X-33 VentureStar - (the story of) What really happened

[jamie_young]

I don't really remember this spaceship, but watched the video and it looked cool. Seems the Air Force tried to see if they could try and bring it back to life several times, including in 2005. It had more problems than the tank, which might of been solved, it was other things that and the official history is apparently not telling the true story about everything that happened. Appears to have been a mistake, a big one, reading this....<br /><br />http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?id=4180

 

[skyone]

*tear*

 

[skyone]

Seriously though....it would have been so awesome if things had turned out all right. Beautiful vehicle.

 

[moonmadness]

Yea that's part of the conspiracy theory that started with the sudden project cancellation.<br /><br />I believe it boiled down to the venturestar project was sabotaged to protect the shuttle program and all the companies making money from it.<br /><br />Then there was the "black shuttle" theory that all the real parts where taken to a secret base and assembled and is being used by the (CIA,NSA,insert youre favorite shadow group here) <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>I'm not a rocket scientist, but I do play one on the TV in my mind.</p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

If this had succeed it would have been a blow to the alt.space community when trying to get venture capital, ie no spaceX etc but it is still to early to say if they can do any better. Also with this vehicle NASA probably wouldn't be aiming for the Moon.<br /><br />Saying that I would have liked to see X-33 fly simply as an cool experimental vehicle.

 

[nyarlathotep]

>>"If this had succeed it would have been a blow to the alt.space community"<br /><br />Would have been a fairly big blow to the physics community too, considering the number of physical laws which would have had to have been broken to get the darn thing to orbit.

 

[nacnud]

pft!<br /><br />

 

[spacefire]

like what? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

The X-33 was never intended as an orbital vehicle, it was intended to test the flight envelope just short of orbit, so that the larger orbital Venturestar could be built based on the knowledge and technology gained. Some tried to make it an orbital vehicle, when they failed, they declared the project a failure, ignoring the original goal. This is typical, NASA did it with the DC-X, which also was never intended as an orbital vehicle, it was only to test take-off and landing techniques and streamlined ground handling. Then NASA took it over and purposely crashed it, declared it a failure, to justify cancelling construction of the DC-Y, which WOULD have made orbit, and the DC-I, which would have made orbit with cargo. When people wouldn't let them get away with it, they announced the X-33 program. The Boeing/McDonnell proposal for it was essentially the DC-Y, which was why it was not chosen by NASA (outside of the fact that Lockheed lied to get the contract). The Boeing design is still a feasible system and wasn't dependent on any multi-lobed tank technology.

 

[wvbraun]

"Some tried to make it an orbital vehicle, when they failed, they declared the project a failure, ignoring the original goal."<br /><br />Nonsense. Nobody at NASA ever tried to make the X-33 into an orbital vehicle. In fact NASA lowered the performance goals during the development program (from Mach 15 to Mach 12 IIRC).<br />However, Venturestar would not have been able to reach orbit either...<br /><br /><br /><br />"Then NASA took it over and purposely crashed it..."<br /><br />Can you back that up?

 

[mlorrey]

Bull, they insisted the structure have room for a payload bay and capable of carrying a scale payload. When idiots told them it wouldn't meet its weight targets (i.e. not be able to carry the scale payload) without the composite tank problem being solved, they used that as an excuse to nix it.<br /><br />Backing up that NASA crashed the DC-X: from wikipedia's article on the DC-X, the mishap investigation concluded: "When a landing strut failed to extend due to a disconnected hydraulic line, the DC-XA fell over and the tank leaked." This resulted in the LOX igniting and torching the vehicle.<br /><br />You don't launch with disconnected hydraulic lines swinging in the breeze. Only a moron or a saboteur would launch like that. So, are you saying that NASA is a moron, and not a saboteur? I'll take either one.

 

[propforce]

<font color="yellow">Then NASA took it over and purposely crashed it, declared it a failure, to justify cancelling construction of the DC-Y,...</font><br /><br />Not true at all. While I am not a fan of NASA management style, the crash of DC-X was purely McDonnell-Douglas's fault. The 'inside' info is that, 2 of the test engineers resigned because of higher salary offers from other companies before the last flight, and the management never bother to replace them. As a result, this left only 1 prop. test engineer and a test tech at launch site doing their job plus the tasks left vacuum by the other 2 engineers. In the rush to get the launch ready, the tech forgot to do one of the procedure on one of the landing gear therefore it was unable to deploy during the landing maneuvers. <br /><br />One of the reasons (perhaps the biggest reason, IMO), that McDonnell Douglas's version of X-33 was not selected, had to do with the amount of 'cost-sharing' each company proposed. If you recall, the X-33 contract worth $850M but NASA was looking for contractor 'cost-sharing'. This is very prudent as the X-33 is a very high-risk program. Reportedly; Lockheed proposed to put up upto $1 billion of company's money, in case NASA's $850M runs out. Rockwell only put up $40M and McDonnell Douglas only put up $20M. So the folks at McDonnell Douglas had no one to blame but themselves. I don't blame the then-program manager at MDA though, Paul Klevatt, he was a great guy and having came through with the DC-X program (the NASA portion was managed by another PM), but his CEO in St. Louis, Harry Stonecipher, is an airplane guy and a womanizer, would not cough up the money to support the space segment. <br /><br />The Lockheed's X-33 program was canceled after the $850M NASA fund ran out, I don't know how much of Lockheed's internal money was actually spent on the program. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mattblack]

Several people, including John Young reckoned that Venturestar, which was the full scale version of the X-33, might have worked if they stopped trying to develop the tricky composite LH2 fuel tank. Instead, they could have used a smaller Aluminium/Lithium tank and made up the quantity with drop tanks. Also recommended was using a cluster of strap-on Gem-60 expendable SRB's, same as on Delta 2 & 3 launchers. <br /><br />With this configuration, most of the stated payload of Venturestar (40,000lb to 50+plus degree orbit) could be launched. However, the penalty would have been a manned capability: Stripping out all man-rated systems would save enough weight to restore 3 or 4 tons of payload capability. The net result of all the above compromise would have been a highly capable cargo ship with a quicker and cheaper turnaround than the Shuttle, but with no risk to crews. Not as cheap and quick as promised, but an improvement nonetheless.<br /><br />There would have been a need to keep flying people on the Shuttle until ISS was finished construction, then a new manned vehicle (capsule-like "OSP" --!!--) could have been developed.<br /><br />But, in an era when Nasa had little political support for funding or bigger projects, X-33/Venturestar ended up on the scrapheap of reasonable ideas, though I hope the excellent aerospike engine technology goes on. SSTO will have to wait for another time.<br /><br />However; The Moon and Mars now await, let's put the past behind us and move on. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[moonmadness]

DC-Y! The Delta Clipper I loved that design,<br />Way retro-cool.<br />Talk about irony if we started flying vessels with more than a passing resemblance to the 50's spaceship. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>I'm not a rocket scientist, but I do play one on the TV in my mind.</p> </div>

 

[najab]

><i>However, the penalty would have been a manned capability...</i><p>AFAIK, VentureStar was never supposed to be manned.</p>

 

[vt_hokie]

They talked of a human rated version, with a crew module of some sort in the payload bay.

 

[najab]

The plan was, as I understand it, to carry passengers as cargo.

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>The plan was, as I understand it, to carry passengers as cargo.</i><br /><br />Indeed, that was the plan.

 

[gunsandrockets]

"I don't really remember this spaceship, but watched the video and it looked cool. Seems the Air Force tried to see if they could try and bring it back to life several times, including in 2005. It had more problems than the tank, which might of been solved, it was other things that and the official history is apparently not telling the true story about everything that happened. Appears to have been a mistake, a big one, reading this...."<br /><br />Very interesting, and very enlightening. Thanx for the link. <br /><br />

 

[tomnackid]

"Several people, including John Young reckoned that Venturestar, which was the full scale version of the X-33, might have worked if they stopped trying to develop the tricky composite LH2 fuel tank. Instead, they could have used a smaller Aluminium/Lithium tank and made up the quantity with drop tanks. Also recommended was using a cluster of strap-on Gem-60 expendable SRB's, same as on Delta 2 & 3 launchers. "<br />--------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />Hmmmm, Venture Star with and external drop tank and solid rocket boosters...add a crew compartment and some wings for increased LD and you could have had something like this: <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />

 

[mattblack]

Sorta. But 2 or 3 smaller external tanks to supplement the reduced internal tank and about 6 small expendable solids. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[danwoodard]

After the program cancellation the contractors actually completed and tested a composite LH2 tank sucessfully through many cycles, using the close-out funds. The problem was cryopumping; air betwen the laminations was freezing, drawing in more air which froze. On warming up the air expanded and forced the laminations apart. The solution was to seal the surface with metal foil. The whole story on this is in AvWeek. Unfortunately by then the program had been cancelled. The people who said it couldn't be done were simply wrong, and didn't understand technology development. <br /><br />NASA was unrealistic in requiring the contractor to pay a large part of the development cost for what was a suborbital technology demonstrator, not a vehicle that could actually make money. The reason NASA exists is to fund high-risk development that private industry cannot afford. Obviously even the VentureStar could not fly into orbit. It was just a design concept. The mass fractions were literally pulled out of the air. But if Lockheed hadn't said it could, they wouldn't have gottent he contract for the X-33.<br /><br />But if the X-33 and other suborbital technology demonstrators had been allowed to fly, what we could have learned might have made practical human spaceflight possible. <br /><br />The info on the DCX sounds right on target. Obviously the program was inadequately funded, then cancelled when it hit a minor snag. Then all the other technology demonstrators were cancelled to pay for a $4 Billion overrun in the outyears of the ISS program. Then the ISS and Shuttle programs were truncated to pay for a fantastically expensive return the the Moon with ELVs and 30-year-old technology. <br /><br />Bottom line: we need to decide whether NASA's primary mission is to fly, or to advance the technology of flight.

 

[jamie_young]

So with the problem with the composite tank corrected, that is why the USAF still had an eye on it? That explains a lot, thanks.

 

[mattblack]

Aha! Good to know, thanks. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[marcel_leonard]

Many people remember the X-33/ VentureStar as promising development in the effort to create SSTO (single stage to orbit), and a reusable spacecraft. Unfortunately due to shortcomings in the NASA development budget for new technologies; funding had to be cut in order to continue the aged space shuttle program. In hindsight I think if the VentureStar had marketed as, a new satellite delivery systems the project might have survived the budget cuts. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>