VentureStar - back in the running!?

[jurgens]

SoyuzTMA, check out the SpaceX website, they have a new press release on their, they have been awarded a 100 million dollar contract by the air force.<br /><br /><br />PACEX AWARDED $100 MILLION DOLLAR CONTRACT BY U.S. AIR FORCE FOR FALCON I<br /><br />El Segundo, Calif. – May 2, 2005 - Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) has been awarded a $100 million IDIQ contract by the U.S. Air Force/Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC Detachment 12) for Responsive Small Spacelift (RSS) launch services. The purpose of this contract will be to provide low cost orbital launch vehicles and responsive (launch 12 months from award of basic contract) launch services, on a recurring basis, using a mature vehicle design and a commercially derived booster to meet mission/payload requirements. <br /><br />“We are grateful to the Air Force for the endorsement implied by awarding SpaceX a $100 million launch contract,” said Elon Musk, CEO of SpaceX. “With our Falcon I launch vehicle, we expect to provide the Defense Department and other customers breakthrough improvements in cost and reliability.”<br /><br />This is an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract requiring flexibility in responding to unique technical requirements, vehicle quantity, and schedule changes. Work will be complete by April 2010. <br /><br />Falcon Status<br /><br />Both the first and second stage SpaceX engines have completed two full mission duration firings and will complete acceptance testing in the coming weeks at the company’s 300-acre testing facility in McGregor, Texas. Falcon I has been shipped to the SpaceX launch facility, SLC 3W at Vandenberg Air Force Base and will undergo a system test firing on Tuesday, May 3.<br /><br />The maiden flight of Falcon I carrying TacSat-1 is scheduled to follow the launch of the last Titan IV from SLC 4 at Vandenberg Air Force Base. Assuming an on time departure of the classified Titan IV mission, SpaceX expects a launch window in late summer. The se

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Could be a bit of relation on the Boeing/Lockheed merger. Boeing built the Linear Aerospikes. E-mailing Boeing people.

 

[jurgens]

Maybe Lockheed showed Boeing a working prototype of the x-33 and Boeing decided that it wouldn't be able to compete with lockheed and build a vehicle with similiar cost/lb ratio in enough time to win back the launch market. And probablly lockheed pitched to them that they wouldn't be able to compete, but if they worked with lockheed they could get 50/50 and they would be able to keep out other competitors coming in to the launch market

 

[smradoch]

Good fun. Maybe Boeing already built flying saucer with ration 1 USD/lb.

 

[wvbraun]

That's pointless speculation...

 

[Blur]

1) As of last summer, all the X-33 hardware is still at Edwards. I saw it my self. It was all pretty much just abandoned in place. All the facilities are still there, and there is a partially assembled X-33 inside. There is another remote hanger on an abandoned part of base with a couple of X-34's inside, covered in bird-crap splattered tarps. You can end any speculation of them restarting the program in secret.<br /><br />2) Reusable single stage to orbit sounds like a good idea, but it has a LOT of problems. First and foremost, a SSTO vehicle must carry it's ENTIRE structure and heavy boost-phase engines from launch to orbit. This drastically cuts into payload weight. Lets look at some hypothetical numbers for a SSTO vehicle.<br /><br />Lets give it the benefit of the doubt and assume that it can MAINTAIN an ISP of 450 seconds from liftoff to orbit. That is no minor accomplishment, but it can be approached with a hydrogen aerospike engine.<br /><br />Now, if this SSTO vehicle has a Gross Liftoff Weight (GLOW) of 1 million pounds, it'll have to have a fuel fraction of about 89% to make it to orbit. This leaves 110,000 for structure and payload. However, since we're using H2 for fuel, the fuel tanks must be HUGE and will eat into this weight substantially. (Hydrogen weighs only about 1/2 pound per gallon, compared to about 6 pounds per gallon for RP-1 Kerosene). Once we get this behometh to orbit, will need a large, powerful reaction control system for fine tuning manuvers and to put it into position to deorbit. Speaking of deorbit, we will need a lot of extra fuel for retroburn, further eating into our 110k lbs margin. Now, assuming this vehicle makes an airplane-like horizontal landing, we'll need an aerodynamic flight control system, a structure that can handle horizontal flight and landing loads, and a substantial landing gear, further eating into our margin. Finally, we'll need to cover the whole shebang in a thermal protection system. Accomplishi

 

[scottb50]

Use the basic X-33 design as a flyback first stage and combine it with an externally mounted second stage. TPS requirements closer to SS-1, smaller tanks and simpler systems. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Blur]

That is similar to the ARES concept

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>1) As of last summer, all the X-33 hardware is still at Edwards. I saw it my self. It was all pretty much just abandoned in place. All the facilities are still there, and there is a partially assembled X-33 inside<<br /><br />Woooah. I've been told there's an X-33 with LockMart. Same one, moved - or maybe another?!

 

[Blur]

It was the rear bulkhead, forward fuel tanks, and stringers with skin/tps attachment points. Pretty complex forward tanks. They start out like an "8", and gradually become more like an infinity sign shape towards the back (i.e. vertical twin tubes to horizontal twin tubes).

 

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow"> Use the basic X-33 design as a flyback first stage and combine it with an externally mounted second stage. TPS requirements closer to SS-1, smaller tanks and simpler systems.</font><br /><br />venture star was supposed to have a payload of 50,000lbs to LEO. That's about as much as the HL42, if you don't count the abort module.<br />however, the HL42 is a little bigger than the payload bay.<br />I'm envisioning a system where the orbiter would be carried externally, and a derivative of the Venture Star would act as first stage.<br />The fact that from cool reusable SSTOs we ended up considering capsules for manned space transportation...well it sucks ass!<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[jurgens]

One of the VentureStar Variants was supposed to actually carry it's cargo externally.<br /><br />Imagine something like this combined with venture star, just imagine how much you could actually get into orbit!!<br /><br />http://www.andrews-space.com/en/corporate/NGLT(200311).html<br /><br />http://www.andrews-space.com/en/images/2003Gryphonwithorbiter-Thmb.jpg<br /><br />Check out the Gryphon Animation.

 

[Blur]

Yeah Spacefire. I also would much rather have a glamourous vehicle that takes us to LEO than a practical one that takes us somewhere interesting.

 

[scottb50]

The fact that from cool reusable SSTOs we ended up considering capsules for manned space transportation...well it sucks ass!>> <br /><br />If it was used as a first stage it could carry even more than 50,000lb payloads, though I seriously doubt that number was much more that hype anyway. The idea should be for it to carry just about anything, from an inert cargo container to a return vehicle, to Modules used to build transit vehicles and surface failities on the Moon and Mars.<br /><br />A capsule would work perfectly well for a lot of payloads, but I still think something simiilar to, but more advanced and capable than Shuttle would be needed for people. If costs can be cheap enough there is more than enough romm to satisfy everybody in their return vehicle choices.<br /><br />Primary goal should be getting the maximum payloads to LEO as cheap as possible, then we decide how to do it and Delta, Atlas and other expendables just don't address it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[soyuztma]

According to the wikipedia X-33 page the X-33 is featured in a book from Dan Brown (the author from the Da Vinci Code). I hope you are not basing these rumors on this book <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />. The supposed operater of the plane, CERN, even has a pretty picture of the X-33 with the question: "Does CERN own a X-33 spaceplane?" <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Na <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> All from that e-mail noted on the first post....still following the trail.

 

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow"> Yeah Spacefire. I also would much rather have a glamourous vehicle that takes us to LEO than a practical one that takes us somewhere interesting.</font><br /><br /><br />you mean take a chosen few to the Moon,maybe to Mars in 50 years or more, at 'ex-orbitant' prices-pun intended.<br /><br />LEO is halfway to anywhere, in the words of somebody famous. Get to LEO cheaper and you will get to Mars cheaper. Get to LEO cheaper and the entire solar system suddenly becomes accesible.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[soccerguy789]

A wise man once said "LEO, Halfway to anywhere". if you can get to LEO cheaply, you can go anywhere cheaply. and the cheaper, the better. I want venturestar to at least be looked at again, with new materials that are now available, I bet they could tackle those weight problems.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

It is. <br /><br />This thread reminded me to get on with talking to the lead guy on the X-33.....unfortunatly he's been re-located by the Hurricane, so might be a while.

 

[soccerguy789]

wow, i would really like to know if that movement to reignite the program is still going on. Venturestar was afundamentally good idea, it was just ahead of it's time. it came at a time when we needed a simpler vehicle to do one job, not a more advanced vehicle to replace the shuttle entirely. if we had the OSP, they would have waited on Venturestar, and the materials would have been available by the time they started it.

 

[tomnackid]

I always wondered why the x-33 did not use drop tanks like Lockheed's Starclipper proposal from the early 70s. Aside from the internal tanks and the linear aerospike engine x-33 is almost identical to the Starclipper concept.<br /><br />Drop tanks seam like a simple way to improve the mass fraction and would give the design much more flexibility if mass increases occur (and in aerospace development there are always mass increases!). <br /><br />Come to think of it why didn't Hudson use drop tanks on Phoenix? Sure they limit your flight profile somewhat (you can't launch from inland sites) but once you get "stage and a half to orbit" working you can then tweak things until you have a real SSTO RLV.

 

[haywood]

Shuttle_RTF...<br /><br />What are "Random Peeps"?<br /><br />

 

[7419]

With the interest in STS derived vehicles what if a shortned SRB with say two 3 segment SRBs was used in conjunction with something like Pheniox, Roton or Osiris

 

[shuttle_rtf]

English for "Random People" <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />