VentureStar - back in the running!?

SpaceKiwi · May 1, 2005

It's #21 in the Matchbox 'Mattel Wheels' series, entitled 'X-33 Reusable Launch Vehicle'. From the back of the box .... 'LOCKHEED MARTIN and X-33 Emblems and Body Design are Trademarks of Lockheed Martin used under license to Mattel'. Perhaps Mattel have come on board as the bank-rolling new sub-contractor to Skunk Works, prompting their revisit of the X-33 test article. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who is this superhero? Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bring Back The Black! </div>

SpaceKiwi · May 1, 2005

Now THAT'S cool! Way better than my tiny diecast toy. Edit This is my one (on the top left) http://skybusters.home.insightbb.com/venture_star.htm <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who is this superhero? Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bring Back The Black! </div>

SpaceKiwi · May 1, 2005

BTW, mine only cost a couple of bucks as I recall. You could probably swing that expenditure past the finance department. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who is this superhero? Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bring Back The Black! </div>

flynn · May 1, 2005

Probably, being small I could always hide it and only play with it at night. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "All God does is watch us and kill us when we get boring. We must never, ever be boring" - Chuck Palahniuk. </div>

soyuztma · May 1, 2005

The Air Force has a program called ARES. Its goal is to develop an reusable first stage. It could be that for this program they are looking at the possibility to use the X-33 as a first stage or use it as demonstration vehicle. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

shuttle_rtf · May 1, 2005

Thanks, that's helpful as I want to evaluate potential information with specific areas of the USAF - if possible. Working on finding out what happened to the JS-2 Linear Aerospike Engines So far I've been told that they put two on to a test bed and successfully fired them in test one of nine....before the funding stopped (although this is interesting): "The program didn't stop, the funding from NASA did (about $912m) We were already up to $320-plus. Well over a 100m more than we'd intended to that point." So the question is, what did LockMart do after NASA said they weren't going to put any more cash in. The above quote is from a second person, so this is pretty interesting, but both won't go on the record, so no story (you've got to be bang on if using sources on question on anominty) at the moment. It'll stay as 'just passing it on' via the two threads at the moment. Over 30 pictures and design pictures on the other thread and counting.

jurgens · May 1, 2005

heh, I don't think so SoyuzTMA, and I quote "The expected award of any ARES PRDA contract(s) will be the third quarter of FY05. Total program funding for this PRDA effort is $12 M: $1.5M in FY05, $4.5M for FY06, and up to $6M in FY07 via an unfunded option that may awarded at the discretion of the Government" $12million is a bit too little to fund the X-33 or Venture star =) This program is for the Falcon Booster from SpaceX.

soyuztma · May 1, 2005

Also in the article: "Program Research & Development Announcement (PRDA) Process" and "ARES Phase 1 is a research and development effort". So this money is just for initial research and development. The demonstration flights are only planned for 2010. To get an flying vehicle they are probably planning to spend a few extra tens (or hunders) of millions. And why would they give money to SpaceX? SpaceX their rocket is already build and is totally funded without government funds. But i think if they are planning to revive the X-33 they will probably only use some elements of the design. And i higly doubt that they are going to use the X-33 design. There seem to have been some serious problems with the aerodynamics of the vehicle and it isn't optimised to be just a first stage. But i think i also read that just before the end of the X-33 program they were planning to mount an extra stage on the Venture Star because of weight problems. And this is the sort of vehicle the ARES program is looking for. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

jurgens · May 1, 2005

In case you have never been to SpaceX's Website, a bunch of their launches for the Falcon 1 are DoD =)

crix · May 1, 2005

To continue my earlier line of speculation, it makes sense to me now why VentureStar might be back in consideration. The creation of the CEV will give us, hopefully an inexpensive way of launching people into LEO. But, without any shuttle the US space program and military are without a means of satellite and space-based-weapons placement that doesn't involve an expendable craft. Basically I think the US likes RLV technology and if VentureStar is more fully reusable than any SDV configuration then it would make sense to reconsider the VentureStar solution. I think I read that the X-33 was to use the composite tanks only because of its small size and the actual VentureStar was to use aluminum. Maybe they could tweak the actual VentureStar design to use these composite tanks too, assuming everything works well with X-33. The technology may have matured enough over the last several years (and will continue to do so during the course of potential X-33 testing) that the VentureStar could be the vehicle to loft the CEV and the other modules for Moon and Mars travel. Hopefully they could even upgrade the beauty. Gah! How are we going to pay for this? I know the definition of the CEV is fuzzy(hopefully that will be cleared up by tommorrow! :-D) but I'm assuming that the costs of its development do not include a new launcher. ps That ebay model is slick! I almost impulsively made a bid! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

apollo_18 · May 2, 2005

VentureStar looks like a pretty cool spacecraft. As to the problams that scuttled the program originally , maybe the people in the know figure newer materials or techniques available now will solve them. I'm kinda new here, and I've seen people refer to Aerospike engines before, but I have no idea what that means. does anyone know a good link to the info ?

SpaceKiwi · May 2, 2005

I'm kinda new here, and I've seen people refer to Aerospike engines before, but I have no idea what that means. does anyone know a good link to the info ? The following link gives you a good fundamental outline of the aerospike engine, and how it differs from a traditional rocket motor. http://www.space.com/news/spacestation/aerospike_main_000919.html <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who is this superhero? Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bring Back The Black! </div>

apollo_18 · May 2, 2005

Thanks for the fast replies, those links were very informative.

erauskydiver · May 2, 2005

I think they are most likely looking at X-33 technologies for the Falcon program... not to be confused with Space X's Falcon. Falcon is currently being developed by LM Aero ADP as a method of transporting conventional bombs to a target anywhere in the world within a few hours notice. It will basically be a reusable unmanned spaceplane.

holmec · May 2, 2005

I think VentureStar would cover and area that is presently covered by the shuttle, that is returning a satelite to Earth safely. I think this is a good step. It aslo had an inovative ways of main propulsion jet by using the airpressure surouding the ship to shape an exhaust cone. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

soyuztma · May 2, 2005

JurgenS said:
In case you have never been to SpaceX's Website, a bunch of their launches for the Falcon 1 are DoD =)

I am such a space geek that i visit their site almost every day looking for some update.

The only possibly connection between SpaceX and this program is that the falcon first stage is partially recoverable, but other than that i don't see any connection or relevance. The Falcon I launches for the DOD are paid for by other programs. And ARES is looking for a reusable fly-back booster, not a booster that ditches into the sea after descending with the help of parachutes. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

danwoodard · May 2, 2005

The main problem with the composite liquid hydrogen tank was air diffusing into the cold but permiable material and freezing solid, then vaporizing (and expanding) as the tank warmed, forcing apart the laminations. The solution was not the metal tanks ordered as a "quick fix"; obviously the purpose of a technolgy demontration program is to solve problems like this properly. And solve it they did. After the X-33 cancellation, the X-33 contractors built a final composite tank test article that did very well (see Avweek) by applying a metal foil over the composite to seal it against gas intrusion. The VentureStar, as it was proposed, was unrealistic. Its mass fractions were unachievable and its financing required the contractor to invest billions with little hope of a return. But that had nothing to do with the real value of the X-33, which was as a technology demonstrator. The fundamental problem with the Shuttle was not the concept of reusability, but the lack of any flight experience with many of the critical systems, including the TPS and SRBs. This led to inaccurate predictions of cost and reliability because the failure modes and maintenance requirements were unknown, and design choices we later came to regret. The X-33, X-34, DC-X, and X-37 were an answer to this problem; a range of unmanned but reusable technology demonstrators that would provide the flight experience with a range of concepts needed for designing a shuttle successor that would finally make manned flight practical. Abandoning these programs when they were already producing new knowledge was incredibly shortsighted. We have eaten our seed corn. Maybe we can restart these programs by recognizing their value to the original NASA mission. That mission was largely forgotten, not when the Moon Race ended, but rather when it began. The original mission of NASA was not to plant flags and footprints on the Moon, but to advance the technology of flight.

nacnud · May 2, 2005

I agree, I never really understood why the X-33 X-34 DC-X X-37 and X-38 were cancelled. Well OK I there wasn't enough money because the ISS over spent but still the technology needs testing which is was NASA should be for. The results would be a boon to the US aerospace industry as a whole.

mrmorris · May 2, 2005

"I never really understood why..." If it weren't for Congress -- my money would be on the theory that aliens were working behind the scenes to sabotage our space efforts. Then again -- that's paranoid... but maybe not paranoid enough. Perhaps the answer is that aliens have gotten themselves elected to congress specifically to sabotage us. Nah -- that sounds like the plot of a bad movie. Besides -- it completely underestimates the incredible ability of humans to constantly surpass previous world record performances of, greed, self-centered actions and general ignorance.

nacnud · May 2, 2005

What happens to the data that NASA collects from resurch, especially technological resurch? Is it given out to any company that asks for it or are there restrictions? In other words if Lockmart got the contract to build the X-?? would it have to share its results with boeing? /cycnic

mrmorris · May 2, 2005

"In other words if ..." The answer is the most common one ever used in response to questions about space... (drum roll please) ... 'It depends'. If you look at the wording of rht CEV RFP docs (I only slogged through a few) -- what continues to show up over and over again is wording to the effect that the CEV should used the bare minimum of 'proprietary' technology. This tells you two things -- one, that NASA wants to be able to take the CEV blueprints and either build it themselves or (more likely) open them up to a third party to build (or build an improved version of) once the initial contract is over. Two -- it tells you that the use of proprietary tech (i.e. that NASA is not given the rights to) has been a problem in the past. I do know that NASA licenses technology they develop in-house. You often see them selling patent rights to various technologies they own. Examples include DuraFRSI and the Low Impact Docking System (LIDS).

soyuztma · May 2, 2005

The X-37 hasn't been cancelled, it has moved to DARPA. But they seem to have made it a classified project because there hasn't been any news about the X-37 since the project moved to DARPA (september 2004). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

shuttle_rtf · May 2, 2005

Seems to be the case here. No one will speak on the record. Might write it all up, but would much prefer something on the record.

wvbraun · May 2, 2005

Well, there was a rumour some time back that the Air Force had taken over the X-33 and made it a black project. Officially they concluded after a six month study that they had no use for either the X-33 or the X-34 (after NASA had cancelled both in early 2001) but the X-34 was seen at EAFB shortly thereafter. Makes you wonder about the X-33... But I find it hard to believe that the military would actually invest the kind of money needed to finish the X-33 and fly it. They already have numerous RLV-related programs.

shuttle_rtf · May 2, 2005

Appears to be a hybred involving the engines.

VentureStar - back in the running!?

SpaceKiwi

Guest

SpaceKiwi

Guest

SpaceKiwi

Guest

flynn

Guest

soyuztma

Guest

shuttle_rtf

Guest

jurgens

Guest

soyuztma

Guest

jurgens

Guest

crix

Guest

apollo_18

Guest

SpaceKiwi

Guest

apollo_18

Guest

erauskydiver

Guest

holmec

Guest

soyuztma

Guest

danwoodard

Guest

nacnud

Guest

mrmorris

Guest

nacnud

Guest

mrmorris

Guest

soyuztma

Guest

shuttle_rtf

Guest

wvbraun

Guest

shuttle_rtf

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page