Author Topic: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened  (Read 346136 times)

Offline Rob in KC

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 746
  • Liked: 66
  • Likes Given: 99
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #40 on: 01/05/2006 03:38 pm »
Aren't the X-33 RCS thrusters being used on the CEV?

Offline BogoMIPS

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 275
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #41 on: 01/05/2006 08:14 pm »
Quote
vt_hokie - 4/1/2006  11:19 PM

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!

Where you see lame, I see tried-and-tested.  Maybe it's not as sexy as a winged vehicle or a lifting body, but it gets the job done.  Right now, Shuttle isn't getting the job done, it's sitting in hangars.  A lot of the X-Plane space projects showed awesome potential.  Cancelling many of them was a mistake...  They are still excellent technology demonstration systems.  

Expecting them to immediately morph into a production spacecraft was a bad decision on the part of NASA and the other organizations involved.

Quote
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.

In the grand scheme of things, 20-30 years is a drop in the bucket.  Shuttle, after all, has been flying since '81... That's 25 years.  That is a siginifigant portion of your or my lifetime, but if we are thinking of the advancement of spaceflight for our general futures, we shouldn't try to grab it all at once.  That was one of the X-33 program's downfalls, and really could be viewed as one of Shuttle's downfalls as well.

Quote
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.

We first have to get ourselves safer, more reliable access to LEO.  Cheaper hopefully, too.  I think CEV will accomplish that in the near term.  The argument of continuing to buy rides on Soyuz from the Russians and building something more revolutionary depends too much on international politics, which are even more wacky than domestic politics.

I *can* understand some valid arguments against the proposed heavy lift concepts, and I see these programs as more likely to end up on a political chopping-block than CEV (though personally, I hope not).

I'd like to understand your point-of-view better...   What specific aspects of the X-33/VentureStar design do you feel we are "giving up" on, or that CEV simply doesn't measure up in your view?  Is it simply the winged/lifting body versus capsule concept? SSTO? Reusability?  Something else?

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 436
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #42 on: 01/05/2006 08:51 pm »
Winged/lifting body vs capsule and reusability, primarily.  But it's also the fact that this vehicle will fly no more frequently than previous manned spacecraft, will cost as much to fly as previous generation spacecraft (probably more than Soyuz), and with a smaller crew than the space shuttle.  This vehicle will do nothing to open up access to space to more people or payloads.  It's a surefire way to ensure that the my generation and the next has nothing more to look forward to than my parents and grandparents did.

Offline gladiator1332

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2431
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #43 on: 01/05/2006 11:45 pm »
The X-33 TPS may have had a second chance of life with the Lockheed CEV, back when they were still trying for the lifting body. I beleive the TPS they were going to use was similar if not the same idea as the one that was used on the X-33.

Offline Martin FL

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2460
  • Liked: 137
  • Likes Given: 278
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #44 on: 01/06/2006 01:48 am »
Quote
vt_hokie - 5/1/2006  3:51 PM

Winged/lifting body vs capsule and reusability, primarily.  But it's also the fact that this vehicle will fly no more frequently than previous manned spacecraft, will cost as much to fly as previous generation spacecraft (probably more than Soyuz), and with a smaller crew than the space shuttle.  This vehicle will do nothing to open up access to space to more people or payloads.  It's a surefire way to ensure that the my generation and the next has nothing more to look forward to than my parents and grandparents did.

Please remember. STS, a beautiful, fantastic vehicle = LEO
The CEV, a simple, functional vehicle = Moon and Mars.

Do not compare a delievery truck with an ocean cruiser.

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 436
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #45 on: 01/06/2006 01:52 am »
Quote
Martin FL - 5/1/2006  9:48 PM
Do not compare a delievery truck with an ocean cruiser.

This ain't no ocean cruiser, it's an overpriced row boat.  I'd rather see 50 or 100 or 1000 people a year fly into LEO than see 4 people go to the moon a couple of times per year.

Offline BogoMIPS

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 275
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #46 on: 01/06/2006 02:38 am »
Quote
vt_hokie - 5/1/2006  3:51 PM
Winged/lifting body vs capsule and reusability, primarily.  

I agree wholeheartedly about the reusability... This is something to strive for as soon as possible.  The CEV is planned to be partially reusable system.  As long as it's reusability is less complicated/expensive than the Shuttle, I'll call it an improvement.

The winged/lifting body is tougher, especially since the Shuttle proved it can be done, and most (including myself) think new designs can do it better.  

The problem is the target missions for this new vehicle.  The CEV is basically intended to be a small crew transfer vehicle for getting to ISS, or a Mars Transit Vehicle, or a Lunar lander.  Honestly, it should be more of a "shuttle" than the Shuttle is.  

I think there is a place for both capsules and wings/lifting bodies.  Winged vehicles are great for bringing heavy loads down from orbit comparatively gently.  This could be important in the future, as launches become less expensive, and it becomes affordable to de-orbit a satellite, repair/upgrade it, and then put it back up.

Constellation (CEV,CLV,SDHLV, etc.) to me is really the follow-on program to Apollo/Saturn, not the follow-on to Shuttle.  Shuttle is a fantastic, amazing machine.  It was also, in my opinion, a distraction.  Had a program like Constellation been NASA's next step after Apollo, I think we'd be a lot farther than we are now.

Wings are, of course, not very helpful if you're not going to be in a thick enough atmosphere.  Given the targetted Moon/Mars missions, a system like the VentureStar certainly wouldn't be of much use, outside of lifting the crew/vehicles to LEO, and then picking them up and de-orbiting them when they got home.  

The biggest benefits I see of wings / lifting bodies is the relatively gentler re-entry, cross-range maneuvering in the atmosphere on approach, and horizontal landing at existing airstrips.  I don't see a pressing need for these features.  Gentler re-entry is nice, but unless you have a really sensitive cargo you're de-orbiting, you don't need it.  horizontal landing and atmospheric maneuvering's best application for space vehicles is for commercial space travel.  

Quote
But it's also the fact that this vehicle will fly no more frequently than previous manned spacecraft, will cost as much to fly as previous generation spacecraft (probably more than Soyuz), and with a smaller crew than the space shuttle.  This vehicle will do nothing to open up access to space to more people or payloads.  It's a surefire way to ensure that the my generation and the next has nothing more to look forward to than my parents and grandparents did.

If you're looking for the commercialization of space travel, for tourism, for intercontinental commuting, etc., then looking towards a VentureStar like system is the way to go.  If you can come up with a reliable, horizontal take-off and landing winged space vehicle, even if it's only sub-orbital, the airlines / air-cargo carriers will become interested (assuming they aren't all bankrupt shortly).

If you're looking for solar system exploration, where most of your "travel" is done in hard vaccuum, wings are pointless.

NASA's problem is that it's kind of responsible for both the "aero" and "space" in aerospace.  You almost need two separate entities... One concentrating on commercial domestic (as in Earth) space travel, the other concentrating on manned and unmanned solar system exploration.

I've rambled on long enough.  In short, I'd love to have both CEV and VentureStar, but we're stuck with one thing at a time, and I think the Constellation system stands a better chance of re-kindling America's interest in space than VentureStar does in the near-term.

Offline realtime

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 574
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #47 on: 01/06/2006 05:20 am »
Quote
Dobbins - 5/1/2006  9:54 AM

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
Here's more.  

Inconel honeycomb supported by a titanium frame.  Sizing of the panels (thickness).  See page 3 for a sample ARMOR panel.

http://techreports.larc.nasa.gov/ltrs/PDF/2002/aiaa/NASA-aiaa-2002-0503.pdf


Offline realtime

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 574
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #48 on: 01/06/2006 05:56 am »
Quote
vt_hokie - 5/1/2006  9:52 PM

Quote
Martin FL - 5/1/2006  9:48 PM
Do not compare a delievery truck with an ocean cruiser.

This ain't no ocean cruiser, it's an overpriced row boat.  I'd rather see 50 or 100 or 1000 people a year fly into LEO than see 4 people go to the moon a couple of times per year.
Very droll.  CEV and its descendants will allow humans to explore the solar system, not just splash around in LEO.  I am not content for my species to wade in puddles when there's the wide ocean to sail.

You are immune to practical arguments.  You ignore economic and political realities.  You seem to believe that the superficial elegance of a technology is all that's needed to justify the expenditure of billions of dollars on a system that does not actually lift much mass, can only go to LEO, and is comprised of mainly testbed tech.

Well, it seems you are doomed to be very unhappy with NASA for the next decade and that's really too bad.  Some truly exciting things are going to happen, and there you'll be, moaning about how crappy it all is.

There's one thing that you and I agree on, though.  As a regular civilian, I do not expect to go to space in a NASA vehicle.  It's only the commercial guys that will make that possible.  And NASA will help them in turn.

t/Space and Virgin Galactic will be coming along soon.  I'm sure they'll take advantage of developments that accrue from the upcoming NASA research and technology transfer to industry.  They'll also grab a few contracts from NASA for ISS and lunar base resupply.  Then and only then can you and I realistically expect to be able to ride there ourselves.

For now, though, we'll just have to suck it up.


Offline Dobbins

  • Propellerhead
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 688
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #49 on: 01/06/2006 03:04 pm »
Quote
vt_hokie - 5/1/2006  9:52 PM

This ain't no ocean cruiser, it's an overpriced row boat.  I'd rather see 50 or 100 or 1000 people a year fly into LEO than see 4 people go to the moon a couple of times per year.

Why?

What are all of these people going to do in LEO? Tourists just gawking at the Earth? Sorry providing rides for space tourists isn't anymore NASA's job than a role providing trips to Disney World is part of NASA's mission. It's companies like Delta or United Airlines job to get you to Disney World, and the same is true for people who's reason for going into space is "just because it's there".

NASA has specific missions tasked to it by the government, two of these are space science and space exploration. If the people heading into space aren't fulfilling one of NASA's missions then they don't belong in a NASA spacecraft any more than someone who just wants a thrill ride belongs in an Air Force F-16 fighter.

Getting butts into orbit is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Just blasting people into orbit to reach some arbitrary figure of "A thousand butts in LEO" doesn't make anymore sense than launching large rocks into LEO so you can claim a thousand satellite launches for the year.

John B. Dobbins

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 436
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #50 on: 01/06/2006 05:10 pm »
If we want to engage in any serious exploration on a significant scale, we need to reduce launch costs and increase flight rates.  Otherwise, we'll be spending the entire NASA budget in order to send maybe a dozen people per year to the moon for weeklong excursions.  That's barely more than we were able to do during Apollo.

Offline British NASA

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 162
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #51 on: 01/06/2006 06:45 pm »
Can't we do both?

Offline hyper_snyper

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 728
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #52 on: 01/06/2006 08:28 pm »
Quote
British NASA - 6/1/2006  2:45 PMCan't we do both?

It would take more funding than NASA is appropriated.  It's a shame really, considering NASA's budget is only a few tenths of a percent of the GDP.

Offline Jamie Young

  • This custom rank is currently being decided on
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1327
  • Denver
  • Liked: 52
  • Likes Given: 151
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #53 on: 01/06/2006 10:23 pm »
The solution would have been the USAF, as it wouldn't of been NASA Budget, but as the story says... :(

Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4930
  • Liked: 156
  • Likes Given: 160
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #54 on: 01/06/2006 11:59 pm »
Quote
British NASA - 6/1/2006  2:45 PM

Can't we do both?

In time we will, but NASA must lead, they have their marching orders from the President / congress (I.e. the people)...


We are getting very close to the commercialization of space in a human access point of view… LEO will be left to the commercial sector, and that is best, if there is to be advancement in LEO access and the space beyond. We now have China launching so maybe they want to do some more focused work in that arena, if the money is there. It’s a large planet, so each nation on it can also chip in… Why must Nasa cover for the whole planet? or for that reason, the US tax payer?

The end result is that both will be covered..

Offline Mark Max Q

  • Going Supersonic
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1185
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #55 on: 01/07/2006 02:58 am »
Avron my dear man, the USA wants to do this, not watch China, while we dither around in LEO.

Offline Dobbins

  • Propellerhead
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 688
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #56 on: 01/07/2006 11:03 am »
Quote
vt_hokie - 6/1/2006  1:10 PM

If we want to engage in any serious exploration on a significant scale, we need to reduce launch costs and increase flight rates.  Otherwise, we'll be spending the entire NASA budget in order to send maybe a dozen people per year to the moon for weeklong excursions.  That's barely more than we were able to do during Apollo.

We have already traveled the road of trying to make a spaceplane more viable by artificially boosting flight rates. It led to the events of 28 January 1986.

It's best to avoid repeating that mistake.

John B. Dobbins

Offline BogoMIPS

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 275
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #57 on: 01/07/2006 01:41 pm »
Quote
Dobbins - 7/1/2006  6:03 AM

Quote
vt_hokie - 6/1/2006  1:10 PM

If we want to engage in any serious exploration on a significant scale, we need to reduce launch costs and increase flight rates.  Otherwise, we'll be spending the entire NASA budget in order to send maybe a dozen people per year to the moon for weeklong excursions.  That's barely more than we were able to do during Apollo.

We have already traveled the road of trying to make a spaceplane more viable by artificially boosting flight rates. It led to the events of 28 January 1986.

It's best to avoid repeating that mistake.


Excellent point.  This leads right into the maintenance of the system.  Shuttle was far to complicated to properly maintain to come close to the desired flight rates.  Whenever you come up with a spaceplane for the commoners to ride on (be it for travel, or for space tourism), the system's got to be several orders of magnitude simpler to maintain... Maybe not the same point that airliners are at, but it's got to approach that.

Not that airplanes were that safe out of the gate, either.  It's going to take a number of decades to get to that point.  NASA's obviously moving more towards exploring our solar system than innovating LEO-flight.  Unless we see an about-face at some point, it will be up for commercial interests to fill that gap now.  We've already seen it start, with the X-Prize type things.  It's in its infancy, but it *will* get there.

Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4930
  • Liked: 156
  • Likes Given: 160
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #58 on: 01/07/2006 02:07 pm »
Quote
Mark Max Q - 6/1/2006  10:58 PM

Avron my dear man, the USA wants to do this, not watch China, while we dither around in LEO.


I am saying USA move out in front, and let China and the comm. sector 'dither around in LEO'

Offline Jonesy STS

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 206
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #59 on: 01/13/2006 12:24 pm »
Will any parts of the X-33 ever make another vehicle? The engines seem very interesting.

Tags:
 

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