
Process shall set you free from the need for rational thought.
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 13:20:06 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:

As one of many, examples, the aerodynamics of X-33 were very problematic.
As a result, the external shape of X-33 seemed to change daily. In
particular, the originally proposed fins on the two sides of the lifting
body gradually morphed into wings. Of course the contractor and NASA
refused to call them wings, since that would admit that the lifting body
concept wasn't as promising as first hoped,


It also grew the two vertical fins after wind tunnel tests showed it
wouldn't be stable.

It also shifted from having an internal payload bay to an external
payload housing. All three of these led to serious weight growth and
enormous doubts that the follow-on VentureStar would ever have a
meaningful payload capacity.

X-33 was a fiasco. The most serious problem was that it was not killed
soon enough.

Brian

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 20:00:45 -0500, "jonathan"
wrote:

WASHINGTON -- NASA announced Thursday that the problem-plagued X-33 spaceplane
project, a venture that aimed to create a single-stage-to-orbit spaceliner, has
been scrapped. In addition, the American space agency announced that another
reusable rocket, the X-34, is being axed.
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches...el_010301.html

From...."the last remaining barrier", to "problem plagued" in just four months!


Just curious if you are following NASA's current version of the X-33,
the "Ares I". We're on very much the same death spiral with Ares I as
X-33 followed. Unofficial word from almost every quarter (that doesn't
fear for their jobs by refusing to toe the party line), is that Ares I
is a problem-plagued mess of a launch vehicle. The SSME was too
expensive and cranky to work as an upper stage engine, so it was
cancelled and replaced with the "proven" J-2. Oops, J-2 didn't have
enough oomph, so they went with J-2X. Even that wasn't enough, so the
new J-2X is an even bigger upgrade from the original J-2. And that
still wasn't enough, so they went with a five segment SRB, instead of
the "cheap and proven" Shuttle SRB. Development costs and time went
through the roof, and launch schedules were left in the dustbin. And
the new design makes for one really long and thin rocket, so
controllability will be problematic. And they realized it will have
thrust oscillation issues like nobody's business, so NASA had to add
dampers, adding complexity and weight. Then we learned that if there
is a breeze, Ares I might hit the launch tower at liftoff. Yet all the
press releases insist "everything is hunky-dory."

It was the same with X-33. It seemed that every month there was more
bad news about it. The composite tank failed. Stability went from bad
to worse the more they looked into its design. It grew big, heavy
wings, which cut the production version's payload potential. They
finally abandoned the composite tank altogether and went with
aluminum, which cut payload even more. They needed space for more
fuel, so the payload was shifted from an internal payload bay to a pod
on the vehicle's back. The aerospike engine tests on an SR-71 seemed
to be endlessly delayed. But NASA kept coming back with, "It's okay,
really, we just need a little more money." Bush came in and said "No
more money." One of the few things Bush actually did that was right.

X-34 and its Fastrac engine was almost as big a fiasco. By the time it
was mercifully killed, it barely had better performance than an SR-71.

Brian

"jonathan" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

"jonathan" wrote in message
...

Just one month before Bush wins the White House~


Atlanta Inquirer
10-14-2000
NASA, Lockheed Martin Agree On X-33 Plan

NASA and Lockheed Martin have agreed on a plan to go forward with the
X-33
space plane program, to include aluminum fuel tanks for the vehicle's
hydrogen fuel, a revised payment schedule and a target launch date in
2003.
The launch date is a contingent on Lockheed Martin's ability to compete
and
win additional funding under the Space Launch Initiative. NASA and
Lockheed
believe it is critical to continue work to solve the last remaining
barrier
to low-cost, reliable access to space.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-79131028.html


I see no malice by the administration here, only incompetence in picking
the
most technologically challenging X-33 proposal and actually expecting it
to
lead to a mature flight prototype.

Not malice, militarization.

I call b.s. As far as I'm concerned, there is no credible evidence that the
US military had any interest in terminating X-33. If anything, if X-33 had
flown, they would have gotten some good data from it, just as NASA would
have.

The fact is that the US military is not that interested in pushing
reusability of launch vehicles. Witness the fact that we already have to
underutilized EELV's, developed to meet US military requirements for
launching military payloads. They're currently moderately interested in
reusable upper stages/satellites, which could be launched by existing launch
vehicles. But I absolutely don't see them pouring tens of billions of
dollars into developing them, unlike other emerging military technologies.

Remember, no bucks, no Buck Rodgers. Show me the money. If the US military
really is *very* interested in these sorts of technologies, why don't we see
them spending the money to make them a reality? The answer is they're
interested, but not *that* interested.

Jeff
--
"Many things that were acceptable in 1958 are no longer acceptable today.
My own standards have changed too." -- Freeman Dyson

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:08:02 -0500, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:

Remember, no bucks, no Buck Rodgers.

....On the other hand, if the taxpayers don't get Buck Rogers, they're
also less apt to whine less about spending the bucks. That's the
problem with the space program since the camera failed on A12 and the
networks decided to listen to the blue-haired soapsjunkies and quit
giving NASA so much airtime. These days, all they show is about 5
minutes of a launch and 3 minutes of a landing, and then it's back to
who Britney ****ed in a gay bar, or who Lindsay ****ed in a straight
bar while trying to provide OJ with an alibi, all to provide filler
in-between stories about some crackhead's daughter being missing and
maybe found in a garbage bag, and stories about how the Big Three
automakers want more money that the goddamn Mafi...er..."Unions" will
demand be funnelled into their swiss bank accounts.

sigh You know TV news is worthless when you find more information
from an aircheck tape copy of a 1969 WNBC news show that's been capped
& posted to YouTube. Floyd Calber, you are missed...

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

Brian Thorn wrote:

X-33 was a fiasco. The most serious problem was that it was not killed
soon enough.


I still remember Lockheed's live webcam where you could watch it being
built...you could see the basic framework beginning to take shape, then
one day everything just stopped dead. Then a couple weeks later, the
webcam was shut off.

Pat