Author Topic: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened (Read 437126 times)

Mark Max Q · « **Reply #60 on:** 01/13/2006 05:03 pm »

The XRS-2200 may have a future, but it may be some time before that happens. It would have to be in a similar design spec.

Doug Stanley · « **Reply #61 on:** 01/13/2006 05:14 pm »

Actually, this is pretty accurate. I was on the X-33 Source Evaluation Board and served as Technical Lead under Gary Payton in the RLV program office. There were multiple problems, including the nails in the coffin of the tank issues and, perhaps most importantly, the bottom falling out of the commercial launch market. An RLV would have had to fly 40 to 50 payloads a year to amortize the DDT&E costs. The vehicle was flawed from the beginning in that it never trimmed at hypersonic speeds due to its far aft c.g. and the compexity of the LH2 tank, propulsion system, and TPS attachment scheme. It was selected more for cost share and political reasons. A simple Wing-body would have had a better shot of working technically...although anything would have been doomed by the economics of the launch market coupled with high risk.

We actually funded an X-33 history project by an objective historian...here is link:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/x-33/menu1.htm

Cheers,

Doug Stanley

Quote

Justin Space - 5/1/2006 5:07 AM

And the official reason, talk about sweeping under the carpet! http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/x-33.htm

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #62 on:** 01/13/2006 06:13 pm »

Ironically the way previous ventures (no pun intended) - into ambitious design concepts and advanced flight technologies - have turned out to become helpful lessons, learned in the way NASA approaches future aerospace projects.

While I'd like to think the lessons learned from the experiences of my favourite SSTO's timeline have played a part in NASA's focus on a return to exploration through a basis of a proven concept, I understand the ESAS relates to the "best roadmap" for the requirements drawn out.

Still, I do believe that NASA's ambitions of Project-X concepts, designs and technologies are now less wasteful, because of experiences gained by the likes of the X-33. This is a useful testament to the X-33/VentureStar, as future concepts really need to have a near-certain viability, given the funds available.

Space101 · « **Reply #63 on:** 01/13/2006 07:09 pm »

I might take a little longer to gain commerical confidence in a similar situation. Over one billion and nothing to show is not the best idea of building confidence. But I agree with your point. A lesson was learned and Griffin doesn't come across as anything other than level headed.

Jamie Young · « **Reply #64 on:** 01/13/2006 09:10 pm »

Who were the customers? Any names of companies and did they loose money too?

Do Shuttles Dream · « **Reply #65 on:** 01/17/2006 12:39 am »

Does the launch pad in Califorina still exsist or was it knocked down?

Tony T. Harris · « **Reply #66 on:** 01/18/2006 07:06 pm »

Quote

Do Shuttles Dream - 16/1/2006 7:39 PM

Does the launch pad in Califorina still exsist or was it knocked down?

I believe it's still there.

Flightstar · « **Reply #67 on:** 01/18/2006 07:58 pm »

It's not been used for anything relevant though, I understand.

Davros · « **Reply #68 on:** 01/19/2006 08:13 am »

Any pictures of this launch site?

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #69 on:** 01/19/2006 11:46 am »

Hotol · « **Reply #70 on:** 01/19/2006 02:04 pm »

Nice images!

David AF · « **Reply #71 on:** 01/19/2006 03:29 pm »

I thought it was taken down. Might make a call later.

Mark Max Q · « **Reply #72 on:** 01/19/2006 09:43 pm »

Such a shame if it was demolished as it looks like a great little complex.

possum · « **Reply #73 on:** 01/20/2006 12:41 pm »

Quote

Justin Space - 5/1/2006 7:58 AM

I'm looking to see if I can find the TPS images from the information on the company and the vehicle. Nothing so far.

Here's one link to some pictures of the X-33 TPS, I'm sure there's more out there. I just had this one bookmarked from some time ago. It looks pretty good; durable, easy to remove and install. The hyperlink at the top of the page leads to an article which states the TPS can take 1800F.

http://www.msfc.nasa.gov/news/news/photos/1999/photos99-022.htm

Justin Space · « **Reply #74 on:** 01/20/2006 03:08 pm »

Thanks. That's a great image of a tile. It seems to be less thick than an Orbiter tile, from images I've seen - or am I looking at just one layer of TPS in comparision?

possum · « **Reply #75 on:** 01/20/2006 06:12 pm »

Quote

Justin Space - 20/1/2006 10:08 AM
Thanks. That's a great image of a tile. It seems to be less thick than an Orbiter tile, from images I've seen - or am I looking at just one layer of TPS in comparision?

Shuttle tiles vary in thickness depending on where they are located, but they are basically 2 to 3 inches thick. I assume this metallic tile would replace the 3-inch thick ceramic-based tiles currently used on Shuttle. The mounting posts on this metallic tile were to attach to standoffs on the composite tank in the X-33, so I believe what you see in the photo is all there is to it, versus Shuttle tile which looks like a brick.

STS Tony · « **Reply #76 on:** 01/21/2006 02:17 am »

Did they ever get to prove it's worth, or it is still under the heading "concept"?

possum · « **Reply #77 on:** 01/21/2006 02:38 am »

Quote

STS Tony - 20/1/2006 9:17 PM

Did they ever get to prove it's worth, or it is still under the heading "concept"?

If you click on the link above the photo of the tile, and then click on the hyperlinked "release title" on the ensuing page, you can read the press release article that said they tested it to some degree and flew it on an F-15 at Mach 1.5, but obviously they never got to prove it at Mach 13 on an X-33. They claim it's good to 1800F which I assume would have been tested, that would be easy enough. They claimed it was "flight ready".

STS Tony · « **Reply #78 on:** 01/22/2006 05:12 pm »

Quote

rmathews3 - 20/1/2006 9:38 PM

Quote
STS Tony - 20/1/2006 9:17 PM

Did they ever get to prove it's worth, or it is still under the heading "concept"?

If you click on the link above the photo of the tile, and then click on the hyperlinked "release title" on the ensuing page, you can read the press release article that said they tested it to some degree and flew it on an F-15 at Mach 1.5, but obviously they never got to prove it at Mach 13 on an X-33. They claim it's good to 1800F which I assume would have been tested, that would be easy enough. They claimed it was "flight ready".

Thanks, that's very interesting.

**Note to self, I must click links before asking questions!**

publiusr · « **Reply #79 on:** 01/27/2006 08:47 pm »

For your amusement:
http://www.spacefellowship.com/Forum/about1563.html