Author Topic: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened  (Read 346086 times)

Offline Shuttle Scapegoat

  • Member
  • Posts: 74
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #20 on: 01/05/2006 02:58 am »
Who's the Berkley guy and was he powerful? Seems what he said to the commitee had some real weight behind it?

Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4930
  • Liked: 156
  • Likes Given: 160
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #21 on: 01/05/2006 04:13 am »
Another good case of bad management by the team (Nasa) or teams (Nasa and contractor)...but then again it maybe is good, depending on the viewpoint...

You know a lot can get said, when a few billion is up for grabs. Here we are talking all grab and very little output at a program level, but the view from the engineering side may be a lot different as the drive is not focused on the billions...

Lesson to be learned: If you get a few billlion and you need to share some of that... don't p--- off the guy who is doing the talking..


Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 436
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #22 on: 01/05/2006 04:19 am »
Quote
BogoMIPS - 4/1/2006  10:17 PM
If we wait for each sucessive presidential administration to come up with a different vision, we'll just see more of the same, where each system architecture gets cancelled for the next "flavor of the month".

Well, after all of the worthwhile programs that have been cancelled, I'd hate to see this lame program be the one that survives!

Quote
I agree that a reliable, reusable TSTO system, with maintenance costs an order of magnitude cheaper than the partially/mostly-reusable systems available now would be great, and probably better than CEV/CLV and the SDHLV.  These certainly aren't (or at least I *hope* they aren't) the last vehicles we design.

They will be for another 20 or 30 years, if NASA follows through on its drawn out "Apollo on steroids" plan.

Quote
I hope we can do both!  Get a reliable, safer system, based on our current technology, that builds on tested methods.  Then, continue looking towards the future, with more revolutionary designs.

We should be looking towards the future now, and developing improved access to LEO before we worry about going beyond.  CEV is a major disappointment to me, and I would much rather see VentureStar revived than see us return to the 1960's.

Offline realtime

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 574
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #23 on: 01/05/2006 04:37 am »
Quote
vt_hokie - 4/1/2006  9:34 PM
I just hope that CEV gets cancelled, and maybe the next presidential administration will support advancement beyond STS, rather than a return to Apollo capsules.
That's what has happened for the last decade.  Where has it gotten us besides painted into a corner?

STS is on the way out.  Any further delay in developing a replacement leaves us with no access to space.  Your solution would leave us grounded, maybe forever.  A Pyrrhic victory for you alone.


Offline realtime

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 574
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #24 on: 01/05/2006 04:53 am »
Quote
VentureStar's SSTO concept was a bad idea from day one, and it became an even worse idea when the commercial launch market imploded That aspect of the project never should have been approved, and it should have been canceled a lot sooner.

The X-33 should have been continued however with the understanding that it was an X-plane and nothing more. A test bed for the new TPS system and the Aerospike engine.
I agree.  No sense in throwing away good work.  A new, more durable TPS system would be a handy tool in the box.  The aerospike is also a great concept that needs to mature.

The commercial launch market will continue to cycle as long as the economic reasons driving the launches are tied to a small number of business ventures that ebb and flow.  A multiplicity of stable space ventures such as lunar mining, orbital power and tourism would buffer the industry from bad times in a single sector.


Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 436
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #25 on: 01/05/2006 04:59 am »
Quote
realtime - 5/1/2006  12:37 AM
STS is on the way out.  Any further delay in developing a replacement leaves us with no access to space.  Your solution would leave us grounded, maybe forever.  A Pyrrhic victory for you alone.

If we're going to resign ourselves to primitive expendable ballistic reentry capsules as the immediate future of spaceflight, we might as well just pay the Russians to keep flying our astronauts on their antiquated Soyuz while we develop a new spaceplane, instead of wasting billions on our own Apollo command module revival.

Offline Dobbins

  • Propellerhead
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 688
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #26 on: 01/05/2006 05:52 am »
Quote
vt_hokie - 5/1/2006  12:59 AM

If we're going to resign ourselves to primitive expendable ballistic reentry capsules as the immediate future of spaceflight, we might as well just pay the Russians to keep flying our astronauts on their antiquated Soyuz while we develop a new spaceplane, instead of wasting billions on our own Apollo command module revival.

Relations with Russia have swung back and forth between warm and cool for the past 15 years. What happens if we enter a really big chill? No American  manned space flights for years. That is a bad gamble.

30 years ago we stuffed the shuttle full of new technology when it was being developed. What did we get? We got a remarkable flying machine, but we also got one that kept Americans grounded for almost 6 years while it was being developed and one that is far more expensive than simply using an expendable vehicle. Now you want to repeat that mistake.

Yes we do need to develop the technology of the future, but we need to do it right, in stages with test vehicles, not with some mad gamble based on "Gee I hope all this stuff works".

We need an operational vehicle to replace the Shuttle, and development of an operational vehicle is very different than development of a test bed for technology. We aren't working on an X-plane here, the CEV has to work or we are screwed.

Also your attempts to dismiss the CEV as just another Apollo are as far off as attempting to equate the wheels on a covered wagon with those on a modern automobile. Yes they are both round, and they both roll. That is about all they have in common.

John B. Dobbins

Offline SimonShuttle

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1795
  • Manchester, England
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 89
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #27 on: 01/05/2006 09:13 am »
"I just hope the CEV gets cancelled....we need a spaceplane"

???

I just hope we stop using trains....we need more horses?

Offline SimonShuttle

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1795
  • Manchester, England
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 89
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #28 on: 01/05/2006 09:14 am »
Quote
Chris Bergin - 4/1/2006  4:16 PM

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?id=4180 - long!

Seems daft that when the tank failed someone didn't grab the engine block people by the nether regions and get them to make it lighter, so they could then fill the tank with the solution to stop the failure?

Offline Justin Space

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1368
  • England
  • Liked: 91
  • Likes Given: 293
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #29 on: 01/05/2006 09:29 am »
http://www.house.gov/science/bekey_041100.htm

That's the full Bekey transcript. Seems like he was contradicting himself about how great an idea the X-33 was, then goes and puts the boot in with saying they should stick with something that was never going to work as the info says in the story. Strange goings on!

Offline Terry Rocket

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 325
  • Birmingham, England
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #30 on: 01/05/2006 09:42 am »
I think people are forgetting who got screwed over here.....the workers. Nothing like brining in new stuff to a new X ship and then having the occasional stupid manager dooming your work from the start.

Offline Justin Space

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1368
  • England
  • Liked: 91
  • Likes Given: 293
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #31 on: 01/05/2006 10:07 am »
And the official reason, talk about sweeping under the carpet! http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/x-33.htm

Offline tommy

  • Member
  • Posts: 80
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #32 on: 01/05/2006 10:16 am »
Shame, nice looking ship. Was it manned or unmanned?

Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2691
  • Liked: 981
  • Likes Given: 347
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #33 on: 01/05/2006 11:11 am »
Unmanned

Offline British NASA

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 162
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #34 on: 01/05/2006 11:48 am »
Unmanned, so this was another example of something that could launch and land on its own. NASA has to ability, yet still won't put it into the Shuttles? That makes me sigh.

Offline braddock

  • NSF Private Space Flight Editor
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 991
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #35 on: 01/05/2006 12:39 pm »
Does anyone know anything more about that metalic thermal protection system?  It looked like nothing more than  a titanium plate with an insulation pad on the back.  Is that all that is required for a reusable TPS?

Is there some advantage that tiles have that I don't realize?  Weight?  Tiles always seemed kind of an exotic solution.

Offline Justin Space

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1368
  • England
  • Liked: 91
  • Likes Given: 293
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #36 on: 01/05/2006 12:58 pm »
I'm looking to see if I can find the TPS images from the information on the company and the vehicle. Nothing so far.

Offline Martin FL

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2460
  • Liked: 137
  • Likes Given: 278
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #37 on: 01/05/2006 01:17 pm »
Quote
British NASA - 5/1/2006  6:48 AM

Unmanned, so this was another example of something that could launch and land on its own. NASA has to ability, yet still won't put it into the Shuttles? That makes me sigh.

Yes, but this was a far less complex system than the STS. Really not the same beast.

Offline Tap-Sa

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 315
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #38 on: 01/05/2006 01:47 pm »
Quote
braddock - 5/1/2006  3:39 PM
 
Is there some advantage that tiles have that I don't realize?  Weight?  Tiles always seemed kind of an exotic solution.

I'm guessing here that the choice of TPS is related to vehicle's wingloading. Returning Orbiter is quite heavy so heating per area is too severe for anything than exotic tiles. Returning VentureStar would have been basicly a big empty tank meaning much lighter wingloading so metallic TPS would have worked without melting away.

The XRS-2200 weight problems with Narloy-Z was a new interesting info. Does anyone know the actual weight / T/W of the engine? Haven't seen those figures published anywhere.

Offline Dobbins

  • Propellerhead
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 688
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #39 on: 01/05/2006 01:54 pm »
Quote
braddock - 5/1/2006  8:39 AM

Does anyone know anything more about that metalic thermal protection system?  It looked like nothing more than  a titanium plate with an insulation pad on the back.  Is that all that is required for a reusable TPS?

Is there some advantage that tiles have that I don't realize?  Weight?  Tiles always seemed kind of an exotic solution.

http://techreports.larc.nasa.gov/ltrs/PDF/2002/aiaa/NASA-aiaa-2002-0502.pdf
John B. Dobbins

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0