Why is a LOX/Kero SSTO not rather easy?

h (Rand Simberg) writes:

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 00:39:01 GMT, in a place far, far away, Michael
Walsh made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

The demise of the X-33 is much more a result of bad
management than either technical failure
(composite LH2 tanks) or even a bad selection of
the winning X-33 concept.

I disagree. The selection was awful, on a number of counts as (I
don't hesitate to point out) I pointed out at the time.

I remember those times. There was a lot of disgust that NASA picked
the winner with the coolest new technology to explore. Instead, it
would have been nice to pick the winner based on which was most likely
to successfully fly, which would have meant picking the winner with
the least amount of new technology.

Case in point, there was little to no new technology in DC-X. It's
point was to prove that you could design, build, and fly a
"spacecraft" for far less than NASA cost models. On top of that, it
was to show rapid turn-around for LH2/LOX engines and vertical takeoff
and landings without requiring a huge ground infrastructure
(e.g. purpose built launch and landing pads).

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

On 15 Sep 2003 11:08:58 -0400, in a place far, far away, jeff findley
made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

(Rand Simberg) writes:

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 00:39:01 GMT, in a place far, far away, Michael
Walsh made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

The demise of the X-33 is much more a result of bad
management than either technical failure
(composite LH2 tanks) or even a bad selection of
the winning X-33 concept.

I disagree. The selection was awful, on a number of counts as (I
don't hesitate to point out) I pointed out at the time.

I remember those times. There was a lot of disgust that NASA picked
the winner with the coolest new technology to explore. Instead, it
would have been nice to pick the winner based on which was most likely
to successfully fly, which would have meant picking the winner with
the least amount of new technology.

They also picked a contractor that clearly had no intention whatsoever
of building a commercial launch system with its own money.

--
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:

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 00:39:01 GMT, in a place far, far away, Michael
Walsh made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

The demise of the X-33 is much more a result of bad
management than either technical failure
(composite LH2 tanks) or even a bad selection of
the winning X-33 concept.

I disagree. The selection was awful, on a number of counts as (I
don't hesitate to point out) I pointed out at the time.

I would have preferred the then McDonnell-Douglas concept myself
and the North American design would have been a lower risk concept.

However, when a contractor identifies something as the highest
risk part of the program (the conformal, composite LH2 tanks) and
then marches on to failure then I have to feel that type of management
would have resulted in failure with any selected concept.

Of course, since any other selected concept would have had different
management that is an argument for the importance of the concept
selection.

Mike Walsh

Rand Simberg wrote:

On 15 Sep 2003 11:08:58 -0400, in a place far, far away, jeff findley
made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

(Rand Simberg) writes:

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 00:39:01 GMT, in a place far, far away, Michael
Walsh made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

The demise of the X-33 is much more a result of bad
management than either technical failure
(composite LH2 tanks) or even a bad selection of
the winning X-33 concept.

I disagree. The selection was awful, on a number of counts as (I
don't hesitate to point out) I pointed out at the time.

I remember those times. There was a lot of disgust that NASA picked
the winner with the coolest new technology to explore. Instead, it
would have been nice to pick the winner based on which was most likely
to successfully fly, which would have meant picking the winner with
the least amount of new technology.

They also picked a contractor that clearly had no intention whatsoever
of building a commercial launch system with its own money.

I believe that was true of all of the contractors.

I can also make an argument that the way NASA structured the
competition there was no possible way this could have been
accomplished.

Mike Walsh

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 01:11:26 GMT, in a place far, far away, Michael
Walsh made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

They also picked a contractor that clearly had no intention whatsoever
of building a commercial launch system with its own money.

I believe that was true of all of the contractors.

It may have been, but it was *obviously* true of Lockmart, simply
based on their joke of a business plan.

I can also make an argument that the way NASA structured the
competition there was no possible way this could have been
accomplished.

That may be true as well.

--
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:

h (Rand Simberg) wrote


It may have been, but it was *obviously* true of Lockmart, simply based on their joke of a business plan.

Are any details about that plan available yet? Last I heard, a couple
of years ago, NASA and LockMart were being reticent when asked for it.

On 16 Sep 2003 10:42:03 -0700, in a place far, far away,
(Allen Thomson) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

(Rand Simberg) wrote

It may have been, but it was *obviously* true of Lockmart, simply based on their joke of a business plan.

Are any details about that plan available yet? Last I heard, a couple
of years ago, NASA and LockMart were being reticent when asked for it.

I've never seen details, but unless it differed a great deal from the
general presentations that I saw from people like Jerry Rising, it was
a joke, and not a funny one. Only someone unfamiliar with credible
business plans (e.g., NASA) would have been fooled by 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:

h (Rand Simberg) wrote

I've never seen details, but unless it differed a great deal from the
general presentations that I saw from people like Jerry Rising, it was
a joke, and not a funny one. Only someone unfamiliar with credible
business plans (e.g., NASA) would have been fooled by it.

Not that I have much sympathy for LockMart, but the mind-boggling
thing was that NASA made having a "business plan" a requirement
for the bid on what started out as an available-technology SSTO
RLV demonstrator and wound up as a technology development sandbox.

On 16 Sep 2003 18:54:46 -0700, in a place far, far away,
(Allen Thomson) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

(Rand Simberg) wrote

I've never seen details, but unless it differed a great deal from the
general presentations that I saw from people like Jerry Rising, it was
a joke, and not a funny one. Only someone unfamiliar with credible
business plans (e.g., NASA) would have been fooled by it.

Not that I have much sympathy for LockMart, but the mind-boggling
thing was that NASA made having a "business plan" a requirement
for the bid on what started out as an available-technology SSTO
RLV demonstrator and wound up as a technology development sandbox.

Yes, the whole program was mind boggling.

--
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: