Author Topic: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened  (Read 346110 times)

Offline JBF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1459
  • Liked: 472
  • Likes Given: 914
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #620 on: 06/24/2015 12:28 am »
I think this may challenge claims that the X-33's composite hydrogen tank issues were unsurmountable.


That's a very simple shape compared to what the X-33's were; although I agree they could have fixed it. In the end the aluminum tanks would have been lighter.
« Last Edit: 06/24/2015 12:31 am by JBF »
"In principle, rocket engines are simple, but that’s the last place rocket engines are ever simple." Jeff Bezos

Offline Antilope7724

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
  • Watched Freedom 7 on live TV
  • California
  • Liked: 278
  • Likes Given: 247
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #621 on: 06/24/2015 03:14 am »
X-33 / VentureStar Graphics links on Archive.org

COMPUTER GRAPHICS

X-33 Contractor Design Proposals
This artist's rendering depicts the three designs submitted for
the X-33 proposal for a technology demonstrator of a Single-Stage-To-Orbit
(SSTO) Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV).  (NASA-DFRC)
https://archive.org/details/NIX-EC95-43320-1

X-33 Proposal by Lockheed Martin - Computer Graphic (NASA-DFRC)
https://archive.org/details/NIX-EC96-43631-7

X-33 Proposal by McDonnell Douglas - Computer Graphic (NASA-DFRC)
https://archive.org/details/NIX-EC96-43631-6

X-33 Proposal by Rockwell - Computer Graphic (NASA-DFRC)
https://archive.org/details/NIX-EC96-43631-5

Artist concept of X-33 and VentureStar Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) (NASA-DFRC)
https://archive.org/details/NIX-ED97-43938-1

Computer graphic of Lockheed Martin X-33 Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV)
mounted on NASA 747 ferry air  (NASA-DFRC)
https://archive.org/details/NIX-ED97-43938-5

Artist's Concept of an X-33 Launch Complex - NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center
https://archive.org/details/MSFC-9906397

X-33 by Lockheed Martin on Launch Pad - Computer Graphic - NASA
https://archive.org/details/NIX-EC96-43631-1

X-33 Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) Liftoff - NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center
https://archive.org/details/MSFC-9906365

An artist's conception of the X-33 in flight, with the aerospike engine firing.
https://archive.org/details/353277main_ED98-44831-4

An artist's conception of the half scale X-33 demonstrator flying over the southwestern desert. - NASA
https://archive.org/details/353374main_EC99-44921-1

In this artist's concept, the X-33 Venture Star, a Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV)
-NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center
https://archive.org/details/MSFC-9610538

X-33 by Lockheed Martin above Earth - Computer Graphic  (NASA-DFRC)
https://archive.org/details/NIX-EC96-43631-9

VentureStar by Lockheed Martin in Orbit - Computer Graphic (NASA-DFRC)
https://archive.org/details/NIX-EC96-43631-2

Another artist's conception of the X-33, this time after engine shutdown.  (NASA-DFRC)
https://archive.org/details/NIX-ED97-43938-2

This artist's rendering depicts the Lockheed Martin X-33 for a technology
demonstrator of a Single-Stage-To-Orbit (SSTO) Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) (NASA-DFRC)
https://archive.org/details/NIX-EC96-43631-7

Computer graphic of Lockheed Martin X-33 Reusable Launch Vehicle over clouds and water (NASA-DFRC)
https://archive.org/details/NIX_ED97-43938-3

Pictured here is an artist's concept of the experimental X-33 in-flight.- NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center
https://archive.org/details/MSFC-9906386

This artist?s concept is of the X-33 Advanced Technology Demonstrator,
a subscale prototype Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV), in its 1997 configuration - NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center
https://archive.org/details/MSFC-9711197

This is an artist's concept of an X-33 Advanced Technology Demonstrator,
a subscale protoptye launch vehicle being developed by NASA Lockheed Martin Skunk Works
https://archive.org/details/MSFC-9711198

VentureStar by Lockheed Martin Releasing Satellite - Computer Graphic (NASA-DFRC)
https://archive.org/details/NIX-EC96-43631-3

VentureStar by Lockheed Martin Releasing Satellite - Computer Graphic (NASA-DFRC)
https://archive.org/details/NIX_ED97-43938-4

X-33 Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) Approaches ISS - NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center
https://archive.org/details/MSFC-9906375

VentureStar by Lockheed Martin Docked with Space Station - Computer Graphic (NASA-DFRC)
https://archive.org/details/NIX-EC96-43631-4
« Last Edit: 06/24/2015 03:31 am by Antilope7724 »

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #622 on: 06/29/2015 06:09 pm »
I think this may challenge claims that the X-33's composite hydrogen tank issues were unsurmountable.


That's a very simple shape compared to what the X-33's were; although I agree they could have fixed it. In the end the aluminum tanks would have been lighter.

This is where I was thinking a mashup of the Rockwell and MD proposals might have born more fruit.  At least not needed so much new hardware.  Then traditional cylindrical tanks could have been used, and so composites could have been easier.  And the shape could have been easier (if a tail-landing cylindrical shape like the MD vs. the airplane shape of the Rockwell).  RS-25's could perhaps have been used, instead of the new aerospike.  It looks like both the MD and Rockwell used it...or something that looks a lot like it.

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1488
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 570
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #623 on: 06/29/2015 06:17 pm »
There was a push to make a leap using all new tech so McD LM won. The other two were more incremental and less a leap foward.

Thanks Lobo for catching the mistake!
« Last Edit: 06/30/2015 04:44 pm by Kansan52 »

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #624 on: 06/29/2015 06:42 pm »

This is where I was thinking a mashup of the Rockwell and MD proposals might have born more fruit.  At least not needed so much new hardware.  Then traditional cylindrical tanks could have been used, and so composites could have been easier.  And the shape could have been easier (if a tail-landing cylindrical shape like the MD vs. the airplane shape of the Rockwell).  RS-25's could perhaps have been used, instead of the new aerospike.  It looks like both the MD and Rockwell used it...or something that looks a lot like it.

The Rockwell X-33 was the most conservative design and likely would have worked.

I think being so conservative it even reused the STS orbiter OML might have made it seem too primitive.
Ironic considering the CEV ten years later settled on the very conservative Apollo OML even though better performing shapes were well understood.
« Last Edit: 06/29/2015 06:43 pm by Patchouli »

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #625 on: 06/29/2015 06:57 pm »
There was a push to make a leap using all new tech so McD won. The other two were more incremental and less a leap foward.

You mean LockMart that won?

Probably.  Unfortunatey that's why Apollo cost so much, and was ultimately cancelled before it's time.  (money to develop, but not to continue) And why STS was so delayed and over budget.  Then there's CxP after the X-33 project.

Do we see a pattern here of pushing the state of the art past budget limitations?  ;-)

You'd think they'd get the hint after awhile not to be quite so ambitious. 

So other than pushing the state of the art, what were the technological reasons the LockMart design was chosen over the other two?  If anyone knows?

The Rockwell design seems like it would have been pretty much everything the LockMart design would be, but with without pushing the state of the art with odd shaped LH2 tanks and brand new concept engines. 

The MD design would require vertical landing which would add a new wrinkle vs. horizontal gliding Shuttle like landing, but they seemed to be making progress on that with the DC-X project prior to final test that destroyed the test article.  10 years later SpaceX is getting it nailed down on much less funding than X-33 would have had I'm sure.  So I don't think that would have been too big of a hurdle.   
With vertical landing you can loose the wings, which simplifies things a great deal, and lightens up the mass.   
« Last Edit: 06/29/2015 07:09 pm by Lobo »

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #626 on: 06/29/2015 07:13 pm »

This is where I was thinking a mashup of the Rockwell and MD proposals might have born more fruit.  At least not needed so much new hardware.  Then traditional cylindrical tanks could have been used, and so composites could have been easier.  And the shape could have been easier (if a tail-landing cylindrical shape like the MD vs. the airplane shape of the Rockwell).  RS-25's could perhaps have been used, instead of the new aerospike.  It looks like both the MD and Rockwell used it...or something that looks a lot like it.

The Rockwell X-33 was the most conservative design and likely would have worked.

I think being so conservative it even reused the STS orbiter OML might have made it seem too primitive.
Ironic considering the CEV ten years later settled on the very conservative Apollo OML even though better performing shapes were well understood.

Ahhh.  This again is where I'd like to have seen a Rockwell body on the MD vertical landing platform.  Loose the wings, loose the wheels, but have the more simple cylindrical shape instead of the full sloping biconic.  Although, I think the biconic "flies" better with aft paddle flaps which I think MD's design had.  But I'd think a cylinder could be steered in the same manner with some development.  And the geometry you are putting tanks in and fitting a TPS system to becomes much more simple.

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #627 on: 06/29/2015 08:27 pm »
Ahhh.  This again is where I'd like to have seen a Rockwell body on the MD vertical landing platform.  Loose the wings, loose the wheels, but have the more simple cylindrical shape instead of the full sloping biconic.  Although, I think the biconic "flies" better with aft paddle flaps which I think MD's design had.  But I'd think a cylinder could be steered in the same manner with some development.  And the geometry you are putting tanks in and fitting a TPS system to becomes much more simple.

But the whole idea/program was aimed at "proving" various high-tech systems for a 'future' SSTO so going with the MOST bleeding-edge proposal was a given from the start :)

Despite a lot of the 'hype' inside and outside of NASA the plain truth was there was never any intention of having an operational vehicle, it was always going to be JUST a technology demonstrator. (Although I don't think I'm the only one that noticed the "instrument" payload bay was sized to fit something that looked a lot like it could fit the proposed "upper-stage" of the RASCAL proposal as long as the X-33 could meet the original proposed goals. Once LM started falling short the AF lost interest really quickly :) )

TSTO actually makes much more sense than SSTO despite the "fact" that a single stage would in theory be easier and cheaper to 'turn' than two stages but the right architecture (robust and rapidly reusable first stage specifically) would allow ramping up the flight rate quicker and with more payload from the start than any SSTO system. (A good case can be made for the "right" 1.5-STO as well :) )

The idea from "Eyes Turned Skyward" makes sense:
http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=10386740&postcount=2947

And LM is looking to a more conventional design for a reusable first stage booster for the XS-1 but...

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #628 on: 06/29/2015 10:39 pm »


But the whole idea/program was aimed at "proving" various high-tech systems for a 'future' SSTO so going with the MOST bleeding-edge proposal was a given from the start :)

Despite a lot of the 'hype' inside and outside of NASA the plain truth was there was never any intention of having an operational vehicle, it was always going to be JUST a technology demonstrator. (Although I don't think I'm the only one that noticed the "instrument" payload bay was sized to fit something that looked a lot like it could fit the proposed "upper-stage" of the RASCAL proposal as long as the X-33 could meet the original proposed goals. Once LM started falling short the AF lost interest really quickly :) )


Well yes, but...  The LM X-33 design was chosen and would have been a proof of concept demonstrator for Venturestar...which would have been a replacement for the shuttle. 

So I guess I always understood it as a stepping stone to a shuttle replacement.  Perhaps that's not the correct way to look at it.   But I suppose regardless, had there been a more conventional design for X-33 that wouldn't have run into the issues and delays that LockMart's design did, it might not have gotten cancelled, and perhaps could have continued on to have a larger version that would have been a shuttle replacement.


TSTO actually makes much more sense than SSTO despite the "fact" that a single stage would in theory be easier and cheaper to 'turn' than two stages but the right architecture (robust and rapidly reusable first stage specifically) would allow ramping up the flight rate quicker and with more payload from the start than any SSTO system. (A good case can be made for the "right" 1.5-STO as well :) )

Agreed.  And I Think MCT could be what X-33 and the Space Shuttle -could- have been, depending on SpaceX's ultimate design of it.  Perhaps two pieces, one a RTLS booster that stages low and slow...like the Shuttle SRB's, and can land back at the launch site without too big of a hit for boost back.  Getting the F9 booster back might be easier had F9 been designed from the outset for reusability.  Make a larger 2nd stage and stage the booster earlier.  Of course F9 was designed to be an EELV class LV and thus the lighter the upper stage, the better the performance to GTO, GSO, and escape.  So that might have not have been a real option.  But that's not an issue with something only going to LEO, which then comes back from LEO.  You have have a fairly big and heavy craft in LEO, and thus make that booster not be as far and fast at staging so it's easier to get home.

Trying to get SSTO all in one swallow is a much more difficult task.  A design for SSTO that I kinda like as having potential anyway...is a duel fuel cycle engine, with a triple cylindrical tank with two common bulkheads.  RP-1, LOX, and LH2 (LOX in the middle, LH2 on top, RP-1 on the bottom).    The engine can transition to kerolox to hydrolox during ascent.  This seems like it would be the best mix of booster power while having good fuel density (so the craft isn't so big), and good performance at vacuum.  The engine could have been a technological hold up however, I'm not sure how difficult an engine capable of such a transition would be, but it seemed a pretty novel concept.  You essentially have a TTSO performance while being SSTO.  And although it might be a bit of an expensive engine, you get it back and can reuse it.

Info on it here.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31088.msg1023659#msg1023659


« Last Edit: 06/29/2015 10:44 pm by Lobo »

Offline scienceguy

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 836
  • Lethbridge, Alberta
  • Liked: 155
  • Likes Given: 279
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #629 on: 06/30/2015 01:39 am »
they didn't have the technology to build the LH2 tank back in 2001. But surely they have it now, right? Why don't they build the VentureStar now?
e^(pi*i) = -1

Offline kch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1758
  • Liked: 496
  • Likes Given: 8807
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #630 on: 06/30/2015 02:12 am »


Trying to get SSTO all in one swallow is a much more difficult task.  A design for SSTO that I kinda like as having potential anyway...is a duel fuel cycle engine, with a triple cylindrical tank with two common bulkheads.  RP-1, LOX, and LH2 (LOX in the middle, LH2 on top, RP-1 on the bottom).    The engine can transition to kerolox to hydrolox during ascent.  This seems like it would be the best mix of booster power while having good fuel density (so the craft isn't so big), and good performance at vacuum.  The engine could have been a technological hold up however, I'm not sure how difficult an engine capable of such a transition would be, but it seemed a pretty novel concept.  You essentially have a TTSO performance while being SSTO.  And although it might be a bit of an expensive engine, you get it back and can reuse it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-701

:)

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #631 on: 06/30/2015 11:59 am »
or Aerojet Thrust Augmented Nozzle  ;D
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #632 on: 06/30/2015 04:35 pm »


Trying to get SSTO all in one swallow is a much more difficult task.  A design for SSTO that I kinda like as having potential anyway...is a duel fuel cycle engine, with a triple cylindrical tank with two common bulkheads.  RP-1, LOX, and LH2 (LOX in the middle, LH2 on top, RP-1 on the bottom).    The engine can transition to kerolox to hydrolox during ascent.  This seems like it would be the best mix of booster power while having good fuel density (so the craft isn't so big), and good performance at vacuum.  The engine could have been a technological hold up however, I'm not sure how difficult an engine capable of such a transition would be, but it seemed a pretty novel concept.  You essentially have a TTSO performance while being SSTO.  And although it might be a bit of an expensive engine, you get it back and can reuse it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-701

:)

Yup, something like that.  :-)

If doing SSTO, this seems like the better way to go, as pure hydrolox engines don't make very good boosters, even with new cutting edge tech like the aerospike engine. 

So, take the Rockwell concept with a cylindrical tri-tank (two common bulkheads) making up most of the body, and land it on it's belly if you really want to have a glider landing, or land it on it's tail like the MD design and drop the wings all together.

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #633 on: 07/11/2016 11:50 am »
Due to a spaceplane article in work, decided now was a good time to repair the article from 2006 on the X-33.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2006/01/x-33venturestar-what-really-happened/
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #634 on: 07/11/2016 03:58 pm »
Quote
Antilope7724

Wow, how did I missed that post last year ? lot of beautiful renderings there, now safely on my HD.

Quote
X-33 by Lockheed Martin above Earth - Computer Graphic  (NASA-DFRC)
https://archive.org/details/NIX-EC96-43631-9


This one is particularly cool, makes a nice desktop wallpaper :)
« Last Edit: 07/11/2016 04:00 pm by Archibald »
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline whitelancer64

Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #635 on: 07/11/2016 04:13 pm »
Due to a spaceplane article in work, decided now was a good time to repair the article from 2006 on the X-33.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2006/01/x-33venturestar-what-really-happened/

I cite this article all the time whenever a post comes up on various sites about the X-33 and what happened to it / why don't we do it now. Thanks for fixing it!
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8840
  • Lower 48
  • Liked: 60430
  • Likes Given: 1305
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #636 on: 07/11/2016 04:26 pm »
Due to a spaceplane article in work, decided now was a good time to repair the article from 2006 on the X-33.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2006/01/x-33venturestar-what-really-happened/

I cite this article all the time whenever a post comes up on various sites about the X-33 and what happened to it / why don't we do it now. Thanks for fixing it!
Same here. That's actually one of my favorite articles from this site. It clears up a lot of POOTA stories pretend experts like to pass around.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #637 on: 10/18/2019 08:31 pm »
Worth a related bump!

Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline eeergo

Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #638 on: 02/28/2020 10:22 am »
Another bump for an artist's impression of "what could have been but wasn't" :)

-DaviD-

Offline dchill

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 116
  • Liked: 39
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
« Reply #639 on: 02/21/2024 06:51 pm »
FYI - If you want to own an avionics box that was slated to be a flight unit on the X-33, one is up for sale in an auction going on in Denver this week:
     https://maxsold.com/auction/88929/bidgallery/item/5924990

I retired and moved to Hawaii and don't have a good place to keep it anymore.  I think it will need to be picked up in Denver by the buyer (or separate arrangements made).  There are a few other random space memorabilia items as well if you click "return to auction" and search for "space" (and then also "Lockheed") at the top of the page.

There are more pictures of the X-33 RHN with its MIL-DTL-38999 connector covers off as well as a link to a pdf showing how it fit in the architecture in my 2021 post here:
     https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49622.msg2178610#msg2178610

(Moderators - my apologies if this type of post is frowned upon.  Please move it if there's a more legitimate location.)  edit 1:23 pm HST - added "and then also "Lockheed"" for possible searches.
« Last Edit: 02/21/2024 10:23 pm by dchill »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1