Why Did X-33 Fail?
tj bandrowsky
spaceflight, the next, X-33 is cancelled.
What actually failed in the program? I've read the engines, fuel
tanks, etc... but what was it?
Scott Lowther
Management.
--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
"Any statement by Edward Wright that starts with 'You seem to think
that...' is wrong. Always. It's a law of Usenet, like Godwin's."
- Jorge R. Frank, 11 Nov 2002
Henry Spencer
tj bandrowsky <tban...@unitedsoftworks.com> wrote:
>What actually failed in the program? I've read the engines, fuel
>tanks, etc... but what was it?
Mostly, the fact that Lockheed Martin had very little incentive to make it
actually fly. They'd won the contract, precluding the possibility that a
competitor might use it as the springboard to an operational vehicle that
would threaten LockMart's expendables business... and that was at least
90% of their real, private goals accomplished. So there was no need to
put their good people on it; what was needed was a show of effort, not
actual results. So they staffed it mostly with inexperienced young guys
who spent a lot of time learning things the hard way. This made for slow
progress with a lot of stumbles along the way, resulting in performance
shortfalls, schedule slips, and ominously low probability of success for
the first flight.
A strong contributing factor was the way LM packed their bid with novel
technology -- a successful attempt to appeal to NASA's infatuation with
new gadgets -- and chose a configuration (VTHL) which could not do "taxi
test" or "bunny hop" incremental expansion of the flight envelope.
--
Faster, better, cheaper requires leadership, | Henry Spencer
not just management. | he...@spsystems.net
Michael J Wise
> What actually failed in the program?
> I've read the engines, fuel tanks, etc... but what was it?
The engines worked just fine.
Who told you otherwise?
The thing that killed it was having to tear out and redesign the composite
LH tanks at the "85% Complete" stage of the project after they suffered an
unplanned (but not unforseeable) failure due to "Cryogenic Pumping".
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/x-33/1999a.htm
(Scroll down to 1999 November 4)
Ultimately, however, as stated earlier, it was the putting of far too many
untested eggs into one basket. One of 'em broke in spectacular fashion and
the whole basket got thrown out.
The whole thing reeks of mismanagement all the way up the chain of command
to those who made the final decision to terminate the (entire) project.
Aloha mai Nai`a.
--
"Please have your Internet License http://kapu.net/~mjwise/
and Usenet Registration handy..."
John Schilling
The program did not fail; it succeeded brilliantly. Had the X-33
actually flown, and especially had it lead to the follow-on VentureStar,
it would have to have been accounted a miserable failure.
The trick is to understand the goal of the program. The goal of the
program was to preserve LockMart's cushy position in the oligopoly of
overpriced, complex expendable launcher manufacturers by making sure
nobody, but nobody, demonstrated anything cheaper, simpler, or more
reliable. LockMart can't do cheap; it's been decades since they
had to compete for a significant contract on price. What Lockmart
does is cost-plus contracting, where their pay is based on how much
they can get away with spending.
Making space launch a competitive, low-cost market, would be absolutely
ruinous to LockMart. So, the company maneuvered itself into a position
where they got to soak up almost every government megabuck ostensibly
available for the development of low-cost space transportation systems
and spend it on a giant monument to the alleged impossibility of building
low-cost space transportation systems. In this they had plenty of help
from that segment of NASA that would also be ruined by low-cost space
transportation, and were quite successful.
To the extent that anyone involved ever actually expected the program
to result in a low-cost space transportation system, the failure was
in handing it over to NASA/Marshall and then LockMart.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
Alan Erskine
they asked for.
The main technology issue was the engine and the hydrogen tank. For some
reason, that had a lot of leakage, but Lockheed felt it could have been
rectefied.
"tj bandrowsky" <tban...@unitedsoftworks.com> wrote in message
news:52e031b9.02122...@posting.google.com...
tj bandrowsky
> Management.
Really? What was it that they did that was so dumb?
Brian Gaff
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - Sorry, can't see pictures, graphics are great, but the blind
can't hear them
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
"Scott Lowther" <lex...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3E0B83...@ix.netcom.com...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.431 / Virus Database: 242 - Release Date: 17/12/02
Rand Simberg
tban...@unitedsoftworks.com (tj bandrowsky) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>One moment, we were on our way to VentureStar
No, we weren't. We never were. That was always a fantasy.
--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org
"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Replace first . with @ and throw out the "@trash." to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers: postm...@fbi.gov
Scott Lowther
>
> >
> > Management.
>
> Really? What was it that they did that was so dumb?
As others pointed out... dumb for you (taxpayer), or dumb for them?
Ian Woollard
> tj bandrowsky wrote:
>
> > What actually failed in the program?
>
> > I've read the engines, fuel tanks, etc... but what was it?
>
> The engines worked just fine.
How well the engines worked is not public knowledge. There's a big
difference between not catastrophically failing and working properly.
All we know is that the engines are somewhere in between.
> Who told you otherwise?
Who told you that they worked just fine?
John R. Campbell
> To the extent that anyone involved ever actually expected the program
> to result in a low-cost space transportation system, the failure was
> in handing it over to NASA/Marshall and then LockMart.
Worse yet, LockMart owns all the patents. Anyone building
something that might require IP that LockMart owns means
that LockMart gets paid or they can even kill it by saying
"no".
All that IP just by "sharing costs" (although NASA kept
having to shovel some more money in, NASA- and the US
Gov't- doesn't own the IP).
And people wonder why the GPL is so awful. If public
monies were spent on developing IP then the public (at
least US companies) should have a fair crack at it for
either free or damn close to it.
(IP for the unabused is "Intellectual Property", the latest
scam to turn intangibles into "tangible assets". The DMCA
is now a key part of that scam, BTW.)
--
John R. Campbell Speaker to Machines so...@jtan.com
- As a SysAdmin, yes, I CAN read your e-mail, but I DON'T get that bored!
"It is impossible for ANY man to learn about impotence the hard way." - me
"ZIF is not a desirable trait when selecting a spouse." - me
John R. Campbell
> Cost. The guvmnt wouldn't keep footing the bill for developing
> the systems they asked for.
>
> The main technology issue was the engine and the hydrogen tank.
> For some reason, that had a lot of leakage, but Lockheed felt it
> could have been rectefied.
Sure, rectified with enough gov't money, spent withing the
LockMart bureaucracy, with IP ending up in private hands
DESPITE the greater investment by the gov't.
The biggest difference between DC-X and X-33 is that the
X-33 needed too much "emergent technology". The DC-X program
was built around the concept of finding all of the needed
goodies sitting on a shelf somewhere. The "Build a Little,
Test a Little" concept was lost DESPITE the "faster, better,
cheaper" mantra that Goldin was pushing. How many DC-X
derivatives could we have had 5 years ago, testing the
envelope?
For (IIRC, someone correct me) less than 10% of the cost
of X-33 the DC-X not only got built (and rebuilt, after
a minor mishap) but actually FLEW. X-33 only flew in
pretty powerpoint presentations.
John R. Campbell
> Ultimately, however, as stated earlier, it was the putting of far
> too many untested eggs into one basket. One of 'em broke in
> spectacular fashion and the whole basket got thrown out.
>
> The whole thing reeks of mismanagement all the way up the chain
> of command to those who made the final decision to terminate the
> (entire) project.
Had you paid attention to the fact that the X-33's flight test
envelope was shrinking? Top mach numbers also kept dropping,
too.
Too much emergent technology (that you noted above) and too
little competition. If some idiot had a lick of sense
they'd've funded the DC-X follow-on at the same time, just
to put pressure on LockMart (and vice-versa).
Now that McD-D is part of Boeing (an ELV vendor) that won't
work any more. Both LockMart and Boeing have an incentive
to sell expensive expendables (EELV: Expensive Expendable
Launch Vehicle).
Sure, a competition might've p1ssed some of the money away
but it's a check-and-balance against corruption.
John R. Campbell
>> Management.
>
> Really? What was it that they did that was so dumb?
Have you heard about ISO-9000? The Bureaucrat:Techie ratio?
For every techie you usually need 2-3 non-productive paper
shufflers there to keep an eye on him and waste his time.
And that doesn't count the managers above them in the food
chain.
And then... both NASA *and* LockMart were in the mgmt food
chain, so that increased the bureaucratic overhead.
Joann Evans
>
> Michael J Wise wrote:
> > Ultimately, however, as stated earlier, it was the putting of far
> > too many untested eggs into one basket. One of 'em broke in
> > spectacular fashion and the whole basket got thrown out.
> >
> > The whole thing reeks of mismanagement all the way up the chain
> > of command to those who made the final decision to terminate the
> > (entire) project.
>
> Had you paid attention to the fact that the X-33's flight test
> envelope was shrinking? Top mach numbers also kept dropping,
> too.
>
> Too much emergent technology (that you noted above) and too
> little competition. If some idiot had a lick of sense
> they'd've funded the DC-X follow-on at the same time, just
> to put pressure on LockMart (and vice-versa).
>
> Now that McD-D is part of Boeing (an ELV vendor) that won't
> work any more. Both LockMart and Boeing have an incentive
> to sell expensive expendables (EELV: Expensive Expendable
> Launch Vehicle).
>
> Sure, a competition might've p1ssed some of the money away
> but it's a check-and-balance against corruption.
IIRC, the original intent was to select two of the three proposals
from Lockheed-Martin, Rockwell and McDonnell-Douglas (which was an
improved DC-X derivative). Don't know when that idea disappeared, but I
thought then and now, that not doing it (or even all three) was a major
mistake....
Michael J Wise
> -- and chose a configuration (VTHL) which could not do "taxi test" or
> "bunny hop" incremental expansion of the flight envelope.
Why not?
You said it yourself WRT a super-heavy lifter, that there's no reason why
the thing needs to be *fully* fueled. Put enough in it to keep the engines
running and idle+ for a few minutes, and see if it can lift off as a HTHL?
Or would it need improved (and heavier) landing gear to do that?
Aloha mai Nai`a!
Michael J Wise
> Had you paid attention to the fact that the X-33's flight test
> envelope was shrinking? Top mach numbers also kept dropping,
> too.
Yes.
I believe that Henry already covered that.
" It's all about weight.
When you need to get to the moon, yes.
When you want to demo new tech, not necessarily.
You can optimize the design LATER.
In this case, doesn't look like there will ever BE a 'Later'.
I keep wondering if we've lost our chance to make it off this rock....
> Sure, a competition might've p1ssed some of the money away
> but it's a check-and-balance against corruption.
Granted.
Anvil
> tj bandrowsky:
> >What actually failed in the program? I've read the engines, fuel
> >tanks, etc... but what was it?
>
> Mostly, the fact that Lockheed Martin had very little incentive to make it
> actually fly. They'd won the contract, precluding the possibility that a
> competitor might use it as the springboard to an operational vehicle that
> would threaten LockMart's expendables business... and that was at least
> 90% of their real, private goals accomplished. So there was no need to
> put their good people on it; what was needed was a show of effort, not
> actual results. So they staffed it mostly with inexperienced young guys
> who spent a lot of time learning things the hard way. This made for slow
> progress with a lot of stumbles along the way, resulting in performance
> shortfalls, schedule slips, and ominously low probability of success for
> the first flight.
>
> A strong contributing factor was the way LM packed their bid with novel
> technology -- a successful attempt to appeal to NASA's infatuation with
> new gadgets -- and chose a configuration (VTHL) which could not do "taxi
> test" or "bunny hop" incremental expansion of the flight envelope.
Many peacetime endeavors run afoul of government think. Engineers and
Scientists are seen as a strategic resource, munitions. Programs are often
developed with an eye to both capture the imagination and develop new
technologies. Had everything gone well it would have flown, but truly such
flights are not needed to be considered a success.
Sadly so much remains hidden away, forgotten, and untested. We begin to amass
ideas and technology that might work rather than discovering new problems and
ideas building on top of real data. Programs like the X-15 and XB-70 were long
ago. Materials extending the thermal limit exist, but no flight hardware. Mach
15+ seems as far away as it was in the 60s. Today's engineers and scientists
graduate knowing little beyond those earlier programs, adding just glimpses of
what might have been.
--
Anvil*
Henry Spencer
Michael J Wise <mjw...@kapu.net> wrote:
>> -- and chose a configuration (VTHL) which could not do "taxi test" or
>> "bunny hop" incremental expansion of the flight envelope.
>
>running and idle+ for a few minutes, and see if it can lift off as a HTHL?
>Or would it need improved (and heavier) landing gear to do that?
Probably better landing gear; in particular, you'd have to make it
retractable in flight (I believe X-33's, like the shuttle orbiter's,
wasn't). Certainly more elaborate fuel plumbing, since it would have to
load and feed properly in both vertical and horizontal orientations. That
would be an issue for engine start as well, since you wouldn't have
gravity feed to get fuel into the engines for pump start. More work on
the control system (already a trouble spot), with possibly some CG
problems, especially in abort cases. Generally, not a simple change.
Michael J Wise
> Probably better landing gear; in particular, you'd have to make it
> retractable in flight (I believe X-33's, like the shuttle orbiter's,
> wasn't).
Interesting.
> Certainly more elaborate fuel plumbing, since it would have to load
> and feed properly in both vertical and horizontal orientations.
I was thinking about that with my previous comment, yeah. Speaking of
which, how does one design a tank that can "feed properly" in zero G?
Does one use some sort of a 'post-tank' (one each of the fuel and
oxydizer) that the main tank feeds into, that can be pressurized (with
Helium?) or vented so that it is always (near) full and under pressure?
One would think that "Bubbles" in a tank would be a serious problem...
> That would be an issue for engine start as well, since you wouldn't
> have gravity feed to get fuel into the engines for pump start.
Have small elecrtic pumps that can draw from the 'post-tank's, which they
then present to the turbopump gas generators, wich would also take their
stuffs from the 'post-tank's. Once the thing gets moving, no matter the
orientation, 'DOWN' is always towards the engines.
And again, once the thing gets moving, open up the valve from the mains
to the 'post-tank's, and open up the purge valve from the 'top' of the
'post-tank's to the mains so that the helium (?) has somewhere to escape
to once the main volume of stuffs pour in, and Bob's you Uncle.
> More work on the control system (already a trouble spot), ...
The danged thing should have had at least one seat, IMHO. After all, they
kept putting pilots into the Bell X-1 until they got to Yeager.
(;-)
> with possibly some CG problems, especially in abort cases.
> Generally, not a simple change.
Not insurmountable, either, yeah?
Michael Moser
> ... So they staffed it mostly with inexperienced young guys
> who spent a lot of time learning things the hard way. This made for slow
> progress with a lot of stumbles along the way, resulting in performance
> shortfalls, schedule slips, and ominously low probability of success for
> the first flight.
Wow! such a cool project, if i were into this business, fresh, with
little experience, i'd still put in all i have to make this thing
go...
.. well, this is how inexperienced guys get experienced, i guess.
Michael Moser
> The trick is to understand the goal of the program. The goal of the
> program was to preserve LockMart's cushy position in the oligopoly of
> overpriced, complex expendable launcher manufacturers by making sure
> nobody, but nobody, demonstrated anything cheaper, simpler, or more
> reliable. LockMart can't do cheap; it's been decades since they
> had to compete for a significant contract on price. What Lockmart
> does is cost-plus contracting, where their pay is based on how much
> they can get away with spending.
wouldn't they have won more if they did go for it? (patenting out
every bit on the way, gaining access to foreign launch deals, etc,
etc).
I mean they could have secured a monopoly for decades to come (instead
of keeping on to mainly DOD launches).
> To the extent that anyone involved ever actually expected the program
> to result in a low-cost space transportation system, the failure was
> in handing it over to NASA/Marshall and then LockMart.
So who could/should have done it?
John Schilling
>schi...@spock.usc.edu (John Schilling) wrote in message news:<aug1vb$ihs$1...@spock.usc.edu>...
>> The trick is to understand the goal of the program. The goal of the
>> program was to preserve LockMart's cushy position in the oligopoly of
>> overpriced, complex expendable launcher manufacturers by making sure
>> nobody, but nobody, demonstrated anything cheaper, simpler, or more
>> reliable. LockMart can't do cheap; it's been decades since they
>> had to compete for a significant contract on price. What Lockmart
>> does is cost-plus contracting, where their pay is based on how much
>> they can get away with spending.
>wouldn't they have won more if they did go for it? (patenting out
>every bit on the way, gaining access to foreign launch deals, etc,
>etc). I mean they could have secured a monopoly for decades to come
>(instead of keeping on to mainly DOD launches).
Lockheed-Martin already gets about half of all present American launces,
NASA, DOD, and commercial alike. It's illegal for them to monopolize the
market unless the Government decides that it is in the public interest
for there to be an aerospace monopoly, in which case LockMart gets folded
into BoeDonnel and becomes half of the company that gets all the American
launches.
And they don't get any of the European, Russian, Chinese, or Japanese
launches, because local politics demand that those go up on local rockets
no matter the cost.
So LockMart has locked up as much of the existing market as politics
will allow. And LockMart, like most big corporations, mostly doesn't
believe in new markets and to the extent that it does mostly understands
that smaller, more agile firms would snap them up if they materialized.
VentureStar doesn't bring LockMart any new launches, it just makes the
launches they've already got, cheaper. Since the customers will demand
(and the biggest customer by legal decree will *get*) proportionately
cheaper launch fees, that means LockMart gets *less* money.
VentureStar, I repeat, would have ruined LockMart's launch business
had it reached operational status. Best for their bottom line that
X-33 fail up front, just as soon as it has soaked up every available
NASA dollar for the program.
>> To the extent that anyone involved ever actually expected the program
>> to result in a low-cost space transportation system, the failure was
>> in handing it over to NASA/Marshall and then LockMart.
>So who could/should have done it?
Of the three bidders, Boeing was the only one with a chance. They still
had some understanding of cheap and businesslike, and of evolving markets,
from their airliner side. And no existing launcher business to be ruined
by the newcomer. Even so, it was a small chance at best.
And that was Boeing, which is no more. BoeDonnel, forget it.
Cheap launchers, like any disruptive technology, will have to come either
from a new corporation or from a corporation not presently in the space
launch business.
Henry Spencer
>> and feed properly in both vertical and horizontal orientations.
>
>I was thinking about that with my previous comment, yeah. Speaking of
>which, how does one design a tank that can "feed properly" in zero G?
Well, the fast answer is "with some difficulty". :-) It's generally
considered impractically hard to make big tanks feed reliably in free
fall; it has been done, but it's not easy. The preferred approach is
to use small thrusters to impart enough acceleration to settle the fluids
in the main tanks, before lighting the main engine. The thrusters can be
fed off smaller tanks which use tank bladders to separate gas from liquid.
>> More work on the control system (already a trouble spot), ...
>> with possibly some CG problems, especially in abort cases.
>> Generally, not a simple change.
>
>Not insurmountable, either, yeah?
Could probably be done, but it would be a bunch of extra complications
for an already-troubled program.
Jorge R. Frank
> mich...@sapiens.com (Michael Moser) writes:
>
>>schi...@spock.usc.edu (John Schilling) wrote in message
>>news:<aug1vb$ihs$1...@spock.usc.edu>...
>
>>> To the extent that anyone involved ever actually expected the
>>> program to result in a low-cost space transportation system, the
>>> failure was in handing it over to NASA/Marshall and then LockMart.
>
>>So who could/should have done it?
>
> Of the three bidders, Boeing was the only one with a chance.
Umm, Boeing didn't bid on X-33. The other two bidders were Rockwell and
MDAC, both of which were swallowed by Boeing *after* the fact.
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
Jorge R. Frank
news:d70280fc.03010...@posting.google.com:
"Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment."
Can't remember who said it, but it seems appropriate.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"Jorge R. Frank" <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote in message
news:Xns92F7E368...@204.52.135.10...
judgment."
I've seen "Experience is what you learn when you lack judgement. Judgement
is what you learn when you lack experience."
Christopher
wrote:
<snip>
>Cheap launchers, like any disruptive technology, will have to come either
>from a new corporation or from a corporation not presently in the space
>launch business.
But wouldn't the vested intrests in Lockheed and their Federal
government 'partners' work to squash any upstart 'new corporation'
that look likes its going to spoil the cosy Lockheed US DoD and Gov
dealings. Unless you mean a none American new corporation?
Christopher
+++++++++++++++++
D'ou venons-nous?
Qui sommes-nous?
Ou allons-nous?
Gauguin
Jorge R. Frank
news:Pine.OSX.4.31.030101...@kapu.net:
> Speaking of
> which, how does one design a tank that can "feed properly" in zero G?
> Does one use some sort of a 'post-tank' (one each of the fuel and
> oxydizer) that the main tank feeds into, that can be pressurized (with
> Helium?) or vented so that it is always (near) full and under pressure?
Other way around. The pressurant tank (often helium, as you suggest, but
sometimes nitrogen) is upstream of the propellant (fuel or oxidizer) tank.
> One would think that "Bubbles" in a tank would be a serious problem...
Some systems use bladders to get around this problem; others use screens or
traps that use surface tension to keep the propellant together in one blob
and prevent bubbles from getting in.
John Schilling
>schi...@spock.usc.edu (John Schilling) wrote in
>news:av2hu2$8cp$1...@spock.usc.edu:
>> mich...@sapiens.com (Michael Moser) writes:
>>>schi...@spock.usc.edu (John Schilling) wrote in message
>>>news:<aug1vb$ihs$1...@spock.usc.edu>...
>>>> To the extent that anyone involved ever actually expected the
>>>> program to result in a low-cost space transportation system, the
>>>> failure was in handing it over to NASA/Marshall and then LockMart.
>>>So who could/should have done it?
>> Of the three bidders, Boeing was the only one with a chance.
>Umm, Boeing didn't bid on X-33. The other two bidders were Rockwell and
>MDAC, both of which were swallowed by Boeing *after* the fact.
Right; I meant McDonnel-Douglas, I just had a brain fart regarding which
part of BoeDonnel was which in the Good Old Days(tm).
Either way, both Boeing and MD used to be moderately huge companies that
still understood competing for commercial contracts on price grounds, if
for no other reason than that they competed with each other. Post-merger,
BoeDonnel is a dinosaur that increasingly only competes in the political
arena.
William J Hubeny
> On 26 Dec 2002 13:55:45 -0800, in a place far, far away,
> tban...@unitedsoftworks.com (tj bandrowsky) made the phosphor on my
> monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
> >One moment, we were on our way to VentureStar
>
> No, we weren't. We never were. That was always a fantasy.
Was the killing of X-34 somehow involved in this NASA-Lockmart circle
jerk or where there other reasons for it?
Bill Hubeny
Henry Spencer
William J Hubeny <far...@airmail.net> wrote:
>Was the killing of X-34 somehow involved in this NASA-Lockmart circle
>jerk or where there other reasons for it?
X-34's death was quite incidental, the result of NASA changing its mind
about what it wanted without being willing to pay the costs of the change.
(In the wake of the back-to-back Mars-probe failures, the potential for
embarrassing failures became an important new review criterion for lots of
NASA projects. The result on X-34 -- with hardware construction already
well underway -- was a demand that the contractors add lots of redundancy
to things like the flight controls. This was not really needed, since
X-34 had the same sort of program-level redundancy normally used for
experimental aircraft: multiple flight articles. But NASA, which had
previously signed off on the design, now was adamant that it needed major
changes... but refused to put in any extra money for them. The upshot was
program cancellation. The demise of the program was considered preferable
to the slightest possibility that it might embarrass NASA management.)
Henry Spencer
Christopher <coro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Cheap launchers, like any disruptive technology, will have to come either
>>from a new corporation or from a corporation not presently in the space
>>launch business.
>
>But wouldn't the vested intrests in Lockheed and their Federal
>government 'partners' work to squash any upstart 'new corporation'
>that look likes its going to spoil the cosy Lockheed US DoD and Gov
Depends how it's done. A head-on assault against the military-industrial
establishment is going to meet a lot of resistance, yes, as Beal found
out.
Historically, the way disruptive technologies get established is to start
out in market niches that the big boys consider unimportant, especially
speculative new ones which they just don't care about, and move up
incrementally from there. As Pat Bahn of TGV once said: "We've had the
very pleasant experience of being giggled at by Boeing and LockMart."
For example, the business-jet builders are starting to attack the low end
of the airliner market, and quite successfully too, because Boeing and
Airbus find it only marginally profitable and don't feel any great
compulsion to fend off competitors there. In another decade or two, the
big boys may well have abandoned half the airliner market to the
newcomers, and they *still* won't be worried, because they'll still own
what they see as the most profitable half...
John R. Campbell
> Michael J Wise wrote:
>> which, how does one design a tank that can "feed properly" in zero G?
>> Does one use some sort of a 'post-tank' (one each of the fuel and
>> oxydizer) that the main tank feeds into, that can be pressurized (with
>> Helium?) or vented so that it is always (near) full and under pressure?
>
> Other way around. The pressurant tank (often helium, as you suggest, but
> sometimes nitrogen) is upstream of the propellant (fuel or oxidizer) tank.
>
>> One would think that "Bubbles" in a tank would be a serious problem...
>
> Some systems use bladders to get around this problem; others use screens or
> traps that use surface tension to keep the propellant together in one blob
> and prevent bubbles from getting in.
Additionally, another trick is called "ullage", small rocket motors
that impose just enough acceleration to settle the propellants in
the tankage.
Bladderized have their own issues too.
How did the Gemini capsule and Apollo CSM stack handle these? While the
propellants weren't cryogenic they had to feed. Gemini didn't have the
big SM's engine but that might've depended upon ullage from the RCS.
Michael J Wise
> Michael J Wise <mjw...@kapu.net> wrote:
> > Speaking of
> > which, how does one design a tank that can "feed properly" in zero G?
> > Does one use some sort of a 'post-tank' (one each of the fuel and
> > oxydizer) that the main tank feeds into, that can be pressurized (with
> > Helium?) or vented so that it is always (near) full and under pressure?
>
> Other way around.
That's not what I had in mind.
> The pressurant tank ...
Wasn't talking about that.
Three tanks:
1) Post-tank (see below)
which includes a moving "cylinder" to separate the reactant
and the pressurant.
2) Main reactant tank
3) pressurant tank
During filling, the post tank and main tank are filled with reactant.
The post tank is COMPLETELY filled.
While the engine is not running, the reactant valve from the main tank to
the post-tank, and the pressurant-return valve TO the main tank, are kept
CLOSED, and the post-tank is kept pressurized, as is the main tank.
When the time comes to light up the engine, open the valve from the
post-tank to the engine, and the cylinder, pushed by the pressurant on the
other side of it, drives the reactant to the turbopumps. After main engine
start, when the vehicle is moving, open the valve from the main tank to
the post-tank, and the pressurant return valve (so the high pressure
can escape to the main tank, and the cylinder can move back to the
'Full of Reactant' position) and let it refill while at the same time
delivering full volume of reactants to the engine.
Keep the pressure topped up in the main tank, of course.
" Lather, Rinse, Repeat.
It could be restarted in 0G, and unless the post-tank is completely
emptied before the engines can produce thrust, it should work nicely.
Rand Simberg
coro...@hotmail.com (Christopher) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>>Cheap launchers, like any disruptive technology, will have to come either
>>from a new corporation or from a corporation not presently in the space
>>launch business.
>
>But wouldn't the vested intrests in Lockheed and their Federal
>government 'partners' work to squash any upstart 'new corporation'
>that look likes its going to spoil the cosy Lockheed US DoD and Gov
>dealings. Unless you mean a none American new corporation?
They would certainly try, but that's more difficult to do.
--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org
"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Replace first . with @ and throw out the "@trash." to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers: postm...@fbi.gov
Rand Simberg
far...@airmail.net (William J Hubeny) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>> >One moment, we were on our way to VentureStar
>>
>> No, we weren't. We never were. That was always a fantasy.
>
>Was the killing of X-34 somehow involved in this NASA-Lockmart circle
>jerk or where there other reasons for it?
No, that was mostly incompetence on the part of Marshall. It was a
side effect of the loss of the Mars mission that did the controlled
flight into terrain because they had the units wrong (I forget the
name of it). After that, NASA decided that they didn't have enough
redundancy in the X-34 systems (it was single string), and told OSC to
go back and change it. My recollection is that NASA got sticker shock
when they heard the cost, and cancelled the program instead.
Henry Spencer
John R. Campbell <so...@penrij.uucp.jtan.com> wrote:
>How did the Gemini capsule and Apollo CSM stack handle these? While the
>propellants weren't cryogenic they had to feed. Gemini didn't have the
>big SM's engine but that might've depended upon ullage from the RCS.
The RCS tanks on Apollo and (I think) Gemini were bladder tanks. The
Apollo SPS engine had some baffles and whatnot, but those were mostly
just to try to keep gas out of the pipes during RCS maneuvering; RCS
burns were used for propellant settling before SPS burns.
John R. Campbell
> For example, the business-jet builders are starting to attack the low end
> of the airliner market, and quite successfully too, because Boeing and
> Airbus find it only marginally profitable and don't feel any great
> compulsion to fend off competitors there. In another decade or two, the
> big boys may well have abandoned half the airliner market to the
> newcomers, and they *still* won't be worried, because they'll still own
> what they see as the most profitable half...
Sound like how IBM almost ceased to be, starting about 15 years ago.
It's part of the "victory disease", you stop looking at (or valuing)
contrary data. I think it's called "corporate myopia".
(Like how IT&T told A.G.Bell to shove his telephone up his fundament;
they were in the "telegraph" business...)
--
John R. Campbell Speaker to Machines so...@penrij.uucp.jtan.com
"Grace is sufficient so Joy was released." - Heather L. Campbell
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"Henry Spencer" <he...@spsystems.net> wrote in message
news:H87Io...@spsystems.net...
>
> For example, the business-jet builders are starting to attack the low end
> of the airliner market, and quite successfully too, because Boeing and
> Airbus find it only marginally profitable and don't feel any great
> compulsion to fend off competitors there. In another decade or two, the
> big boys may well have abandoned half the airliner market to the
> newcomers, and they *still* won't be worried, because they'll still own
> what they see as the most profitable half...
I think one really needs to rewrite that paragraph and put in Mainframes and
PCs in the appropriate places.
No one really did a great job of challanging IBM in the mainframe
department. They didn't change their ways until a little something called
the PC took off.
I don't think we'll find the first successful commercial passenger craft to
LEO will have much of an ICBM heritage. It'll be something off the wall.
In-flight refueled. SSTO. Siamese twin craft or something. But it won't
be man in a can on top of an artillary shell.
L. Parker
news:av2hu2$8cp$1...@spock.usc.edu...
> mich...@sapiens.com (Michael Moser) writes:
>
>
> Cheap launchers, like any disruptive technology, will have to come either
> from a new corporation or from a corporation not presently in the space
> launch business.
Or from another country willing to spend the bucks to break into the market.
At which time, it will of course, become necessary to dust off all of that
IP and make VentureStar work so that the other country doesn't endanger
LockMart's business...
L. Parker
tj bandrowsky
>
> As others pointed out... dumb for you (taxpayer), or dumb for them?
I nominally vote Republican but when it comes to space whoever
promises to spend the most, that's who gets my vote.
I don't mind politics having weird effects on projects. It's
--going-- to happen. You can't have a developmental team of 5 people
without having politics, unless you've got a very special almost once
in a lifetime group.
It does bother me that Lockheed almost wanted to it fail...
MattWriter
>redundancy in the X-34 systems (it was single string), and told OSC to
>go back and change it. My recollection is that NASA got sticker shock
>when they heard the cost, and cancelled the program instead.
I remember hearing that version of events, but I don not recall where. Does
anyone have a citation for it?
Thanks,
Matt Bille
(MattW...@AOL.com)
OPINIONS IN ALL POSTS ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE AUTHOR
John R. Campbell
> (Like how IT&T told A.G.Bell to shove his telephone up his fundament;
> they were in the "telegraph" business...)
*SMACK*
Ooops, I posted that late at night. It was Western Union.
*SMACK*
L. Parker
schedule and under budget. It was also an exceedingly small budget compared
to X-33.
L. Parker
Rand Simberg
tban...@unitedsoftworks.com (tj bandrowsky) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>> > Really? What was it that they did that was so dumb?
>>
>> As others pointed out... dumb for you (taxpayer), or dumb for them?
>
>I nominally vote Republican but when it comes to space whoever
>promises to spend the most, that's who gets my vote.
That's not a very smart way to make things happen in space. There's
very little correlation between how much money is spent on space
projects, and how successful they are.
Rand Simberg
Parker" <lpa...@cacaphony.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>> Cheap launchers, like any disruptive technology, will have to come either
>> from a new corporation or from a corporation not presently in the space
>> launch business.
>
>Or from another country willing to spend the bucks to break into the market.
>At which time, it will of course, become necessary to dust off all of that
>IP and make VentureStar work so that the other country doesn't endanger
>LockMart's business...
That assumes that VentureStar was a good idea, and if implemented,
could fend off true competition. There's little evidence for that.