X-33, venture Star

[saveourspaceprogram]

Hello, I’m writing because I need your help. I just started a petition to revive the Venture star as a viable replacement for the Space shuttle. And I was hopping if you believe there should be a replacement for the Space Shuttle that you would sign this petition. I’m going to need all your help if we are going to make this work. I plan on setting up a website and facebook page soon so please check back. But until then if you go to http://www.gopetition.com/petition/38655.html it will take you to the petition page were you can sign. I appreciated any help you guys can give, and please tell your friends. Thank you

 

[DarkenedOne]

Hello, I’m writing because I need your help. I just started a petition to revive the Venture star as a viable replacement for the Space shuttle. And I was hopping if you believe there should be a replacement for the Space Shuttle that you would sign this petition. I’m going to need all your help if we are going to make this work. I plan on setting up a website and facebook page soon so please check back. But until then if you go to http://www.gopetition.com/petition/38655.html it will take you to the petition page were you can sign. I appreciated any help you guys can give, and please tell your friends. Thank you

You know I think the concept of Venture Star is one that should be pursued, and I think many would agree with that notion. The real question is whether there will be any money to pursue it.

If NASA goes ahead with Constellation as planned than you can be rest assured that there will not be any funding for any projects using advanced technology for the next decade or so. The cost of Constellation would completely consume all of NASA's manned spaceflight budget and then some. All it takes is for you to look at the budget projections for Constellation to see that.

Ultimately the fate of Venture Star and other projects like it will depend on whether commercial crew works out. If commercial crew works out meaning that it is given enough funding and the companies deliver than it will be many times cheaper than Ares I.

 

[MeteorWayne]

I am going to merge this into the existing X-33 discussion.

 

[saveourspaceprogram]

Well it would be worth a shot don’t you think. If NASA is not allowed to continue the Constellation Project, which I support, that would leave room for a replacement for the shuttle. Even if Constellation is allowed to move forward NASA still needs a space plane that can efficiently get to orbit and back with efficiency. The venture star would put NASA on that road. So let’s tell the Government we need a replacement before we see other countries charging a head and were left in the dust. to sign the petition go to http://www.gopetition.com/petition/38655.html thanks for all your help

 

[DarkenedOne]

Well it would be worth a shot don’t you think. If NASA is not allowed to continue the Constellation Project, which I support, that would leave room for a replacement for the shuttle. Even if Constellation is allowed to move forward NASA still needs a space plane that can efficiently get to orbit and back with efficiency. The venture star would put NASA on that road. So let’s tell the Government we need a replacement before we see other countries charging a head and were left in the dust. to sign the petition go to http://www.gopetition.com/petition/38655.html thanks for all your help

Well first of all they need to perfect the technologies used in Venture Star. Then they need to finish the subscale version, the X-33.

The shuttle is a great example of pushing technology to far too fast. The did not bother with subscale version. They just went right for the full sized one. Since the Shuttle was such a revolutionary design they simply had no idea what to expect.

Lastly to be honest with you I think capsules are better. Capsules are far simpler, thus making them far cheaper, safer, and more reliable. They also have much better performance due to the weight saved by not have airplane subsystems.

 

[kk434]

I followed the X-33 from the selection to the cancellation, I think that they should have worked a bit harder on those composite tanks. Venture star looked like a true succesor to the shuttle and going back to capsules feels like reverting to the old CRT computer screens.

 

[DarkenedOne]

I followed the X-33 from the selection to the cancellation, I think that they should have worked a bit harder on those composite tanks. Venture star looked like a true succesor to the shuttle and going back to capsules feels like reverting to the old CRT computer screens.

I do not understand why people like the Shuttle concept so much.

It is like one artricle I read said, "Requiring a spacecraft to land on a runway is like requiring an airplane to land on train tracks."

Personally I envision that reusable capsules to eventually evolve to use rockets to make a powered landing.

 

[EarthlingX]

There is plenty of articles and posts on SDC about X-33 :

Google search for 'X-33 site:space.com'


A couple of SDC threads :
A Kerosene-Fueled X-33 as a Single Stage to Orbit Vehicle.

New Shuttle, Let's dust off Venture Star!


Latest related test :
SDC : Reusable Rocket Plane Soars in Test Flight

By Leonard David
Special Correspondent, SPACE.com
posted: 15 October 2009
10:00 am ET



A reusable rocket plane has made a successful test flight from New Mexico's Spaceport America — a prototype craft built to showcase proprietary advanced launch technologies.

The small unpiloted vehicle soared into New Mexico skies on Oct. 10, making use of launch services provided by UP Aerospace of Denver, Colo.

Wiki :Lockheed Martin X-33

The Lockheed Martin X-33 is an unmanned, sub-scale technology demonstrator for the VentureStar under the Space Launch Initiative program. The VentureStar was planned to be a next-generation, commercially operated reusable launch vehicle. The X-33 would flight-test a range of technologies that NASA believed it needed for single-stage-to-orbit reusable launch vehicles (SSTO RLVs), such as metallic thermal protection systems, composite cryogenic fuel tanks for liquid hydrogen, the aerospike engine, autonomous (unmanned) flight control, rapid flight turn-around times through streamlined operations, and its lifting body aerodynamics.

Failures led to the cancellation of the program as a federal program in 2001, but Lockheed Martin has conducted related testing, and has had successes as recently as 2009.[2]

Simulated in-flight view of the X-33

 

[vulture4]

I followed the X-33 from the selection to the cancellation, I think that they should have worked a bit harder on those composite tanks. Venture star looked like a true succesor to the shuttle and going back to capsules feels like reverting to the old CRT computer screens.

I agree. Composite LH2 tanks were quite successful in the DC-X. The problem with the tanks in the X-33 was not really because of the material, but because of the extremely complicated shape. The Lockheed engineers pointed out repeatedly that because of the complicated joints the composite would fail and an aluminum-lithium tank would have actually been lighter, but the NASA manager, Ivan Bekey, insisted on the composite design and then cancelled the project when it failed.

I do not understand why people like the Shuttle concept so much.
It is like one article I read said, "Requiring a spacecraft to land on a runway is like requiring an airplane to land on train tracks."
Personally I envision that reusable capsules to eventually evolve to use rockets to make a powered landing.

That was the goal of the DC-X, and it might work, but unfortunately NASA also cancelled the DC-X, apparently because it could not carry ten tons of cargo and a hundred tourists directly into orbit. As best I can figure, NASA forgot the meaning of the letter "X". Without actual testing it's hard to say whether wings or propulsive lift is more efficient for landing.