Author Topic: The X-33/VentureStar  (Read 13744 times)

Offline Bruce H

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 175
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
The X-33/VentureStar
« on: 09/07/2005 06:51 PM »
Hi all. New here. I worked at Lockheed Martin Skunkworks on the VentureStar and saw something on another forum that keeps hope alive. I don't want to post on there as it's full of idiots who don't like anything but private space flight.

I'm willing to answer any questions on the work we had done up to the point of the program ending.


Offline Bruce H

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 175
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: The X-33/VentureStar
« Reply #2 on: 09/07/2005 10:07 PM »
Very interesting! I'll read through and see where we are as far as this new information developing.

Online Chris Bergin

RE: The X-33/VentureStar
« Reply #3 on: 09/08/2005 02:11 AM »
Bruce. The tanks. What is your opinion on the tank failure that occured with the X-33 during testing?

Offline Space101

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 305
  • Leeds, England
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: The X-33/VentureStar
« Reply #4 on: 09/08/2005 06:17 AM »
I'd also like to ask why the linear aerospikes never saw daylight again. Didn't they work ok?
Let's go and explore space.

Offline Bruce H

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 175
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: The X-33/VentureStar
« Reply #5 on: 09/08/2005 07:07 PM »
Quote
Chris Bergin - 7/9/2005  9:11 PM

Bruce. The tanks. What is your opinion on the tank failure that occured with the X-33 during testing?

Cheap Tanks. They used Composite tanks when we could have spent a little more money and gone with Alluminium Tanks. We would not have suffered the same problem.

Offline Bruce H

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 175
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: The X-33/VentureStar
« Reply #6 on: 09/08/2005 07:17 PM »
Here's the LOX Tank for the X-33.

Offline Bruce H

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 175
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: The X-33/VentureStar
« Reply #7 on: 09/08/2005 07:20 PM »
There was also some confusion over the last design, with payload on top. Actually, this is the last design, which we went back to and is the one people are favoring. Note the extra TPS tiling.

Offline Bruce H

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 175
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: The X-33/VentureStar
« Reply #8 on: 09/08/2005 07:29 PM »
Quote
Space101 - 8/9/2005  1:17 AM

I'd also like to ask why the linear aerospikes never saw daylight again. Didn't they work ok?

They worked great. We did more testing than is documented on the two versions of Linear Aerospike. (J-2S) and (RS2200). We had a 90 second firing on the later without any hitch on the FIRST attempt of a long firing too. The SSMEs never had that much success.

Online Chris Bergin

RE: The X-33/VentureStar
« Reply #9 on: 09/08/2005 07:49 PM »
Quote
Bruce H - 8/9/2005  8:17 PM

Here's the LOX Tank for the X-33.

Is that the tank with the TPS on it?

Offline publiusr

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1540
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: The X-33/VentureStar
« Reply #10 on: 09/08/2005 08:38 PM »
I think VentureStar was headed towards being a fancy $50 billion first stage. First it had internal cargo. Then it had a hump on one  piece of artwork--then it had external payload pods and huge wings.

I think we would have been better off with DC-X or the Rockwell entry for X-33.

I wanted TPS on an Americanized Energiya Buran myself. Engine-equipped ET, simpler orbiters or 90-100 ton payload pods both.
www.k26.com/buran
www.buran.ru

At least an HLLV could be got out of the deal.

Offline Space101

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 305
  • Leeds, England
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: The X-33/VentureStar
« Reply #11 on: 09/08/2005 11:09 PM »
I hear a lot about these comments saying the Shuttle is too expensive and the VentureStar would have been too expensive. So why do they get to stages where they are either built and costing that much, or in this case, cost $2 billion and was shelved?

Is the US suffering from bad decision making or are there simply people who oppose anything that doesn't look like a Soyuz?
Let's go and explore space.

Offline realtime

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 574
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 11
RE: The X-33/VentureStar
« Reply #12 on: 09/11/2005 01:26 AM »
He's NASA's least favorite gadfly, but this time I have to agree with Jeffrey Bell.  (I never thought I'd say that)

"... The Cold Equations [of Spaceflight] dictate that rockets need to look like oil storage tanks, not the sleek spaceships of science fiction..."

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05zy.html


Online Chris Bergin

RE: The X-33/VentureStar
« Reply #13 on: 09/11/2005 02:30 AM »
I thought we'd got away with this site being plauged by that opinion-based ranter. His comments on the VentureStar are, how can I put it, Incorrect. Writing years of opinion-based crap, bashing NASA to gain some form of attention seeking does not warrant him being praised when his 'opinion' then shows a small amount of interest.

Media would have a better name for itself without op-ed crap and I don't care who this upsets.

Offline Bruce H

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 175
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: The X-33/VentureStar
« Reply #14 on: 09/11/2005 02:49 AM »
What the hell is this guy on. Going on about how the tank was an 'excuse' not a reason for the shelving of the X-33. What an idiot.

Offline Flightstar

  • Lurking around OPF High Bay 2
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1870
  • KSC, Florida
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 5
RE: The X-33/VentureStar
« Reply #15 on: 09/11/2005 02:57 AM »
Bell isn't worth reading. He's a ranter and fails to "GET IT".

Offline realtime

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 574
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 11
RE: The X-33/VentureStar
« Reply #16 on: 09/11/2005 03:19 AM »
A gadfly of the first order, he's certainly gotten on lots of people's nerves.  ;)  And he was definitely bashing X-33 without providing figures to back it up.

Forgetting the editorializing of this particular article, can anyone on this board provide figures to refute the implication that X-33 did not meet or exceed the fuel/mass fraction of 0.92?

I also read somewhere (not Bell) that the aerospike engines would not provide sufficient ISP.  Perhaps that is because it is still an immature technology.  Or perhaps it is an immature technology because it is not promising enough to develop.  

I don't know, but I would like to find out.


Online Chris Bergin

RE: The X-33/VentureStar
« Reply #17 on: 09/13/2005 12:25 AM »
I think we'll move discussion on to the older thread seen as this one's been kinda hijacked by Bell.

Tags: