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

[vt_hokie]

<i>The reason NASA exists is to fund high-risk development that private industry cannot afford.</i><br /><br />I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, most people now seem to think NASA exists to fly with 1960's technology and leave R&D for the private sector.

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"...most people now seem to think NASA exists to fly with 1960's technology..."</font><br /><br />With all due respect, you keep saying this and it's simply wrong. The only thing Apollo and the CEV have in common is the CM/SM combination and the outer moldline and even those will have improvements. The CEV is not going to be '60's technology. It's going to be 21st Century technology using a tried and true basic shape.<br /><br />I know you are enamored with spaceplanes, and I have some sympathy for your views, but negatively spinning the CEV as '60's technology, as you so often do, is not going to get that spaceplane built any time sooner.<br /><br />As far as your comment about R&D: I would disagree that "most people now seem to think NASA...[should] leave R&D for the private sector." IMHO, most people would rather see NASA doing <b><i>more</i></b> R&D and working with the private sector to implement the results of that R&D. If you are alluding to my comments in another thread concerning methane engines, you are misreading the intent of my words. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[vt_hokie]

Okay, well the shape of the CEV capsule is pure 1960's, despite the decades worth of lifting body research that should allow us to move beyond ballistic entry parachute landing expendable capsules. True, it will have more advanced avionics.<br /><br />And I suppose the SRB's are 1970's vintage. I'll give you that. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"And I suppose the SRB's are 1970's vintage. I'll give you that. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />"</font><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Like I said, I have some sympathy for your views on spaceplanes. I believe they are the future of passenger-carrying spaceflight and will happen when private industry gets its act together. But I understand why NASA is going with a capsule and I accept that decision as the best option for what they are currently mandated to do. <br /><br />Sorry for getting off topic. I have a habit of doing that. <img src="/images/icons/blush.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[john_316]

The always new Venture Star was never going to fly. It was a great idea but the wrong time. The Engines will find some use in the future I think. Now that the J-2S will be built the Aerospike engine may indeed have a new life in the future but on a SSTO I am not so sure about unless the vehicle is more realistic than Venture Star.<br /><br />I don't hate the X-33/VS concept but what we got for the technology demostrator, was it really worth it? I say somethings possibly others possibly not and for a over a billion dollars? We could have the CEV up and building at the moment with that investment or at least have the core design work down and ready to cut metal.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />

 

[spacefire]

A partly reusable TSTO spaceplane can be built with proven technologies. Have a flyback first stage, an expendable abort/second stage engine and a reusable orbiter which could also be replaced by a cargo module.<br />The flyback first stage would be the greatest challenge, as nothing similar has been yet built. Darpa has some hypersonic gliders in the works.<br />RBCC Scramjet engines and a rocket for the initial boost would propel the first stage. Yes, it would be a new engine, something not yet attempted at this scale yet, but let's remember that this thing would not go into orbit.<br />If it can provide half the delta V and most of the altitude, a pressure fed throwaway second stage should be enough to orbit the lifting body.<br />Taking advantage of the hypersonic glider concept and taking it to new 'lenghs', the first stage would glide around the world skipping over the fringes of the atmosphere and return to the launch site. Keep in mind that because you have a huge empty shell, once you get down into the soup drag will slow it down fast and with minimal aero-heating. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[danwoodard]

>>I don't hate the X-33/VS concept but what we got for the technology demostrator, was it really worth it?<br /><br />Obviously not, since it didn't fly. As Burt Rutan said (regarding the X-34) "If it flies, you will learn something, even if it ends up in a smoking hole in the ground." If it doesn't fly, you don't know much more than when you started. With CEV we still have the problem that human spaceflight is much to expensive to be practical.

 

[spacefire]

you mean human spaceflight <font color="red">managed by NASA</font>is too expensive to be practical. <br />NASA and the big aerospace companies with government contracts all feed on taxpayers so they actually WANT to make it expensive. It all started with beating the Bolshies to the Moon and the symbiosis between big contractors and NASA continues to this day, although there is no reason for it.<br />Like it or not, NASA is part of the military industrial complex. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[marcel_leonard]

I don’t think that NASA was ever intended to be the only force of R/D for space exploration. In fact you might say that in the past few decades there has been very little new R/D. Some would like to blame Congress for the budget cuts in NASA funding. My viewpoint is that had the NASA project management team did a better job of catering to telecommunication needs of the general public, and a little less time catering the black-opt needs of the industrial military empire during the later part of the twentieth century; we would now all been enjoying private sector passenger tarmac - to - orbital flights trough outer space.<br /><br />So far from what I’ve read it would seem to me that technology has left legislation in the dust so to speak. In fact I would have to say with the exception of bandwidth allocation very little legislation in telecommunication is being enforced, or can be enforced for that matter.<br /><br />Case/point – Cable networks like Adult Swim, Comedy Central, and the Fox News Network have a very poor job censuring adult from minors. The same thing could also be said for non-cable broadcast. <br /><br />Another case/point – The Internet is virtually a digital Sodom/Gomorrah when it comes to content; yet this new median has the potential to be the greatest force for economic growth in over a millennia. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[danwoodard]

At the risk of drawing the thread back to the X-33, if private industry can make human spaceflight practical, than NASA should help them, as in the old days NACA helped private industry make aviation practical. The best way to do this would be to invite proposals for research and technology development, just as NIH and NSF do. Unfortunately we cannot do this and also send people to the moon with 30-year-old solid fueled rockets.