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

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

"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.


You mean the Pentagon black budget?
The whole point of this thread is to figure out what happened to
/decades of effort/ to build reusable or SSO vehicles. Has it
actually been abandoned, or merely moved to the Pentagon?

The evidence is pretty clear it's been moved to the Pentagon.

For starters, the AFSPC plan I posted essentially says
to take the technology of the two scale demonstrators and use
them in the next step, a full scale military space plane. And
the plan was clear they thought the X-37 was the better of the
two. And here we see the X-37b is about to launch. So it's
rather logical to assume that 'plan' is proceeding just as
it's written.

Else why bother with the X-37b???

So I conclude this country is still trying to build the next
generation of space plane. Something that will help
fullfill the long sought promise of low cost to orbit.

But post 9/11, it's also clear such a capability is a the
next military high ground. Just as the first jet, the sound
barrier and the fastest have always been military secrets.
A space plane should be a highly guarded secret also.

And having the Pentagon and NASA continue to
share a black budget project to completion doesn't
really make any sense.

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.


How can we know how much the Pentagon is spending, or at
what level their latest technology has achieved? If it's a military
capability, we're not going to get any real details.




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

"OM" wrote in message
...
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...

Sad, but true. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if the decline of the TV news
media was caused by the media or caused by the media simply giving the
viewers what they "want" on the news.

Otherwise, how do you explain shows like Nancy Grace on CNN. WTF is up with
that show? All you ever see on it is Nancy ready to hang a suspect up by
their toenails before the case even goes to trial. It's little more than a
modern day witch hunt, hosted by one of CNN's queen witches!

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

"jonathan" wrote in message
...

You mean the Pentagon black budget?
The whole point of this thread is to figure out what happened to
/decades of effort/ to build reusable or SSO vehicles. Has it
actually been abandoned, or merely moved to the Pentagon?

The evidence is pretty clear it's been moved to the Pentagon.

Only in your dreams. The only evidence I see of reusable launch vehicle
development is the very *low level* development seen with vehicles like
X-37b. Again, if this was a *priority*, they'd be spending 10's of billions
of dollars and would be doing more than tiny research projects and a little
X-vehicle.

We've got precious little to show for our efforts in this area from the 60's
(lifting bodies, ASSET, X-20, and etc.) to today. And it's my opinion that
a lot of that is due to lack of priority and lack of funding.

In that time period we've fielded new bomber types (B-1, B-2), new air
superiority fighter types (F-15, F-22), and numerous other extremely high
price tag manned vehicles, but have yet to develop and field a single,
dedicated, military, reusable, launch vehicle or space vehicle.

For starters, the AFSPC plan I posted essentially says
to take the technology of the two scale demonstrators and use
them in the next step, a full scale military space plane. And
the plan was clear they thought the X-37 was the better of the
two. And here we see the X-37b is about to launch. So it's
rather logical to assume that 'plan' is proceeding just as
it's written.

Else why bother with the X-37b???

The US military invests in *a lot* of low level (i.e. relatively cheap)
technology development programs. But it doesn't necessarily mean that
operational (i.e. extremely expensive) systems are "coming soon". Come back
to me when there is a commmittment to develop and field an operational
system.

So I conclude this country is still trying to build the next
generation of space plane. Something that will help
fullfill the long sought promise of low cost to orbit.

But post 9/11, it's also clear such a capability is a the
next military high ground. Just as the first jet, the sound
barrier and the fastest have always been military secrets.
A space plane should be a highly guarded secret also.

And having the Pentagon and NASA continue to
share a black budget project to completion doesn't
really make any sense.

You're missing the obvious. Many at NASA doesn't care about this technology
either. Witness the tens of billions of dollars in planned investment to
create a "shuttle derived" launch vehicle to maintain the status-quo. This
line of research was dropped from NASA because there wasn't a concensus
within NASA that this technology was worth developing.

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.


How can we know how much the Pentagon is spending, or at
what level their latest technology has achieved? If it's a military
capability, we're not going to get any real details.

I call b.s. You can't keep launch vehicles hidden that easily. Unless the
military has invented *several* new cloaking technologies for launch
vehicles (visual, thermal, acoustic, radar, and etc.), every amateur
launch/satellite tracker on the planet would know about the program the
first time it was launched into orbit.

What's next out of you, evidence of alien built flying saucers secretly
operated by the military? Come back later when you have real evidence of
*significant* levels of funding going into reusable launch technologies.
All I see are a few programs which are funded at a very low level,
especially by DOD standards.

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

*From:* "jonathan"
*Date:* Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:36:50 -0500

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.

I don't think any USAF programme has anything to do with low cost to orbit.

Any spaceplane they develop will all be about being able to project force
anywhere on the planet in a couple of hours. 90% of the missions could be
achieved with a purely suborbital system.

In fact in their place I'd be talking to Scaled Composites, not Lockheed.

wrote:
I don't think any USAF programme has anything to do with low cost to orbit.

Any spaceplane they develop will all be about being able to project force
anywhere on the planet in a couple of hours. 90% of the missions could be
achieved with a purely suborbital system.

In fact in their place I'd be talking to Scaled Composites, not Lockheed.


They are interested in that concept by the way; here's a section of the
"Air Force 2025" report about developing suborbital bombers:
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/doco...12/v3c12-1.htm

Pat