|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
How long before they resurrect the X-33 program?
"Kim Keller" :
"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- They spent 1.2 billion on X-15 engine? http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...-x15/ch-5.html Infact, I think the cost overruns here also should had someone fired but it still was not 1.2 billion, for that much I still expect to see an assembled airframe. Earl Colby Pottinger -- 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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
How long before they resurrect the X-33 program?
"Earl Colby Pottinger" wrote in message ... They spent 1.2 billion on X-15 engine? I was thinking more in terms of the scale of the overrun, not the dollar amount (although the dollar amount was by no means insignificant). http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...-x15/ch-5.html Infact, I think the cost overruns here also should had someone fired but it still was not 1.2 billion, for that much I still expect to see an assembled airframe. My point is that *sometimes* the end result justifies the overrun. We'll never know if that couold have been the case with X-33. -Kim- |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
How long before they resurrect the X-33 program?
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message ... 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: Launch contracts are not done on a cost-plus basis. They are for the Air Force. Alas, no. From http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/...LMCvBoeing.pdf : "25. The Air Force's new competition strategy also required that the two contractors bid for the initial thirty (30) launch missions on a firm-fixed-price basis, i.e., a guaranteed set price per launch. This firm-fixed-price approach increased the stakes for the contractors because it placed maximum risk and full responsibility on the contractor to perform even in the event that the costs of the launch far exceeded the fixed price to be paid by the Air Force." 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. Of course they weren't. They were hoping to draw Uncle into financing VentureStar for them. -Kim- |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
How long before they resurrect the X-33 program?
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 10:48:03 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Kim
Keller" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Alas, no. From http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/...LMCvBoeing.pdf : I stand corrected. 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. Of course they weren't. They were hoping to draw Uncle into financing VentureStar for them. Which meant that their proposal was fraudulent. -- 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: |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
How long before they resurrect the X-33 program?
The linear aerospike engine, IIRC, was completely and successfully
ground-tested, well in advance of the rest of the components for x-33. That was one of Lockmarts early successes on the project, but that would not be a surprise if you considered aerospike design has been explored since the sixties. The linear aerospike in a sense then was a simple extension of extant tech, not a brand new experimental approach. The tanks were the deal breaker, is what I maintain; when the composites proved problematical, metal tanks were considered, but the original mass budget was too tight, and metal tanks killed the useful mass fraction. You can argue that was poor accounting or conservative engineering, I don't claim to know enough to judge. But as long as propusion is chemical, ANY craft is going to be mostly fuel and (comparatively) very little payload. Unless we can find ways to cheat a little, like towing or air dropping or (gasp) a 2-stage or airbreathing mothership, we can't escape the cold equations of mass fraction and fuel. This is one reason i liked the lifting body concept of x-33 and Venture Star, because I think gliding reentry and landing saves fuel over vertical powered descent, even after you deduct mass for the aerodynamic structure, I think we still come out a little ahead there. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
How long before they resurrect the X-33 program?
On 24 Jul 2003 03:30:40 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(MSu1049321) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: But as long as propusion is chemical, ANY craft is going to be mostly fuel and (comparatively) very little payload. Unless we can find ways to cheat a little, like towing or air dropping or (gasp) a 2-stage or airbreathing mothership, we can't escape the cold equations of mass fraction and fuel. Stuff and nonsense. When will people realize that this is not the cause of high launch costs? -- 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: |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
How long before they resurrect the X-33 program?
The linear aerospike engine, IIRC, was completely and successfully
ground-tested I remembered reading that, while it worked, the power and T/W were less than hoped for. Can anyone clarify? Thanks, Matt Bille ) OPINIONS IN ALL POSTS ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE AUTHOR |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
How long before they resurrect the X-33 program?
But as long as propusion is chemical, ANY craft is going to be mostly
fuel and (comparatively) very little payload. Stuff and nonsense. Rand, I didn't understand your response here - do you know a law of physics we don't? If you're going to lift a massive object off the ground and accelerate it to obital velocity, most of it is going to be propellants. Matt Bille ) OPINIONS IN ALL POSTS ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE AUTHOR |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
How long before they resurrect the X-33 program?
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. Exactly. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Boeing Establishes Orbital Space Program Office | Jacques van Oene | Space Shuttle | 0 | November 3rd 03 11:23 PM |
Boeing Establishes Orbital Space Program Office | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | November 3rd 03 11:23 PM |
It's been a long road ... | Jon Berndt | Space Shuttle | 60 | September 22nd 03 05:44 AM |
NASA Selects International Space Station Program Scientis | Ron Baalke | Space Station | 0 | August 20th 03 06:38 AM |
NASA Selects International Space Station Program Scientis | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | August 20th 03 06:38 AM |