Salvaging X-33
- From: "stork" <tbandrow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 28 Jul 2005 12:26:31 -0700
In the late 1990s, the much balleyhooed X-33 heralded a potentially
workable SSTO world. This project was ultimately cancelled for the
primary reason of a failure in the composite cryogenic tanks.
X-33 was maligned by many for trying out too many technologies at once.
One has to ask, are some of these technologies salvagable? Did we
throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Let's pretend for a minute that I was a mega billionaire and wanted to
restart X-33 and build the VentureStar. I would of course be able to
make any design change I wished. What to do different?
a) Lockheed had proposed using Aluminum - Lithium tanks instead of the
composite tanks. Could the craft have flown with alumninum lithium
tanks instead? Or, could the composite tanks have worked if they were
built by someone that had greater experience in working with composites
- ala, Scaled Composites.
b) How sound is the X-33 TPS? They claim a new thermal protection
system that seems on paper a lot more robust than the present tiles
that grace the shuttle.
c) Whatever came of the linear aerospike engine? Should I use linear
aerospike, which is a radically new technology, or should I instead go
with the tried and true SSME?
d) The shape of the X-33 and Venture Star is a basic lifting body.
What if I wanted to make the aircraft more like a conventional delta
wing jet so that I could operate it off of a runway for takeoff?
Thanks!
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Shuttle ET foam shedding fix?
- Next by Date: Re: NASA grounds future shuttle flights
- Previous by thread: s.s.p. big branes, a call for a refresher course
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
