How long before they resurrect the X-33 program?

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
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.

Just how much money do you think they make off their ELVs? I have a strong
feeling those programs border on break-even. There's a reason they don't win
too many commercial contracts, and it's not from lack of trying. Given their
flight records, which would you choose? Atlas or Ariane V? The fact that
Arianespace commands the lion's share of the market tells me that LM can't
compete on price, since they have them beat on delivery.

-Kim-

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 03:21:00 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Kim
Keller" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

(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.

Just how much money do you think they make off their ELVs?

Given that most of their business is cost plus, quite a bit more than
the expected value of a vehicle that they never had any intention of
adequately funding (since they've never evinced any credible interest
in any markets beyond those existing), and which they went after only
to preclude the possibility that anyone else might put their ELVs out
of business. Recall that Lockheed and Martin haven't demonstrated any
capability to make money commercially in decades. The only attempt by
either (the L-1011) was a financial disaster.

So far, it's been a pretty good bet, and the choice of that contractor
was simply more evidence of either NASA cluelessness and incompetence,
or negative interest in actually seeing a successful commercial launch
system that might compete with Shuttle.

I'm still not entirely sure which is the case, but I've trouble seeing
any other alternative...

--
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" :

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.

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?

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).

Yes, NASA making the design choice is a fundemantal flaw.
--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

"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).
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!


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. 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). If it wasn't technologically feasible then why
did they start it in the first place? And were the problems encountered
solveable or were they beyond what was feasible? I got the impression the
problems COULD be solved but they instead opted to scrap the program due to
Congressional criticism on the cost-overruns.

The current OSP proposals are a step backwards (or an ever so small step
forward, depending on your point of view) which will only INCREASE the cost
of the manned space program. I'm convinced NASA is merely trying to get away
from the Shuttle and keep its options open in case another one blows up. If
the OSP is in service when that happens, I'm sure NASA will merely scrap the
Shuttle and put all cargo on ELV's. So we'll end up with OSP+ELV or
basically just ELV's because the OSP fits on top of an ELV. There's even
some talk about bringing back Apollo-like capsules!







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).

Yes, NASA making the design choice is a fundemantal flaw.
--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

"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

"Ultimate Buu" wrote in message
...

The definition of success shouldn't be judged by whether it flew or not.

Umm, yes it should. The fact that it never flew its original test plan and
never even flew its reduced test plan and was going way over budget makes it
a failure.


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).

But they both flew and met their budgets.


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!


No, the amount of paperwork and jobs generated was impressive.

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

It was increasingly clear its goals couldn't be met. They had already
revamped the test flight program to meet reduced goals. And even with exta
billions they couldn't meet that


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

As a jobs program


And were the problems encountered
solveable or were they beyond what was feasible?

Among them, the tanks. It was the bleeding edge of design all-around.
There were two other craft in the original competition that didn't push
technology nearly so much

"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,


I'm going to have to disagree here. ROTON as flown was in my opinion a
success.

It met its budget and the test flight(s?) accomplished what they set out to
do.

What happened was they couldn't raise additional money. Now, that might be
a business failure, but not really a program failure.

Otherwise I agree with you on the rest of your post.

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.

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 10:55:30 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Kim
Keller" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
Just how much money do you think they make off their ELVs?

Given that most of their business is cost plus, quite a bit more than
the expected value of a vehicle that they never had any intention of
adequately funding (since they've never evinced any credible interest
in any markets beyond those existing), and which they went after only
to preclude the possibility that anyone else might put their ELVs out
of business.

Launch contracts are not done on a cost-plus basis.

They are for the Air Force.

Given the tight
conditions in the launcher industry, I believe LM (and Boeing) make very
little money.

Then why don't they get out of the business?

Recall that Lockheed and Martin haven't demonstrated any
capability to make money commercially in decades. The only attempt by
either (the L-1011) was a financial disaster.

Which proves what, exactly, in the context of this conversation? One unit of
the corporation doesn't necessarily track with the efforts of another unit
of the same corporation; they can even have quite different organizational
and management styles.

The unit that got X-33, and pretended that it planned to to V* had
zero commercial experience, and a long history of denigrating the
prospects for commercial markets. One could tell from their "business
plan" that they weren't serious.

--
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:

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 09:52:25 +0200, in a place far, far away,
"Ultimate Buu" made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

The definition of success shouldn't be judged by whether it flew or not.

??!

So, the prettiest view graph wins?

You should go work for NASA--you'll fit right in.

he
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).
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!

Things are only impressive if they actually achieve their goals. It's
easy to say you're going to do something impressive, but wise people
are only impressed when it actually occurs.

I was mainly impressed by their salesmanship (thought, they knew their
gullible customer pretty well, apparently).

--
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:

"Earl Colby Pottinger" wrote in message
...
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.

Hmmm... sounds a hell of a lot like the X-15's XLR-99 engine program. Boty,
sure am glad they cancelled that one due to huge overruns!

-Kim-