I was at JSC back in ... heck, 2002 and in one of the buildings we visited as part of the tour (the shorter one without a visit to Mission Control) we saw an "x" craft being built but I can't remember which one it was ....<br /><br />any ideas?
- Status
Can't of been the X-33 as that was Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works.<br /><br />What did it look like? Don't say a space ship <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />
x-33, x-43 maybe ... I don't have a clear memory ....<br /><br />it was small ... 4 or 5 crew as I remember. Delta wing.
Could have been the X-34 - long missile type looking? Could have sworn that went to JSC as a shell for testing. Scrub that, read the post you made about delta wing.<br /><br />Maybe that was X-33 (number two). Hang on, I'll get a picture.<br /><br />http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/photos/get-photo.asp?photoid=35<br /><br />Although she'd have no crew. One stayed at Lockmart till the tank problem, another test article did travel, ended up (and is still there) at Edwards Air Force base. Looking similar?
I think that is it .... perspective in the building is odd since we were on the floor for the tour.<br /><br />unmanned though?????? I thought it was crewed.<br />
must've been x-37, unmanned. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
Well just go on the shape, cause the building is the Skunk Works. <br /><br />Unmanned, aye. She was a flying fuel tank, basically.
hmmm then I don't know .... I was basing my comment on the second floor "wing" building on the right side of the picture you provided.<br /><br />I'm almost *sure* the craft I saw was to be manned. I think it was intended to be some manner of Crew Return prototype .... <br /><br />damn this is gonna bug me now ....
><i>I think it was intended to be some manner of Crew Return prototype...</i><p>You just described the X-38.</p>
Now we know where LockMart got the idea for their CEV <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />I think we have a winner.
he said it was a delta wing.<br />the X38 doesn't have wings. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
yep it was the x-38 .... for some reason my memory had put wings on it but it was the lifting body design ....<br /><br />of course if I'd remembered that much I wouldn't have had to ask ....<br /><br />thanks for the help friends! 
<br /><br />so what *did* happen to that craft?
<br /><br />so what *did* happen to that craft?but where did it *go*? or are they just letting it rot on the lawn like that poor Apollo hardware?
<font color="yellow">"so what *did* happen to that craft? "</font><br /><br />It was cut (in part) due to budgetary woes. There's never enough money for everything. With the shuttle and the ISS both continually over-budget, and essentially uncancellable -- other items in the manned spaceflight program fall victim to the axe.<br /><br />However, it also had a problem diametrically opposed to that of the shuttle. Whereas the shuttle was designed to be all things to all people, the X-38 was largely designed as a one-trick pony -- return six people from the ISS in the event of an emergency. Mind you there were a few storyboards around on possible extensions, but it was really a low-budget project and focused on that one goal.<br /><br />Mind you that's a very worthy goal. However, it's not one that was time-critical. Not having a six-person evac from the ISS is *a* reason there aren't six people up there... but it's not <b>the</b> reason. <b>The</b> reason we don't have them up there is because the station doesn't have a need or a place for that many crew. Therefore, with that the primary goal of the X-38, and no particular <b>need</b> for that service for a number of years... even before the Columbia disaster, the X-38 project could safely be axed.
I'm sorry .. I understand the reasons behind the cancellation ... heck, I even agree with some of them ... I'm curious where the physical craft is now located or was a simply taken apart?
I think a two stage OSP could be built using an X33 derived first stage and an X38 second stage, that way, a good portion of the research put into those projects could be used. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
<font color="yellow">"I've never been a big fan of lifting bodies, in the context of them serving an exclusively Earth-return function (for the near-future). Aesthetically they are beautiful, and may yet have a role to play in our space endeavors. "</font><br /><br />There are definite advantages to lifting bodies. It depends on what the mission is that they're being tasked with. For a spaceraft intended for an LEO (or MEO) taxi -- they have a lot of plusses. As advances in spacecraft structures and thermal protection systems are made -- they will narrow the mass gap with capsules and become the shape of choice.<br /><br />I don't favor them for the CEV primarily because the increased mass over a capsule will provide a marked reduction in efficiency at getting equipment to the moon and because the CEV must be developed <b>fast</b> and <b>cheap</b> and there is simply no doubt that a capsule trumps the lifting body in both of these aspects. My own guess is that the spacecraft developed *after* the CEV may well be a lifting-body.
Shuttle_RTF...<br /><br />Are you a journalist?<br /><br />Then what's this "can't of been"?<br />
again, didn't mean it literally- It could be done with spacecraft derived from the two experimental designs. just an idea of mine, but unfortunately I haven't seen any papers investigating this unholy union <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
<font color="yellow">I don't favor them for the CEV primarily because the increased mass over a capsule will provide a marked reduction in efficiency at getting equipment to the moon and because the CEV must be developed fast and cheap and there is simply no doubt that a capsule trumps the lifting body in both of these aspects. My own guess is that the spacecraft developed *after* the CEV may well be a lifting-body.</font><br /><br />the CEV itself is a flawed design. The CEV should be an interplanetary spaceship with a lander and a capsule or lifting body rescue pod attached to it. <br />Normal crew transfer operations should be handled by an equivalent of the Space Shuttle-which ideally would be alifting body, fully reusable SSTO.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Shapiro time delay is caused by Refraction. Gravitational time dilation does not exist.
- Started by Marvas
- Replies: 0
-
Does a cosmic 'glitch' in gravity challenge Albert Einstein's greatest theory?
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 73
-
This Week In Space podcast: Episode 111 —The Big Glass Wars
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Why we're one step closer to understanding how Earth got its oceans (op-ed)
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Goodbye infinity and all that infinite singularity and infinite density descriptions- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 32
-
-
NASA's PREFIRE mission is ready to unlock the mysteries of Earth's poles
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram