What IS happening to NASA?

[tomnackid]

As I've said before, X-33 was the first program I was assigned to work on at my first job out of college, and was exactly the type of program that made me want to become an engineer. But my interest died along with it. I have zero interest in and a great deal of disappointment over the glorified Apollo capsule CEV and its antiquated launch system.<br />______________________________________________________<br /><br />Maybe you should just go into movie special effects and let the aerospace engineers do their jobs. I'm not trying to be offensive, but I'm not spending my tax dollars for your happiness and fulfillment. Frankly have a hard time believing you could have gone through an engineering program only to give up so easily. What did you expect? The world would hand you your utopia on a silver platter?

 

[josh_simonson]

Indeed, I'd have been galled to be working on a program that cost as much as a full fledged launcher but only had the performance of an x-prize compeditor.

 

[j05h]

>Indeed, I'd have been galled to be working on a program that cost as much as a full fledged launcher but only had the performance of an x-prize compeditor.<br /><br />Seriously. Lockmart burned through something like $1.2 Billion (with a B) on the X-33 before it was permanently mothballed. The closest they got to flying was a couple of ruptured fuel tanks and some engine tests. It was only supposed to fly to Montana. On the other hand, with about $20 Million, Burt Rutan fly an entire suborbital spaceplane program, including over a dozen flight tests and 3 successful suborbital flights. <br /><br />What did X-33 prove? It's not the technology, it's the people doing the job. We have a general competence gap in America right now, and nobody talks about it. "It's not my fault" is almost as common as "Whatever" today. X-33 was just another symptom. The people that built Apollo (and post-industrial America) were not like this. <br /><br />wow, Rantastic.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[jschaef5]

Just a question for you guys. How fast did Burt Rutan get up to when he was at what 62 miles high?<br /><br />And compare that to what the X-33 was supposed to do.<br /><br />They are on different playing fields here. Rutan did a remarkable thing, but I am waiting to see how he deals with the higher speeds needed to achieve orbit, especially when he only uses composites. I hope that they can come up with some neat way of doing it for cheap without using tiles. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[barrykirk]

Before the VSE was announced, NASA kept researching the shuttle's replacement.<br /><br />They would keep coming up with something, "better", and so they kept doing research and never ended up with anything concrete. <br /><br />Meanwhile, the shuttle kept getting older and older and was still flying.<br /><br />At some point, you need to say, this is the technology I'm going to use, and start designing with that technology.<br /><br />If a new tech comes along, you don't stop designing your rocket and try to incorporate the new tech. Otherwise, you will continually start over and over without ever finishing.

 

[josh_simonson]

And for 10% of that SpaceX has developed EELV class rockets that will dramatically outperform venturestar in payload performance. For the whole price of just one suborbital X-33, Elon could field his BFR.<br /><br />The reason X-33 was dropped was the same one that hovercraft don't dominate nascar. Coolness != performance.<br /><br />

 

[jschaef5]

Very well said Barry. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

>Just a question for you guys. How fast did Burt Rutan get up to when he was at what 62 miles high? <br /><br />Not terribly fast, but it broke the sound barrier coming back in from the September run.<br /><br /> />And compare that to what the X-33 was supposed to do. <br /><br />No, compare that to what the X-33 actually did: sit in a hangar, half-built. It was supposed to fly Mach 15, then M12, then M10, but never actually did anything. You can compare SpaceShipOne to all sorts of paper spaceships, but it flew, they did not.<br /><br /> />They are on different playing fields here. Rutan did a remarkable thing, but I am waiting to see how he deals with the higher speeds needed to achieve orbit, especially when he only uses composites. I hope that they can come up with some neat way of doing it for cheap without using tiles.<br /><br />Yes, they are on different playing fields: Mr. Rutan actually makes flying spacecraft! Lockmart builds Atlas and lots of military hardware but keeps screwing up their space division. Did you catch that they dropped a multi-billion dollar GOES satelite because the night shift needed some extra nuts?<br /><br />My guess is that the higher-speed Rutan spacecraft will use some form of transparational cooling. He hasn't spoken of it, AFAIK, but people in the same community have talked about it for years (G. Hudson). <br /><br />Josh<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[jschaef5]

I mean his ship <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />But yah thats what i ment, you can't get orbital when you do a flight pattern like that which aims for altitude and people try to compare it to the X-33 which is an orbiter that was deisgned to go mach 15. I just can't see why people keep bringing SS1 up when trying to compare prices and research. Burt Rutan is like my idol but it is misleading to be comparing him to things that do a completely different task at speeds that are completely different. I just think it gets annoying sometimes because people don't think about how much more difficult it is to design when you get up to mach 10+ and such. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vt_hokie]

<i> I'm not trying to be offensive, but I'm not spending my tax dollars for your happiness and fulfillment.</i><br /><br />But you're okay with spending your tax dollars on a porkbarrel program to keep Thiokol building SRB's and other shuttle contractors employed? You're okay with killing any chances of advancing technology by commiting the lion's share of NASA's budget to reviving old designs and developing expensive, low flight rate vehicles that will stand in the way of progress for the next 30 years, much as STS has done for the previous 30?

 

[jschaef5]

i thought it was ment to deliver payloads to orbit then come back down? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

>...compare it to the X-33 which is an orbiter that was deisgned to go mach 15.<br /><br />Which is entirely the problem. <br /><br />An orbiter that only goes Mach 15 doesn't reach orbit. X-33 was a hangar-queen of an X vehicle, nothing more. It wasn't/didn't/ain't going to make a better orbital transport anymore than a better blender. That so many posters here confuse X-33 and Venturestar is a testament to Lockmart's marketting department.<br /><br />Very different vehicles, indeed. One actually flew with real people onboard. The other burned a lot of money and never got off the ground. <br /><br />Go check astronautix.com if you have questions about any built, researched or proposed spacecraft.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[vt_hokie]

Speaking of astronautix.com...<br /><br />http://astronautix.com/craftfam/cev.htm

 

[jschaef5]

Fine alright it wasn't quite orbital, but it was to reach speeds of mach 15 not 3... I can't even see how you would even compare the two. Mach 15 requires so much heat shielding and completely different aerodynamics than mach three which can be done with composites which are cheap. its a whole nother level. AND IT WAS A RESEARCH PLANE. A lot of research ends up not doing anything practical at all but if we were all like you who are afraid to put money into some research than we will never get anywhere. Future spaceplanes will be built off all the random research vessels that have been worked on. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

Burt Rutan/Scaled Composites SS-1:<br />Maximum velocity shortly before reaching the apex of its trajectory was approximately 3,000 mph.<br /><br />X-33:<br />The X-33 was designed to reach orbit which requires achieving approximately 17,500 mph and a trajectory that goes around the Earth rather than almost straight up.<br /><br />For that reason, an orbital version of SS-1 will require 20 to 30 times the energy that the SS-1 had for its flights. Some kind of TPS will also be required. <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>

 

[trailrider]

"...the STS-107 experiments only reek of make work if you either don't actually look at the manifest or have a personal dislike of these kinds of experiments. To others, it's very important work -- for instance, I don't think the scientists who designed many of the experiments would regard them as make-work."<br /><br />One experiment that started to go wrong, was put back to work by Ilon Ramon, the Isreali astronaut and a couple of others. That experiment dealt with determining the optimum size of water droplets in dousing fires in microgravity, where convection currents didn't interfere with the properties of combustion. About 90-95 percent of the data was downlinked prior to Columbia's re-entry! So what? I don't know how much has been done with it since...this was part of experiments at Colorado School of Mines... But the data can be directly applied to designing sprinkler heads for building fire-suppression systems, that WILL increase their effectiveness! No direct applications from LEO? I think not!<br /><br />The problem with the ISS or Shuttle OPERATIONS is, unless there is a disaster, OPERATIONS ARE boring! The media likes to cover spectacular stuff! A gazillion commercial airliners take off daily and the media and the public pay NO ATTENTION WHATSOEVER! It's routine...boring! But when there's an emergency...or worse...!!! And, of course the public gets all nervous, because it could have or might someday be them on board. Never mind they survive a 130 mile/hour near-miss by ten feet every time they go down a two-lane highway in an automobile!<br /><br />I wish I had an answer for this that would make it all exciting and engender public support...but I don't! All we can do is keep pushing "logical" reasons for human space exploration to the general public...when the REASON, to expand humankind's horizons doesn't get appropriations bills passed! <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /><br /><br />Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra! RIP Scott Crossfield!

 

[qso1]

http://astronautix.com/lvs/x33.htm<br /><br />Excerpt from Astronautix.com<br />NASA-sponsored suborbital unmanned prototype for single stage to orbit winged spacecraft.<br />End Astronautix quote.<br /><br />Me:<br />In short, the X-33 was a technology demonstrator for the orbital version known as "Venturestar".<br /><br />JO5H:<br />An orbiter that only goes Mach 15 doesn't reach orbit. X-33 was a hangar-queen of an X vehicle, nothing more. It wasn't/didn't/ain't going to make a better orbital transport anymore than a better blender. That so many posters here confuse X-33 and Venturestar is a testament to Lockmart's marketting department.<br /><br />Very different vehicles, indeed. One actually flew with real people onboard. The other burned a lot of money and never got off the ground...."<br /><br />Me:<br />Neither one was ever actually flown.<br /><br />The X-33 was under construction and Lockmart began having trouble with the liquid hydrogen tank which cracked. This drove Lockmarts investment beyond the scheduled billion dollars. NASA canceled the program because it was going overbudget and having technical difficulties, the most significant being the production problems associated with the new propellant tank design.<br /><br />If anyone has the two confused, its not a testament to Lockheeds marketing, I knew the difference. Its a testament to people not taking the time to understand the differences between the vehicle proposals. BTW the previous research vehicles have been anything but random. They were systematic designs ultimately aimed at solving the problems of high speed flight and flight to the edge of space.<br /><br />IMO, the problem is that for now, the best and brightest NASA and the U.S. have to offer are not able to overcome the cost barrier associated with such advanced designs. Its now time for private industry to see if they can prove the cost barrier can be broken. <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>

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>IMO, the problem is that for now, the best and brightest NASA and the U.S. have to offer are not able to overcome the cost barrier associated with such advanced designs. </i><br /><br />The problem is that the political leadership is not willing to commit to anything worthwhile, and is not willing to make the up front investment now that will save much more over the long haul in reduced operational costs. VSE is basically an unimaginative and half assed approach to keeping some sort of manned space program going, without having to take on the risk associated with breaking new ground and doing something new and challenging.

 

[qso1]

Its also the public. A public largely uninterested on what we do in space because they see it as having no direct bearing on their daily lives. Its also been said we have become a risk averse society which ties in with what you mentioned about taking the risk to do something new and challenging.<br /><br />Still, the primary problem I see is that we have probably hit a barrier of sorts. A barrier of technical knowhow tied to the ability to keep costs down while doing advanced tech. So often now one hears about utilizing off the shelf tech which is fine for some applications but not for making the big leaps. But big leaps involve money when done the traditional government contractor way.<br /><br />This is why its up to the Rutans/Bransons to bring low cost access to space into reality. Once that happens, the rest will follow. <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>

 

[j05h]

>You have broken a story that even Aviation Leak has missed!<br /> />Well done! <br /><br />(hangs head in shame) It took a lot of hard work.<br /><br />8)<br /><br />hokie- great link, the various CEV designs collected there are very interesting.<br /><br />josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[j05h]

>Neither one was ever actually flown.<br /><br />I might not have been clear there, I was comparing SpaceShipOne and X-33. SS1 flew, X-33 is still a hangar queen. Venturestar was and will always be a viewgraph fantasy.<br /><br />josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>Venturestar was and will always be a viewgraph fantasy.</i><br /><br />I never understood why they tried to make the jump to SSTO, but a fully reusable two stage system is well within our capability.

 

[qso1]

Actually, I'm no longer convinced that a TSTO is within our capability. At least not a reusable winged or lifting body manned craft type design.<br /><br />They tried to go SSTO because thats always been the holy grail of aerospace engineering. An SSTO of engineers dreams is just an extension of airliners. An airliner taking off from the ground and going into space. This was what the NASP would have been.<br /><br />The reality has been several programs attempting to SSTO into space, non have succeeded which is why I kind of lost faith in it ever happening, at least in my lifetime. One can only hope that when private enterprise reaches the stage where manned orbital craft are required, they will go TSTO before SSTO. <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>

 

[vt_hokie]

I guess because it's difficult, we should just give up and go back to capsules. NASA's new mantra should be, "We choose to do these things not because they are hard, but because they are easy."<br /><br />

 

[qso1]

NASA is where it is because of a lack of will in the United States where human spaceflight is concerned. It is taxpayers money that finances NASA as you know. NASA budgets are roughly the same now as they were in 1975 after inflation is accounted for. NASA budgets are like minimum wage. They never really went up in a meaningful way and the reason was public backlash after Apollo. That backlash is reflected in politicians cutting NASA budgets to satisfy their constituents.<br /><br />NASA cannot do the job in its present, or even past form without better financing. Maybe private enterprise can. If private enterprise can solve the LEO problem, NASA can develop craft to get humans to Mars if public support allows it.<br /><br />NASAs record budget was 1966, the height of Apollo spending, $5.5 B dollars.<br /><br />Today its $16B dollars annually or $2.73B 1966 dollars.<br /><br />http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi<br /><br />Conversely, to equal NASAs 1966 record budget, we would have to allocate $32.2B dollars or twice what we spend now. <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>