A kerosene-fueled X-33 as a single stage to orbit vehicle.
in [Physics]
|
Prev: JSH:Twin primes probability correlation
Next: SpaceX says Falcon 9 rocket test fire is a success
From: Pat Flannery on 23 Mar 2010 16:30 On 3/23/2010 6:55 AM, J. Clarke wrote: > The X-33 is not VentureStar, VentureStar is not the X-33, the X-33 was a > subscale prototype never intended to achieve orbit. So why are you > bringing VentureStar into the discussion? Because the two programs were related. Robert Clarke keeps trying to come up with some way to get the X-33 into orbit by fiddling with its design in some way. So I'm going to fiddle with it too. I'm going to make it a hell of a lot bigger and call it VentureStar. ;-) Pat
From: Pat Flannery on 23 Mar 2010 16:39 On 3/23/2010 6:53 AM, J. Clarke wrote: >> In the end, the X-33 failed, but Lockheed got paid and their existing >> EELV >> related contracts continued. So from their point of view (i.e. upper >> management), did they really fail from a business point of view? > > I see, so the Lockheed Skunk Works is in the business of designing > flying machines that can't fly? They've done that before with the CL-400 project. Sometimes they bite off more than they can chew, and the X-33 was a case in point. Considering all the trouble the A-12 gave them, that could have gone the other way too...and the F-35 isn't being a pushover to build either. Pat
From: Pat Flannery on 23 Mar 2010 17:08 On 3/23/2010 7:43 AM, Jeff Findley wrote: > So you want to be able to make sweeping generalizations well beyond the > context of the subject line but sill be able to hide behind the subject line > when those same sweeping generalizations are shot down? Wow. Watch it mate. E's the bleedin' Pope now. :-D Pat
From: J. Clarke on 23 Mar 2010 14:27 On 3/23/2010 4:30 PM, Pat Flannery wrote: > On 3/23/2010 6:55 AM, J. Clarke wrote: > >> The X-33 is not VentureStar, VentureStar is not the X-33, the X-33 was a >> subscale prototype never intended to achieve orbit. So why are you >> bringing VentureStar into the discussion? > > Because the two programs were related. > Robert Clarke keeps trying to come up with some way to get the X-33 into > orbit by fiddling with its design in some way. > So I'm going to fiddle with it too. > I'm going to make it a hell of a lot bigger and call it VentureStar. ;-) Well that's fine but it's not what he's proposing. My point in all this is that the only way he's going to get X-33 into orbit is to stick it on top of a Saturn V and that his notion of sticking it on an airliner buys him nothing. And unless he happens to have the remains sitting in his barn I don't understand why he's so hot to recycle the X-33 anyway.
From: J. Clarke on 23 Mar 2010 14:20
On 3/23/2010 4:39 PM, Pat Flannery wrote: > On 3/23/2010 6:53 AM, J. Clarke wrote: >>> In the end, the X-33 failed, but Lockheed got paid and their existing >>> EELV >>> related contracts continued. So from their point of view (i.e. upper >>> management), did they really fail from a business point of view? >> >> I see, so the Lockheed Skunk Works is in the business of designing >> flying machines that can't fly? > > They've done that before with the CL-400 project. In what way was that designed to not fly? Pratt promised them an engine. I've worked for UTC and it my experience there was such that it does not surprise me that Pratt failed to deliver. But if Pratt had delivered the engine would it still not have flown and why not? > Sometimes they bite off more than they can chew, and the X-33 was a case > in point. X-33 was an X-plane whose purpose was to find out what problems would come about in developing VentureStar. They found the problems. The customer decided not to fix them. But it's not because X-33 was designed to not fly. > Considering all the trouble the A-12 gave them, that could > have gone the other way too... But it didn't because the customer decided to finish the project for once. > and the F-35 isn't being a pushover to > build either. If you are using that to back an assertion that the Skunk Works designs planes to not fly, you have chosen a singularly poor example. You seem to be equating "had development problems" with "designed to not fly". |