Scrapped X-34 to be reborn

[propforce]

Scrapped X-34 to be reborn <br />Florida Today 10/26/04 <br />author: Todd Halvorson <br /><br />CAPE CANAVERAL -- A small California company aims to resurrect a scrapped NASA project and use the technology to build a spaceship that could carry tourists into space by 2008. <br /><br />The so-called Dream Chaser also could serve as a hypersonic research plane for NASA or a piloted military spaceplane, the firm's founder said. <br /><br />"I really see Dream Chaser as a very practical, quick approach to safe, suborbital human transportation for whatever purpose," said Jim Benson, chairman and chief executive officer of SpaceDev Inc. of Poway, Calif. <br /><br />"And you've got to have human space transport if we're going to have people working, living and playing in space." <br /><br />The Dream Chaser would be based on the design of NASA's X-34, a suborbital spacecraft that never flew. <br /><br />NASA started work on the 58-foot craft in 1996 and planned 22 flights to test new technologies that would drive down the cost of launching people and cargo into space. <br /><br />The X-34 was designed to reach speeds up to Mach 8 at altitudes up to 50 miles. A small team would have demonstrated two-week turnarounds between test flights. <br /><br />NASA invested $205 million in the X-34 before development delays and cost overruns prompted the agency to cancel the project in 2001. <br /><br />The SpaceDev craft would launch like a rocket, carry at least three people to an altitude of 100 miles and then land like a conventional aircraft. <br /><br />A SpaceDev hybrid rocket motor fueled by synthetic rubber and liquefied laughing gas would power the Dream Chaser. <br /><br />A similar SpaceDev motor powered SpaceShipOne on the first privately financed space mission in June and two recent flights that won the $10 million Ansari X Prize. <br /><br />Benson said the SpaceShipOne flights gave the company "additional insight into the operation of a piloted suborbital vehicle" and "strengthened our belief <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[elguapoguano]

I wish them luck. It would be nice to see all that R&D involved with that X plane put to use. Not just flushed down the toliet like all 100 other projects that have been nothing but paper studies and mock ups... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>

 

[trockner]

I see this "Dream Chaser" is going to use the same nitrous oxide/butyl rubber hybrid engine that Rutan is using.<br /><br />Maybe we'll now see a kind of private corp "space race" developing. If so, it'll happen with awesome speed. Like Elguanoguapo says, NASA has TONS of more-or-less semi-worked out plans on the shelf. Since NASA is a public agency, I guess all their work is pretty much first come-first serve/finders-keepers information.

 

[propforce]

My peripheral understanding of what happened on the X-34 was that NASA-Marshall wanted to build the engine themselves, e.g., the <i>fast track</i>, a 60K lbf LOx/Kerosene engine, something they've learned to <i><b>never</b></i> to do that again (it's a lot more complicated than being a contract monitor). <br /><br />On the airframe side, I recalled there were lots of problems with the contractors. First Rockwell backed out of the contract because of some disagreements with NASA on the approach, therefore left Orbital Science (OSC) alone as prime contractor who has not built anything worthwhile then except for the Pegasus. <br /><br />It appears the SpaceDev approach is to use a different engine, e.g., the hybrid motor, instead of the fast track engine. It's claiming a thrust of 100,000 lbf for what looks like a VTHL SSTO vehicle to 160 km (100 mi) sub-orbit in space. <br /><br />News link<br />http://www.spacedev.com/newsite/templates/subpage_article.php?pid=489<br /><br />Personally I am skeptical if they plan on making it on a single stage sub-orbital flight with a single hybrid motor, but more power to them if they can make it. I would consider having either an air-launch or a first stage ground booster more likely from a technical perspective. <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>