Why The RLV Was Cancelled???

[marcel_leonard]

Why The RLV Was Cancelled???

During the Clinton administration the green light was given to develop a replacement for the aging NASA space shuttle called RLV or Reusable Launch Vehicles such as the X-33 and the X-45B. Why were these and other programs discontinued at nearly 85 % design/build submittal???

And why are these programs by Boeing/Lockheed-Martin still being funding by NASA at a cost of over 850 billion dollars in tax payer money with nothing to show for it???

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jfbMBQEC34[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKWIDX2jiK8[/youtube]

 

[Woggles]

Hi Marcel

I'm not really sure why, only guessing here, but I imagine a change in direction, like moon, mars and beyond. Private enterprise for everything else in LEO. I am sure the cost of terrorism is pretty high, so budget cuts. Just a thought

Paul

 

[Woggles]

Here is an article about it. http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/mi ... 10301.html

 

[Astro_Robert]

I think part of it had to do with being risk averse and part of it had to do with $$, ie Shuttle/ISS eating everyone's lunch.

X-33 and the other demonstrator vehicles were technically risky. In fact some X-33 flight paths took it near/over Las Vegas, although most of the flight paths were relatively uninhabitted. NASA was nervous enough about this that is refused to grant liability protection to the X-33 or othre vehicles for flight accidents.

As far as $$, how much of the SLI money was ever actually spent on launch vehicles after X-33 was canned? Almost none. NASA used the commercial launch developers (Kepler Aerospace and the like) as placeholders for funding, knowing full well they were very unlikely to succeed. Thus when Kepler and the others failed it was easy to reprogram the funds for Shuttle or ISS overruns. I believe that Boeing's X-37 (flying twinkee) is the only vehicle to have somehow survived from that period.

 

[vulture4]

To me the decision to cancel these programs was a very serious lack of vision that will haunt us for decades.

They were low in cost and could have provided the technology for a practical reusable launch vehicle. But perhaps they lacked the "constituency" that has been developed for many of the science and human spaceflight efforts, i.e. all the people and companies at high and low levels who lobby for funding, and unlike the ISS there were no international agreements forcing NASA to continue, so they were easy targets when funds were short.

Under Dan Golden, who started these programs, and later Sean O'Keefe, there was pressure to cut costs. This led NASA to bet on an unrealistic "partnership" arrangement with the X-33 and X-34 in which the contractors were forced to put up quite a bit of the cost, theoretically in the hope of getting business in a future operational system. But in reality these were experimental development efforts, not the prototypes of actual operational vehicles, so there wasn't any prospect for immediate payback, and Orbital (X-34) couldn't afford to pay for the changes NASA demanded. Lockheed (X-33) made an unrealistic commitment to go directly from X-33 to SSTO Venturestar, and when they ran into technical problems with the LH2 tank, rather than methodically improving the state of the art they were forced to look for an instantaneous solution, which did not exist. The X-33 and X-34 were canceled outright.

Burt Rutan, whose company built the X-34 airframe, was aghast at the decision, and offered to fly the X-34 prototypes at his own expense. NASA turned him down, for still unexplained reasons.

The X-37 was picked up by DOD and at least one may launch this spring, although its military mission remains a mystery. The DC-X was originally funded by DARPA but transferred to NASA when DOD apparently decided it wasn't needed for military applications. NASA funded a modified design, the DC-XA, which was quite successful but chronically underfunded. When the prototype was destroyed in a crash (not design related) NASA terminated the program.

Ironically GW Bush decided to commit a vastly larger sum to the Constellation program despite its questionable practicality. The dramatic political image of a "vision for space exploration" was apparently more salable than a methodical program to reduce the cost of human spaceflight. Despite its enormous cost, decisions at the highest level, at least on the human spaceflight side, seem to be made on the basis of political winds, gut feelings, and emotion. Routine, practical engineering solutions don't provide the drama and emotion that sells politically. In some sense the same forces have kept NASA aeronautics in the doldrums for decades even though a billion people fly in the air for each one that flies in space.

 

[Astro_Robert]

<<political winds, gut feelings, and emotion>>

That is an astute observation, but without them we might not have had the Apollo Program. So what has hurt us recently has helped in the past and may do so once again. Otherwise, politicians appear to find too small of a space constituency to focus on NASA or increase its budget for more sustained research.

Possibly as China and pehaps other nations become more interested in space, politicians will find their attention spans for this subject will improve and the situation will get better.

 

[vulture4]

<<political winds, gut feelings, and emotion>>

That is an astute observation, but without them we might not have had the Apollo Program.
So what has hurt us recently has helped in the past and may do so once again. Otherwise, politicians appear to find too small of a space constituency to focus on NASA or increase its budget for more sustained research.

Possibly as China and pehaps other nations become more interested in space, politicians will find their attention spans for this subject will improve and the situation will get better.

I agree, however the political situation today is quite different from the sixties. At that time we had a budget surplus and Kennedy was looking for an alternative to a perilous nuclear arms race. Today there is a large deficit and absent tax increases luinar flight simply isn't affordable without RLV technology. Moreover, China has no interest in a race to the moon.

But inviting China to join the ISS program may actually be a very deft positive step. It may well make Congress feel committed to maintaining the ISS budget and US access so that the US can remain the most influential partner.

However restoring the RLV technology program itself will require rational planning rather than political expediency.

 

[marcel_leonard]

<<political winds, gut feelings, and emotion>>

That is an astute observation, but without them we might not have had the Apollo Program.
So what has hurt us recently has helped in the past and may do so once again. Otherwise, politicians appear to find too small of a space constituency to focus on NASA or increase its budget for more sustained research.

Possibly as China and pehaps other nations become more interested in space, politicians will find their attention spans for this subject will improve and the situation will get better.

I agree, however the political situation today is quite different from the sixties. At that time we had a budget surplus and Kennedy was looking for an alternative to a perilous nuclear arms race. Today there is a large deficit and absent tax increases luinar flight simply isn't affordable without RLV technology. Moreover, China has no interest in a race to the moon.

But inviting China to join the ISS program may actually be a very deft positive step. It may well make Congress feel committed to maintaining the ISS budget and US access so that the US can remain the most influential partner.

However restoring the RLV technology program itself will require rational planning rather than political expediency.

You said a mouthful; actually might be on to something.......What about a international space agency headed by the UN to spread the cost R/D for RLV :?:

 

[vulture4]

The UN has some regulatory responsibilities in space, but only a limited number of countries would be in a position to support human spaceflight, and would probably have to form a partnership like the ISS program itself, indeed an RLV program could be closely tied to the ISS program.

But the initial stages of developing an RLV are not that expensive and can be done with unmanned subscale technology demonstrators. We just have to stop grandstanding and make human spaceflight routine and unexciting.

 

[marcel_leonard]

The UN has some regulatory responsibilities in space, but only a limited number of countries would be in a position to support human spaceflight, and would probably have to form a partnership like the ISS program itself, indeed an RLV program could be closely tied to the ISS program.

But the initial stages of developing an RLV are not that expensive and can be done with unmanned subscale technology demonstrators. We just have to stop grandstanding and make human spaceflight routine and unexciting.

What I don't understand is if RLV makes so much dollars/sense why its anyone besides Burt Rutan and DoD Black Opts. doing any real R/D :?: :?: :?:

If you real want to help Haiti? Then support are people who have everything from Dance, Painting, Music, and Motion Pictures to support. If you truly to want to support Haitian artist buy their Craft (Paintings, Photographs, Manuscripts, Music CDs, and yes Poetry)....

http://www.lulu.com/content/2446920

 

[HopDavid]

The hydrogen tanks were a big problem with the X-33 http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2006/01/ ... -happened/

RLV isn't easy

 

[marcel_leonard]

The hydrogen tanks were a big problem with the X-33 http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2006/01/ ... -happened/

RLV isn't easy

Thatz like saying I can't eat a Peanut Butter sandwich because I don't have any Jelly....

I could understand if you had originally said you wanted to eat a BP&J, but NASA had 85% submittal of the AeroSpike engines down at Huntsville AL. before they so called pulled the plug....

The fact of the matter is the Venture Star is fully operational as a Black Op. for the DoD

 

[DarkenedOne]

The hydrogen tanks were a big problem with the X-33 http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2006/01/ ... -happened/

RLV isn't easy

Thatz like saying I can't eat a Peanut Butter sandwich because I don't have any Jelly....

I could understand if you had originally said you wanted to eat a BP&J, but NASA had 85% submittal of the AeroSpike engines down at Huntsville AL. before they so called pulled the plug....

The fact of the matter is the Venture Star is fully operational as a Black Op. for the DoD

I highly doubt that Venture Star is fully operational as a Black Op. Problem with rockets is that they are far too loud and far too bright to keep secret. The US currently has satellites in space that can detect rocket launches everywhere in the world.

 

[marcel_leonard]

The hydrogen tanks were a big problem with the X-33 http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2006/01/ ... -happened/

RLV isn't easy

Thatz like saying I can't eat a Peanut Butter sandwich because I don't have any Jelly....

I could understand if you had originally said you wanted to eat a BP&J, but NASA had 85% submittal of the AeroSpike engines down at Huntsville AL. before they so called pulled the plug....

The fact of the matter is the Venture Star is fully operational as a Black Op. for the DoD

I highly doubt that Venture Star is fully operational as a Black Op. Problem with rockets is that they are far too loud and far too bright to keep secret. The US currently has satellites in space that can detect rocket launches everywhere in the world.

This is true as well as the fact the DoD controls a large percentage of those satellites. This is why when you try and zoom in on certain locations on Google Maps you get this message......"We are sorry, but we don't have imagery at this zoom level"!!!

Not to mention that Skunk Works (Area 51) is in the middle of the New Mexico desert; far removed form the general population. You could launch the Space Shuttle over there and no one would hear or see the rockets ignite for miles

 

[vulture4]

An illuminating article!

As the article on nasapaceflight rightly points out, the X-33 was doomed by NASA management's decision that every new technology they could think of had to be tested at once. The composite tank, built by ATK (funny how they keep turning up) was a rather poor design and failed, because of its shape and its construction. The vehicle could have flown with the Al-Li tank, and would have generated much useful data. The inexplicable decision by Ivan Bekey that it should fly with a composite tank or not at all, and his unrealistic insistence that Lockheed pay much of the cost, resulted in cancellation. Basic research is the government's responsibility.

If Mr. Bekey is still around maybe he could post an explanation. But we are certainly much worse off for the loss; there were some very successful new ideas in the design which were essentially abandoned, such as the eminently maintainable metallic tiles. And let it be a lesson for the next generation of RLV. Don't try to do everything at once with one vehicle, or assume that it can be done with private capital. We need to test each idea in flight before we can choose a complete optimal design.

Personally I think a two-stage design is the logical first stage (so to speak) in developing a practical RLV. There's no reason not to purse the air-launched and vertical-take-off concepts simultaneously, as we were doing in the 1990's.

 

[marcel_leonard]

An illuminating article!

As the article on nasapaceflight rightly points out, the X-33 was doomed by NASA management's decision that every new technology they could think of had to be tested at once. The composite tank, built by ATK (funny how they keep turning up) was a rather poor design and failed, because of its shape and its construction. The vehicle could have flown with the Al-Li tank, and would have generated much useful data. The inexplicable decision by Ivan Bekey that it should fly with a composite tank or not at all, and his unrealistic insistence that Lockheed pay much of the cost, resulted in cancellation. Basic research is the government's responsibility.

If Mr. Bekey is still around maybe he could post an explanation. But we are certainly much worse off for the loss; there were some very successful new ideas in the design which were essentially abandoned, such as the eminently maintainable metallic tiles. And let it be a lesson for the next generation of RLV. Don't try to do everything at once with one vehicle, or assume that it can be done with private capital. We need to test each idea in flight before we can choose a complete optimal design.

Personally I think a two-stage design is the logical first stage (so to speak) in developing a practical RLV. There's no reason not to purse the air-launched and vertical-take-off concepts simultaneously, as we were doing in the 1990's.

Even if your a fan Steve Brandon/Burt Rutan's Virgin Galactic projects; you have to admit that NASA could have developed a low-cost delivery system such as a two stage RLV decades ago.

So the question still remains why didn't they develop a low-cost space delivery system after almost 60 years of rocket science???

 

[vulture4]

Even if your a fan Steve Brandon/Burt Rutan's Virgin Galactic projects; you have to admit that NASA could have developed a low-cost delivery system such as a two stage RLV decades ago.

So the question still remains why didn't they develop a low-cost space delivery system after almost 60 years of rocket science???

Hey, that's a great question!! I wish I knew!!!!

Seriously, the basic problem seems to be that within the sphere of human spaceflight at NASA, objectives flow from the top down. In the unmanned science divisions there is at least an opportunity for various groups to propose different goals from the bottom up, and try to pick the best one. In the old days at NACA projects were almost always proposed by engineers or people in outside industry who needed some new technology. But in human spaceflight the precedent was set at the dawn of the moon race that only geopolitical goals are valuable enough to warrant the cost, and they come at the whim of the President. We may be supporting ISS for twenty years one day, and in a crash program to go to the moon the next. Consequently the many brilliant engineers at NASA and its contractors, who could certainly build an RLV, have no way to suggest that it should even be a goal.

We, here in the often anonymous online space community, have no official standing whatsoever. But these discussions, so far as I know, are the only open, serious debates going on in America today about the fundamental goals and strategies of human spaceflight.

Frightening, isn't it?

 

[marcel_leonard]

Even if your a fan Steve Brandon/Burt Rutan's Virgin Galactic projects; you have to admit that NASA could have developed a low-cost delivery system such as a two stage RLV decades ago.

So the question still remains why didn't they develop a low-cost space delivery system after almost 60 years of rocket science???

Hey, that's a great question!! I wish I knew!!!!

Seriously, the basic problem seems to be that within the sphere of human spaceflight at NASA, objectives flow from the top down. In the unmanned science divisions there is at least an opportunity for various groups to propose different goals from the bottom up, and try to pick the best one. In the old days at NACA projects were almost always proposed by engineers or people in outside industry who needed some new technology. But in human spaceflight the precedent was set at the dawn of the moon race that only geopolitical goals are valuable enough to warrant the cost, and they come at the whim of the President. We may be supporting ISS for twenty years one day, and in a crash program to go to the moon the next. Consequently the many brilliant engineers at NASA and its contractors, who could certainly build an RLV, have no way to suggest that it should even be a goal.

We, here in the often anonymous online space community, have no official standing whatsoever. But these discussions, so far as I know, are the only open, serious debates going on in America today about the fundamental goals and strategies of human spaceflight.

Frightening, isn't it?

I think its as simple as bringing practical engineering/physics to the masses. If you provide a low cost alternative to the commercial airline freight/passenger industry; where you could be at any destination in the world in 30 min. or less you could gain global attention.

If we had a vehical that could reach LEO that first delivered freight, than later on when the margins of safety were greatly increased we could have the same explosion in aviation that took place shortly after WWI when the aviation industry got its first real boost from delivering Air-Mail by people like Charels Lindberg who got his start by flying mail across country...

 

[HopDavid]

An illuminating article!

As the article on nasapaceflight rightly points out, the X-33 was doomed by NASA management's decision that every new technology they could think of had to be tested at once. The composite tank, built by ATK (funny how they keep turning up) was a rather poor design and failed, because of its shape and its construction. The vehicle could have flown with the Al-Li tank, and would have generated much useful data. The inexplicable decision by Ivan Bekey that it should fly with a composite tank or not at all, and his unrealistic insistence that Lockheed pay much of the cost, resulted in cancellation. Basic research is the government's responsibility.

If Mr. Bekey is still around maybe he could post an explanation. But we are certainly much worse off for the loss; there were some very successful new ideas in the design which were essentially abandoned, such as the eminently maintainable metallic tiles. And let it be a lesson for the next generation of RLV. Don't try to do everything at once with one vehicle, or assume that it can be done with private capital. We need to test each idea in flight before we can choose a complete optimal design.

Personally I think a two-stage design is the logical first stage (so to speak) in developing a practical RLV. There's no reason not to purse the air-launched and vertical-take-off concepts simultaneously, as we were doing in the 1990's.

Here is a thread on Nasaspaceflight discussing RLV technical issues:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index. ... ic=19127.0

An interesting poster is Danny Dot, an old aerospace engineer who was one of the workers trying to design an SSTO RLV, the holy grail of rocket engineers.

He says re-entry issues are design breakers. His wrote the first reply in the thread. He talks about the need for materials that can endure re-entry. Numerous times he says materials able to take the heat are about as strong as chalk. The thermal protection system should also be light weight.

Another interesting blog is Cuddihy's Cut
His first blog entry discusses rocket fuels liquid hydrogen vs RP-1. As you may know, higher ISP or exhaust velocity generally means lower thrust. He talks about how the first stage means more thrust and so hydrogen isn't the optimum fuel. Also, while hydrogen is energy dense in terms of mass, it's not so energy dense in terms of volume. Which adds to surface area. This increases drag as well as mass for structure.

The Nasaspaceflight thread does discuss TSTO RLVs, but not enough to make me happy. Like you, I'm also interested in TSTO RLVs. If I remember right, the thread also includes some discussion of Skylon and the Sabre engine. Another interesting possibility.

Perhaps RLVs from earth's surface are possible. I don't know. But I don't regard it as a given that throwing enough money at this notion will make it happen.

My favorite reusable vehicles notion are spacecraft that never land on the surface of a planet or large moon. The delta V between Earth-Moon-Lagrange 1 (EML1) and Deimos is less than 4 km/sec. Such a craft has a low delta V budget and doesn't have to deal with TPS and re-entry issues.

A reusable ascent/lander spacecraft designed for travel between the moon and EML1 is doable. About a 5 km/sec delta V budget for round trip and, again, no TPS or re-entry issues. I also believe a reusable ascent/lander spacecraft designed for travel between Phobos and Mars surface is possible.

My notion of interplanetary reusable vehicles presupposes an enormous investment in infrastructure: propellent depots in LEO, EML1, Phobos and Deimos as well as propellent extraction on the moon, Phobos, Deimos and Mars. If we continue doing just the rare sortie missions, this investment isn't worth it. Should we get serious about human settlement of space, this investment is a prerequisite, in my opinion.

LEO depots could also aid RLVs designed for travel between earth's surface and LEO. If such vehicles could use propellent to shed velocity, we wouldn't have to rely exclusively on aerobraking to lose the 8 km/sec LEO orbital velocity. This could ease the TPS and re-entry requirements.

Here is a delta V map of the propellent sources and depots I was talking about:

Units are kilometers/second. The red lines are one way trips using aerobraking.

 

[marcel_leonard]

<<political winds, gut feelings, and emotion>>

That is an astute observation, but without them we might not have had the Apollo Program. So what has hurt us recently has helped in the past and may do so once again. Otherwise, politicians appear to find too small of a space constituency to focus on NASA or increase its budget for more sustained research.

Possibly as China and pehaps other nations become more interested in space, politicians will find their attention spans for this subject will improve and the situation will get better.

My guess is once the Chinese successfully build a reusable launch vehicle all hell will brake loose here in the US, and we will finally get our collective heads out of he sand :lol:

 

[HopDavid]

My guess is once the Chinese successfully build a reusable launch vehicle all hell will brake loose here in the US, and we will finally get our collective heads out of he sand :lol:

Ah. The Chinese will reignite the race to space. Well here is what I have to say about that:

Although I would be delighted if your guess were correct and I'm proved wrong.

 

[marcel_leonard]

My guess is once the Chinese successfully build a reusable launch vehicle all hell will brake loose here in the US, and we will finally get our collective heads out of he sand :lol:

Ah. The Chinese will reignite the race to space. Well here is what I have to say about that:

Although I would be delighted if your guess were correct and I'm proved wrong.

Like I've said a million times you can make excuses for anything.........If we truly have the will to move forward are potential is limitless....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jU9KzsU0zo&feature=related

 

[HopDavid]

If we truly have the will to move forward are potential is limitless....

That goes without saying. However your IF is a mighty big IF. (emphasis in Marcel's quote added by me)

 

[MeteorWayne]

marcel, please do not repeat your off topic, spammy posts. It has been moved to a moderator holding area for further review.

 

[marcel_leonard]

marcel, please do not repeat your off topic, spammy posts. It has been moved to a moderator holding area for further review.

I would also remind you that if you don't having anything to contribute to this topic you can also move your unwelcomed spammy moderator post as well!!!!