A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

How long before they resurrect the X-33 program?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old July 23rd 03, 06:15 AM
Earl Colby Pottinger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 23rd 03, 11:46 AM
Kim Keller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 23rd 03, 11:48 AM
Kim Keller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 23rd 03, 03:38 PM
Rand Simberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 24th 03, 04:30 AM
MSu1049321
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #27  
Old July 24th 03, 03:04 PM
MattWriter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 24th 03, 03:06 PM
MattWriter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 24th 03, 09:00 PM
John Ordover
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.