In yours opinion,why not Shuttle-II?

carp · Mar 14, 2006

In 90s,why not the Shuttle-II instead of X-33? http://web.archive.org/web/20000530085705/http://vab02.larc.nasa.gov/Activities/ShuttleII/STSII.html

nibb31 · Mar 14, 2006

2 reasons a - Mission objectives: why compromise payload capacity to send up people, wings, and landing gear. Separating cargo (that stays on orbit) and crew (that comes back) is the most efficient way to go. b - Money.

qso1 · Mar 14, 2006

Had Shuttlle II been developed in the 1990s, there never would have been an X-33. I think the reason Shuttle II did not come about was that it would have probably been about as expensive to develop as the original was. As it turned out, no matter what NASA attempted to develop, either the technology was too cutting edge to keep costs down on, or the program was quietly shelved possibly for political reasons. This may have happened to Shuttle II. Many within and outside NASA wanted to get away from the shuttle program altogether and this may have contributed to ShuttleII not being developed. It simply appeared to some to be an offshoot of the current shuttle program which was under enormous criticism after Challenger. X-33 was the end of a long line of programs following Shuttle II that were cancelled or turned into tech research efforts (Another way of saying cancel). IMO, NASA encountered what I refer to as the cost barrier. Propose a program, try and gain funding...funding not there, program fades away. Shuttle II, NASP, HL-20, Delta Clipper, Venture Star...just five that come to my mind. All fell to the cost barrier. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

spacefire · Mar 14, 2006

a - Mission objectives: why compromise payload capacity to send up people, wings, and landing gear. Separating cargo (that stays on orbit) and crew (that comes back) is the most efficient way to go. b - Money It's the most 'efficient' way to go when you have a yearly budget to meet, which precludes you from investing heavily in new technology at the begining and reap the rewards later

<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

josh_simonson · Mar 14, 2006

I'd hazard a guess that the down-mass capability of the shuttle turned out to be of limited usefullness and drove the cost up an incredible amount.

mlorrey · Mar 14, 2006

Yeah, Shuttle II was nixed in favor of EELV and Shuttle-derived concepts. This led to a revolt in the citizen space advocacy movement, which culminated in Space Access Society, Jerry Pournelle, and company to propose the SSX program, the first step of which became DC-X that was only to demonstrate lean and fast ground operations and sortie turnarounds, as well as vertical takeoff and landing of a single vehicle. The second phase, DC-Y, would have been a suborbital demonstrator, possibly able to reach orbit with no payload, and DC-I was to be an operational payload carrying vehicle. The BMDO run flight tests of DC-X went off very well, got the public excited about RLVs again. NASA maneuvered to nix BMDO's followon budget for DC-Y, and took over the DC-X program, which they renamed DC-XA "Clipper Graham", and crashed it (though the accident report blames it on an overworked McD-D technician, all the better to disprove the thesis of "lean" ground operations). The DC-X got so many fans that Congress ordered NASA to do what became the X-33 program, which had 3 entrants, one of which was McDonnell Douglas' entry based on the DC-Y concept. Lockheed lied about its capabilities to take the contract, and suck up all that capital away from the RLV movement, if only because they thought Boeing was going to get the contract and they didn't want Boeing to win for any reason. Consequently, some in NASA got the hairy idea that X-33 was supposed to be an orbital payload carrying vehicle, rather than the larger follow on, Venturestar, which Lockheed was supposed to build with its own money. NASA also insisted on LH2 fuel, which as anyone who's read Dr. Dunn or Mitchell Clapps work, knows is a dead end for RLV. Anyways, NASA used the lack of orbital capacity as an excuse to cancel the X-33 when the composite LH2 multi-lobed tank broke, despite the fact that Lockheed then built a lighter Al-Li LH2 tank.

egom · Mar 15, 2006

s_g: "The program was a dead end from the beginning." Why? EgoM

mlorrey · Mar 15, 2006

I said: "The BMDO run flight tests of DC-X went off very well," Shuttle_guy responds: "The program was a dead end from the beginning. " See, absolute proof Shuttle guy is a sockpuppet. The DC-X program fulfilled every one of its objectives and justified the followon DC-Y program that NASA and its minions militantly tried and succeeded at torpedoing. The government and contractor unions, especially, were adamant about preserving jobs at the cape and elsewhere in manned flight ops, and a lean DC-X flight operations paradigm was a deathknell to the union stranglehold of NASA. They had to kill it at all costs.

cdr6 · Mar 15, 2006

Not so, oh great one. DCX had the inside track at NASA, who was somewhat shocked at the selection of X33 by the head of the program, and inventor of the internet, Al Gore. As to the X33, the only thing Lockheed delivered on was cashing checks in a timely manner. Finially NASA said enough is enough and threw them out the airlock. IMHO Lockheed never intended to fly X33 on anything other than government funds. Evidence of this is how much effort they put forth after NASA stepped out. By the by, after 30 years in this business I've not met a single engineer who is a sockpuppet. Some I'd like to shoot maybe, but sockpuppets...Nah!

qso1 · Mar 15, 2006

I'd have to agree with mlorrey on the potential for DCX as an operational vehicle but since the Venture Star was selected over the DCX. Technically, the DC-X was never given a chance in the form of the DCY to prove itself so to speak. When the Venture Star was selected, it was still CGI. The DCX had completed at least eight flights by that time and had demonstrated that it could be reused, that it could launch and land. Not such easy tasks for a rocket. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

frodo1008 · Mar 15, 2006

Well put! No sarcasim, and you actually have something reasonable to add! Thanks, and Congradulations!

frodo1008 · Mar 15, 2006

I very much appreciate your non sarcastic approach. However, you still need to somewhat work on your information! I don't know how many times that I still will have to say this so I will do an internet no, no here. THE EELV PROGRAM "WAS NOT" A NASA PROGRAM!!! It WAS an AIR FORCE program to replace the very good (but just as expensive a system as the shuttle) Titan series of heavy lift military rocket launch systems. It was not a radical design like either the X33 or the CD-X. The program was to take existing technology and push it as far as possible in one area "COST!" The Titan series (like the shuttle) had a cost of some $10,000+ per pound to LEO! The Air Force hoped that the EELV program would develop launch systems that would bring the cost down to the $2,000 - $3,000 per pound to LEO! The Air Force eventually picked both LM's and Boeing's design as they didn't want to be stuck with a single source for such systems. The methodologies to be used were not to be radical like either the X33 nor the DC-X, as they wanted the most bang for the buck, so to speak. The cost reductions were to be brought about be mass production methods. And at least in the case of the RS68 engine by sacrificing some degree of performance and weight for the ability to use lower temperature and pressure materials for achieving lower cost! I believe they did have success in bringing the cost down to some $5,000+ per pound to LEO. This is because the very development costs of such large systems have to be run out over the total number of rockets ordered. However, when the current contracts run out, and more such rockets are ordered for military (and possibly even NASA) use, the cost will indeed some down to the $100 million dollar range for even the heavy Delta IV or the Atlas V! Which will put them into the same range as the heavy spacex advanced design for the Falcon series (Of course, the major advantage of the Delta and Atlas being that

mlorrey · Mar 16, 2006

A lot of what you say has merit, but I distinctly remember that all the opposition to the X-33 program at the time were people trying to get NASA as another EELV customer. I also remember both LM and Boeing received a lot of money from the govt long before a single rocket left the ground. They might have had to wait to get their profit, but they certainly did not develop them on their own funds by any stretch of the imagination. The DC-X design itself that SAS based its SSX proposal on was actually a General Dynamics concept of the late 70's. I've got a copy of their proposal here on my drive, which I can send to anybody that wants it. This concept used the bottom plate below the annular aerospike as the reentry shield. The DC-Y entry for the X-33 competition was going to do a nose first reentry and flip on approach with parachutes into a rocket landing. The amount of fuel necessary for landing the vehicle would have been less than 1% of tank capacity (as it really only has to slow down from about 250 mph). The DC-Y would have been orbital without payload, and its mass and airframe assumptions were entirely reasonable. This was not a Phil Bono Special. Rotary Rockets Roton was an interesting concept, but I think Hudson had to make too many compromises for it to really work like it should have.

larper · Mar 16, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> The DCX had one very bad design flaw. One that eventually shoots the entire concept down. That is in order to safely land, the same rocket engines that are used in a take off mode, must then be used to land this type of Vertical Take-off and Landing Vehicle! This means that not only must the vehicle have enough fuel and oxidizer for take-off, but also for landing. Oh, it could do what it initially did, and that was to go up some thousands of feet and then land! But (as shuttle_guy said) that is a LONG way from going sub orbital let alone orbital! This is even the main reason why the shuttle orbiter does not have helper types of jet engines (as some early designs promoted) because of the extra weight of the propellants! <hr /></blockquote> Why do opponents of DCX, and VTVL in general, keep singing this same, sad song? The argument is so flawed, it is laughable that you keep using it. One wonders that you might actually BELIEVE it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Vote Libertarian </div>

danwoodard · Mar 17, 2006

Whether a reusable system is more expensive than an expendable system depends almost entirely on maintenance cost, not payload. The cost of fuel is less than 1% of total launch costs. The failing of the Shuttle was that it was designed when we had no flight experience at all with many of the critical systems, including thermal protection and the solid fuel boosters. Consequently predictions of its operating costs and reliability were in error by a factor of at least 10. If a new fully reeusable system were built we would presumably have unmanned technology demonstrators to develop experience with these systems and allow accurate predictions of operating costs, and permit optimal designs to be selected. Unfortunately, the lesson that has been learned from shuttle is not that the shuttle requires excesive maintenance because of its specific design, but rather that ALL reusable systems are impractical. This is a false lesson, and restricts us to conventional rockets, which are OK for unmanned systems but to expensive to ever make human spaceflight practical.

larper · Mar 17, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />We would not use that argument if we did not think it was the truth. Why do YOU think otherwise? <hr /></blockquote> Because the false argument says "VTVL doesn't work because you have to use the same engines to land and carry extra fuel! What a waste." while it does not address the fact that, if you don't use the same engines and carry extra fuel, you have to use a whole different set of systems to safely land. One such design uses wings, a large tail rudder, landing gear, hydraulic systems, etc. The false argument says that these are free, are 100% reliable, and have no impact on the primary purpose of the vehicle, which is to launch to orbit. The real argument measures reliability, weight savings, performance, cost, maintenance, etc. And with this argument, there is no clear cut "VTVL doesn't work" conclusion. There are trade offs, and these trade offs need to be weighed and given due consideration. VTVL just "looks scary" to some people, and so they think that it must be a crazy idea. And so they use the false argument stated above. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Vote Libertarian </div>

frodo1008 · Mar 17, 2006

Thank you for your reasonable and respectful response! If we can keep these discussions at that kind of level we will be able to accomplish mutual learning, which is what such message boards as these are really about! By the way having gone out to the Lorrey Aerospace website I can tell you that I like what you are trying to do there very much! Have computer simulations such as 3D Fluid Mechanics reached the level of being able to truly predict the performance of craft in the hypersonic region? I know that a major problem is the lack of actual flight date in this area. Hopefully, the military efforts will help to alleviate this problem (as well as the efforts of other nations in this area). I am certain that while you prefer pure private efforts you would not turn down such data just because the research was generated by governmental efforts! Just one slight correction, the X33 even in its original concept (going into orbit) would have had far too little a payload to be of much use to NASA. Therefore, it was not the advent of EELV's that doomed the X33. However, the development of the EELV's might have had an influence (in particular as LM was also the developer of the Atlas V EELV) on LM's follow on Venture Star project! You impress me as being easily intelligent enough to know that the development costs of placing very large and complicated objects into LEO are not some kind of evil government plot. This sometimes is an impression that I get from some of the opposition to governmental efforts (spacefire, larper, you people please get the message here). The problems that anyone who has been actually involved with the development of the hardware to accomplish this mission can tell you about are immense! Just the purchase of the machine tools with the capability to accurately machine such rockets, and the infrastructure to house such machine tools costs tens of millions of dollars alone! And if such machines are not ke

frodo1008 · Mar 17, 2006

Once again, I thank you for your timely support and help here. Our discussion partners (I really don't like to refer to them as opponents) that hold other opinions are not always incorrect. If they would just lose the sarcasm and absolute opposition to everything governmental (including NASA) they could indeed have much to contribute! You evidently realize the truth that I was not comparing the STS system to the DCX or any other SSTO system! The discussion was about the EELV's. The STS (shuttle) system is as you also know is totally unique here. It was, is, and quite probably will remain unique. It is the true pioneer in the area of reusable manned transport to LEO. And as such (even flawed as we both know) will always have a place in history. It was, and is NOT a failure, it was a magnificent compromise brought on by the budgetary limitations after Apollo. And as such WAS successful in keeping the dream alive! Once again NASA is expected to do more with less. A situation that while I have to acknowledge I don’t like any better that our discussion partners! NASA has had to answer this with the only reasonable design that they could at this time, and I support the CEV as the follow on to the STS system! However, like yourself, I would be more than fully happy to see the private efforts of spacex, t-space, Bigelow, and Lorrey Aerospace be immensely successful! Once again, thanks for your very knowledgeable support!

larper · Mar 17, 2006

Here is frodo's paragraph. Whether or not he was talking about EELV, he was still comparing DCX to other SSTO options in the X33 selection: <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />The third design (I am not absolutely sure here, but I think the company was Northrop) was indeed the DCX type of design. It was never really in the running however, for the same reason as the failure of the Rockwell design. And that was it was NOT possible to get such a design under the weight limits, and still have it do what NASA wanted the designs to do. Initially, NASA wanted such a craft to go all the way into orbit. But even NASA had to finally admit that with such a small launch vehicle that this would be impossible. NASA eventually settled for what the X33 was supposed to do, that is go up to various hypersonic mach numbers and then land not further away from the California launch site than Montana. The CDX (sic) had one very bad design flaw. One that eventually shoots the entire concept down. That is in order to safely land, the same rocket engines that are used in a take off mode, must then be used to land this type of Vertical Take-off and Landing Vehicle!This means that not only must the vehicle have enough fuel and oxidizer for take-off, but also for landing. Oh, it could do what it initially did, and that was to go up some thousands of feet and then land! But (as shuttle_guy said) that is a LONG way from going sub orbital let alone orbital! This is even the main reason why the shuttle orbiter does not have helper types of jet engines (as some early designs promoted) because of the extra weight of the propellants! <hr /></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Vote Libertarian </div>

danwoodard · Mar 17, 2006

>>NASA used the lack of orbital capacity as an excuse to cancel the X-33 when the composite LH2 multi-lobed tank broke, despite the fact that Lockheed then built a lighter Al-Li LH2 tank. I have read in several sources that Al-Li LH2 tank was heavier, at least for LH2. The permiation problems in the composite LH2 tank were ultimately solved by Northrup-Grumman: http://www.compositesworld.com/hpc/issues/2004/March/379 but by then the X-33 program had been terminated.

mlorrey · Mar 17, 2006

There are threads here detailing the history of the X33 program, and referring to a book or articles published on the topic. These detail that the AlLi tank was actually lighter than the composite tank but that NASA administrators could not be confused by the facts, their minds were made up.

frodo1008 · Mar 17, 2006

Now, let me get this straight here. You and others support the VTVL design of the CDX, as opposed to either the winged or lifting body concepts. However, you chastise NASA for having a capsule type of design for the CEV? I do find this to be somewhat inconsistent. In actuality I too was somewhat disappointed (in particular as Rocketdyne had already solved its problems with the linear aerospike engines), but like the decision for the Iraq war, I just have to learn to live with it! I would like to see the kind of funding available for space research that we had back in the 1960's. Then ALL of these various methods could be given true tests, and the best for performance, reliability, and cost chosen! I personally don't give a hoot how it is done (or who does it), I just want to see humanity get into space in a big way! But we all know that isn't going to happen. Over 90% of the congress people in Washington are lawyers who have very little experience or expertise in these high tech areas! They have absolutely no understanding of either the cost involved, nor of the far greater returns from the investment made! Convincing them of anything that will not get immediate returns (and thus immediate votes) is almost as impossible as convincing the CEO's and investors of Americas' large corporations! If you have any real ideas (and just getting rid of NASA would be literally throwing out the baby with the bath water!) about how to change this paradigm then please share them with us! In the meantime, I will be sending an email to my own congressman, asking him to support the efforts of Congressman John Culberson of Texas to make up the short fall in NASA funding that is forcing NASA, to make cuts in its very important science programs! The amount needed is an incredibly small amount. If NASA was just given the same increase percent wise (7% after inflation instead of the paltry 1%) that the Bush administration is proposing

mlorrey · Mar 17, 2006

The problem with the NASA CEV and CLV is that there is so much throwaway nonreusable equipment. The SpaceX and TSpace efforts are seeking to maximize reusability as well as have innovative performance enhancing design features, but using proven materials technologies. Conversely, the NASA CLV/CEV is a retro design hiding a low-Isp corporate welfare program. If NASA replaced the SRB in the CLV with an ET-derived single stage or 1.5 stage (as I've proposed), it would be a much better launcher that would contribute much more to the expansion of space infrastructure. The CLV throws money into subsidies and jobs programs for ICBM makers, the ET-derived launcher puts money into space development where it belongs.

larper · Mar 17, 2006

I have never, on any of these threads, criticized the selection of a capsule design for the CEV. I have applauded it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Vote Libertarian </div>

mlorrey · Mar 17, 2006

"By the way having gone out to the Lorrey Aerospace website I can tell you that I like what you are trying to do there very much! Have computer simulations such as 3D Fluid Mechanics reached the level of being able to truly predict the performance of craft in the hypersonic region? I know that a major problem is the lack of actual flight date in this area." Right now I'm working on the aircraft design in X-Plane as a proof of thought concept. Once I get it flyable, I'll translate the design to something like Fluent, though I need to locate a copy. I'm not yet on a big budget. "You impress me as being easily intelligent enough to know that the development costs of placing very large and complicated objects into LEO are not some kind of evil government plot. This sometimes is an impression that I get from some of the opposition to governmental efforts (spacefire, larper, you people please get the message here). The problems that anyone who has been actually involved with the development of the hardware to accomplish this mission can tell you about are immense! " I know that engineering problems can be difficult, but I also have a history of proving the claims that other engineers make about huge expenses and development difficulties to be bogus. For example, when I invented the electroluminescent retrofit kit for exit signs, our first model ran on 115 vac. However, about 1/3 of facilities ran on 277 vac and the 115 vac lamp wouldn't work on it, and our manufacturer said it would take $100,000 to develop a lamp to work at 277 or a powersupply to adapt the power, and the power supply would be expensive, etc etc etc. Lots of BS objections. I showed up at their plant with a stock 115 vac retrofit kit and a ceramic capacitor about a 3/8" thick and the diameter of a quarter. I hooked them up in series and voila, the 115vac lamp got 115vac power like it wanted, the capacitor added about 1/3 of a watt to the load, and cost about $0.75. The entire e

In yours opinion,why not Shuttle-II?

carp

Guest

nibb31

Guest

qso1

Guest

spacefire

Guest

josh_simonson

Guest

mlorrey

Guest

egom

Guest

mlorrey

Guest

cdr6

Guest

qso1

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

mlorrey

Guest

larper

Guest

danwoodard

Guest

larper

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

larper

Guest

danwoodard

Guest

mlorrey

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

mlorrey

Guest

larper

Guest

mlorrey

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page