Unfortunately, that wouldn't have been enough. We're just not able to have lightweight arbitrary-shaped liquid hydrogen tanks right now. Materials science is not yet where it needs to be to make that feasible.Johnbr said:It is to bad that they did not listen to the chief designer that they where not using the right material for the tank.
flateric said:Enjoy! Promo #3 is one of the most idiotic aerospace ads (at least its beginning) that I've ever seen, though
carmelo said:The music of promo-1 is wonderfull!
What is?
starviking said:flateric said:Enjoy! Promo #3 is one of the most idiotic aerospace ads (at least its beginning) that I've ever seen, though
Forget about the 'aerospace' - it may be the most idiotic ad I've ever seen.
bobbymike said:Nothing narrated by the great James Coburn is idiotic
Mr London 24/7 said:Apparent X-33 component assembly:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/firegroundphotos/sets/72157621889436520/with/3770595135/
Gridlock said:This resembles something, but I can't quite put my hands on them...
airrocket said:Unreal waste of NASA tax dollars, to build and invest to that point then just walk away....what happened to the old NASA "failure is not an option". Appears it died with the Apollo program along with the NASA that put men on the moon. Plain to see why NASA of the 21st century is a bankrupt going nowhere pork based job for vote’s grounded program. What a tragic shame and waste of a once great organization.....classic government based organization. None of them should be allowed to exist for over 15 years they become bloated dark holes of endless spending, corruption and inefficiency.
Intended as an operational follow-on to the X-33 suborbital spaceplane technology demonstrator, the single-stage-to-orbit VentureStar never left the drawing board. Skunk Works pitched a mission-ready version, carrying a payload of two Militarized Space Planes and 16 Common Aero Vehicles (warhead-equipped hypersonic gliders), to the Air Force with this 20-inch-long stereo lithograph model, made in 1999.
with this 20-inch-long stereo lithograph model,
abheiden said:does it really shoot does mirvs upward once over target??? or does it roll upside down and shooting it down???
A looong time ago I heard the X-33 carcasse is there too.Had visited the abandon X-33 launch site at EAFB after cancellation.
I completely agree that SSTOs are at the very least impractical with current technology, but the X-33 itself was never intended to go orbital. However, if in the best of universes the Rockwell design would have been picked, built, and successfully flown, you now have a configuration that could in principle serve as a reusable booster as well as orbiter of a fully reusable parallel staged VTHL TSTO RLV, either with optimized stage sizes or even as a (near) bimese.I don't know. Propellant mass fraction is hard. The rocket equation is truly horrible. Chemical rocket sucks. Earth is just a little too big for chemical rockets - Venus size, density and gravity pull would have helped.
Every single parameter in the equation is seemingly pig-headed against us, poor humans.
Musk nailed it perfectly in a few words
"We are living on the wrong planet for SSTO. Mars, no problem." He could have added: Moon and even Venus. Or Mercury.
Had visited the abandon X-33 launch site at EAFB after cancellation.
Could that linear aerospike work better on Phil Bono's very larger saucer HLLV....I could see it between the two vertical fins...perhaps with Big Onion type water landings....except of a skimming sort.
I like the idea of very wide, flat payloads that could offer....even wider than that afforded by OTRAG's largest cluster concept.