NASA Delta Clipper

[nec208]

Someone was saying the Delta Clipper that NASA was working on that do to money problems that they are not working on the Delta Clipper anymore .What is going on it seems NASA does not know what it is doing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

THey know what they'd like to do.<br /><br />But since Congress gives the money (much less than desired) and earmarks some for specific projects, many difficult decisions have to be made. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[nec208]

So you think it is money problem why they are not working on the Delta Clipper or did they not like the design. <br /><br />Look at the X-33 NASA was working on than stop do to money problems. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

If there were unlimited money, lots of things would be worked on.<br /><br />The fact is, NASA's budget is a pittance. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[nec208]

NASA does seem to have a budget problem but some of the problems may be the people to blame like in the 60's people where interested in space , NOT like it is now.And if the people are interested in space than you see a bigger budget .<br /><br />The fact is, NASA's budget is a pittance <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nec208]

The fact is, NASA's budget is a pittance. <br /><br />wow China has a bigger budget !! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nec208]

The fact is, NASA's budget is a pittance<br /><br />You do know that China has a bigger budget .. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[holmec]

You should check out Blue Origin, their vehicle is based on DC-X:<br />http://public.blueorigin.com/index.html<br /><br />The DC-X was competetor for X-33 but lost<br />http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/x-33/dc-xa.htm <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

nec208:<br />NASA does seem to have a budget problem but some of the problems may be the people to blame like in the 60's people where interested in space<br /><br />Me:<br />You pretty much nailed it. People lost interest after Apollo, especially after repeated Apollo missions showed we could land on the moon and return almost at will. The moon just wasn't that interesting to a public expecting more. NASAs post Apollo budget was cut by somewhere around 50% in the early 1970s and has been maintained at that approximate level since.<br /><br />You have no doubt heard people say "If we can land a man on the moon, why can't we _____________" or "The money we spent on bringing back some rocks would be better spent curing cancer, feeding the hungry". Variations of these arguments are still around today. They were great soundbites which IMO, helped get us the underfunded NASA we have today. And its not that they are not good arguments. Anyone with a sense of decency will agree we should feed the hungry...but where did the critics get the idea that cutting NASAs budget would result in that money being used wisely?<br /><br />As I mentioned, NASAs budget has been reduced 50% since the seventies so the budget has already been cut. What did we get? Savings and loan scandal, approximately $500 billion over three decades at taxpayer expense. Deficit spending...$400 billion at its peak a couple years back. Those two wastes alone dwarf all NASA spending since NASA was concieved...yeh, the governments gonna see to it the hungry are fed.<br /><br />Delta Clipper was a promising program conducted as part of the X-33 program. The Lockheed concept known as the Venture Star one the X-33 competition while still a paper/CGI concept. Delta Clipper or the DC-X had flown successfully several times at the time the winner was announced.<br /><br />Even today, the current NASA VSE program tasked with returning us to the moon and eventually going to mars is being done on a budget that would have been unthi <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>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.</em></p> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

The official space budget of China is very much smaller than the NASA budget.<br /><br />The Delta Clipper was originally a project of the Department of Defense in support of SDIO, the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization. NASA inherited the DC-X, the small scale 'hopper' experimental vehicle, when SDIO was scaled back and all but eliminated in the 1990's. DC-X was never a NASA priority and finally all further work was cancelled.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X<br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/dcx.htm<br /><br />

 

[pmn1]

There was an article in the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society a few years ago on SDIO's Clementine and how NASA wouldn't have developed it the way SDIO did - the author commented that with funding the way it was, NASA may soon end up with a choice of Clementine style development or nothing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[pmn1]

There was an article in the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society a few years ago on SDIO's Clementine and how NASA wouldn't have developed it the way SDIO did - the author commented that with funding the way it was, NASA may soon end up with a choice of Clementine style development or nothing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nec208]

========================================<br />Delta Clipper was a promising program conducted as part of the X-33 program. The Lockheed concept known as the Venture Star one the X-33 competition while still a paper/CGI concept. Delta Clipper or the DC-X had flown successfully several times at the time the winner was announced. <br />========================================<br /><br />---------------------------------wiki<br />The DC-X, short for Delta Clipper or Delta Clipper Experimental, was an unmanned prototype of a reusable single stage to orbit launch vehicle built by McDonnell Douglas in conjunction with the DOD's SDIO from 1991 to 1993. After that period it was given to NASA, who upgraded the design for improved performance to create the DC-XA.<br />---------------------------------wiki<br /><br />^ It does NOT say if it uses a booster or stages like a rocket that drops off .And did not say why they stop the program was it money problem or lost of interest.<br /><br />========================================<br />Even today, the current NASA VSE program tasked with returning us to the moon and eventually going to mars is being done on a budget that would have been unthinkable at the time of Apollo. I have serious doubts about the VSE actually reaching operational level, especially if Democrats win the Whitehouse and the likelihood is that they will. <br />========================================<br /><br />But now people know the shuttle is used to build the ISS and after that will people allow NASA to do nothing or get NASA close or in the private sector?<br /><br />Like it is almost if congress wants NASA to be close or in the private sector?<br /><br />Keep in mind lots can change in 10 years there could be new government that scraps the VSE program or there could be majer middle east conflict or war that needs all money they need.<br /><br />If they go to moon in less than 10 years than yes they will not scrap the VSE program .<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

wiki is not a reliable source

 

[nec208]

=================<br />It did not use staging. It was touted as 'Single Stage To Orbit", but the reality was far less. <br />=================<br /><br />wow this is a big evolution step for no staging or booster.<br /><br /><br />=================<br />Like several programs of the era, it wasn't planned to be an operational vehicle, but to test several technologies that may someday be used in other vehicles. <br /><br />It did that, and pointed out areas where technology wasn't advanced enough to pursue the ideas, ...today. <br />=================<br /><br /><br /><br />So you saying it was the technology and not money problem that put a stop to the Delta Clipper and what happen to the X-33 ?<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nec208]

============<br />The risk for the possible reward wasn't worth it at that time. All of those test programs returned very valuable information, that is of use elsewhere today. <br />============<br />So what they going to do now start the program again?<br /><br />Here what I found on the X-33 and cannot find any thing on the Delta Clipper what happen.<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-33<br /><br />The X-33 was a sub scale technology demonstrator for the VentureStar under the Space Launch Initiative, a next-generation, commercially operated reusable launch vehicle. The X-33 would flight test a range of technologies that NASA believed it needed for single-stage-to-orbit reusable launch vehicles (SSTO RLVs), such as metallic thermal protection systems, composite cryogenic fuel tanks for liquid hydrogen, the aerospike engine, autonomous (unmanned) flight control, rapid flight turn-around times through streamlined operations, and its lifting body aerodynamics.<br /><br />Construction of the prototype was some 85% complete when the program was canceled by NASA in 2001, after a long series of technical difficulties including flight instability and excess weight.<br /><br />In particular, the composite liquid hydrogen fuel tank failed during testing in November 1999. The tank was constructed of honeycomb composite walls and internal structures to lower its weight. A lighter tank was needed for the craft to demonstrate necessary technologies for single-stage-to-orbit operations. A hydrogen fueled SSTO craft's mass fraction requires that the weight of the vehicle without fuel be 10% of the fully-fueled weight. This would allow for a vehicle to fly to low earth orbit without the need for the sort of external boosters and fuel tanks used by the Space Shuttle. But, after the composite tank failed on the test stand during fueling and pressure tests, NASA came to the conclusion that the technology of the time was simply not adv <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"So what they going to do now start the program again? "<br /><br />nope, it is not needed

 

[propforce]

<font color="yellow"><i>"...So you saying it was the technology and not money problem that put a stop to the Delta Clipper and what happen to the X-33 ?...."</i></font><br /><br />Same thing happened to the X-30. At some point, one has to wrap it up and wait for technologies to catch up.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nec208]

Same thing happened to the X-30. At some point, one has to wrap it up and wait for technologies to catch up<br />==========================<br /><br />And if you look at the post on the X-33 they ran into some engineering problem and they cut the money going to it.If they have more money and time to work out the problem but no they cut program off.<br /><br />And government is known to do that not just space programs and space ships but they do it for other things .I think part of problem if US people where really into space and wanted other space shuttle they could of done it.<br /><br />It is to bad that we need other cold war to get anyhere. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nec208]

Okay where is all the post ? Where did everyone go? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[comga]

Don't know about "everyone" but here are some things I recall.<br /><br />The DC-X was built for SDIO by a team lead by the late great Pete Conrad. It was NOT a prototype of a single stage to orbit but a technology development system for rapid turn-around, vertical takeoff and landing, rocket powered vehicles. It was wildly successful, and included the first intact post-launch abort of a rocket flight among other successes.<br /><br />NASA picked up the vehicle, upgraded it, and renamed it the DC-XA. IIRC, on its fourth flight a pneumatic hose was not connected, a landing leg did not deploy, and the vehicle toppled after landing and was destroyed in a fire. That was the end of the program, although it would probably have ended after that flight in any case.<br /><br />The DC-X was to be followed by the DC-Y which competed with and lost to the Lockheed Martin X-33. The X-33 selection was announced by Al Gore and Dan Goldin where they said that the reason for choosing it was that it was THE MOST technically challenging of the three proposals. (The third was a Boeing proposal with horizontal take-off and horizontal landing, IIRC.)<br /><br />The X-33 team tried to build bilobed composite tanks. When the shape of the craft kept evolving, it had to grow to accommodate the tank, and the size grew and the range decreased. Those tanks failed, as they absorbed moisture into their structure when they were filled with cryogenic fuel or oxidizer. The linear aerospike engines, where the combustion chambers faced back to back curved ramps took a long time to get going with a metal ramp, which would have been way to heavy to fly, and never got to testing full sized ceramic ramps IIRC before the program was killed. <br /><br />To some of us, most technically challenging means least likely to succeed. As a lovely Air Force study pointed out attempting to advance technology simultaneously on a large number of fronts, lie the X-33, has a much lower probability of success than adva

 

[propforce]

Good summary Comga, that was pretty much how I remembered as well.<br /><br />The biggest sucess of DC-X was to demonstrate "rapid prototyping" process and how it can work, when the customer leave the contractor alone, something that NASA never did learn. By the time DC-XA comes along, the vehicle has already flown more than expected number of flights, it was a "tired" bird, that and a large number of personnel turn-around leaving the launch crew short-handed, contributed to the mistake made on the last flight. <br /><br />The demise of Lockheed X-33 was not just due to the tank & engine difficulties in manufacturing. IIRC, their original concept of using engine thorttling to control the vehicle did not work too well. As a result, you could see the wings grew bigger and bigger as Lockheed's proposal matures. <br /><br />Then-Rockwell's "Son-of-Shuttle" concept placed 3rd in the competition. It inspired no imagination what-so-ever, just a photographic shrinkage of the shuttle orbiter. It contains no visible new technologies, using the same SSME. But old concepts will never die, it'll just transform itself into another proposal <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />. Don't believe me? It "evolved" into the Boeing X-37 and yet live another day and another funding cycle. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The biggest sucess of DC-X was to demonstrate "rapid prototyping" process and how it can work, when the customer leave the contractor alone, something that NASA never did learn.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Part of the trouble may be that part of NASA's mission is to *be* a developer of new aerospace technologies, so they tend to see themselves as the lead system integrator, rather than hiring that job out.<br /><br />The DoD, meanwhile, has gone back and forth on that question. It's not a clearcut "this way is better" sort of thing, but there are certainly a lot of good examples of how to do it wrong. (DC-X, as you rightly point out, was not one of them; it was definitely a successful demonstration of rapid prototyping.) I am watching the Ares and Orion projects with great interest to see how they will go. There has been a fashion for contracting out the systems integration effort lately, which based on the DC-X experience would seem to be a good thing, but it only works if the contractor does a good job at it. The grandest experiment in that right now is the massive Future Combat Systems program, which most laypeople see as a technology revolution. Me, I think the biggest revolution it could provide is in the complicated, bureaucratic procurement effort. I wouldn't venture a guess at this point as to its chances of success, but this has already been the program's salvation and its biggest achilles' heel when the budget monsters have come sniffing.<br /><br />Still, I think the biggest problem in space contracting right now is requirements creep, both in NASA and the DoD, at least according to the rumblings coming out of the GAO, which have already led to programs getting canceled for uncontrolled cost growth. This speaks exactly to what you are saying, propforce, because a badly coordinated customer-contractor relationship can wind up being the costliest part of a program. Engineering change proposals <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>