Stratolaunch Systems

[martinbayer]

Just a simple pipe dream, start up the x33 venture star program again and launch it from the stratolaunch.
You can scale up the X33 startweight to 250 tons, so who nows it wil make it to orbit.

The LM X-33 was an engineering abomination with a needlessly complicated non-cylindrical composite liquid hydrogen tank structure that ultimately tanked (pun fully intended) the concept. As I stated before in this forum, the Rockwell concept was the most logical and credible of the X-33 contenders, since it was based on real world Space Shuttle experience and a fairly conventional wing/body design. If you look at the evolution of the competing Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas designs, the Lockheed "Aeroballistic Rocket" over time started sprouting sizeable wings with winglets that belied the lifting body qualities, and both aerodynamic surface and body surface per (squashed instead of circular/cylindrical) body volume grew higher than that of a classical wing body design, while the nominally ballistic son of DC-X all of a sudden also needed wing stubs for reentry - a phenomenon that reappeared on Musk's BFR/Starship as well. I once did a quantitative comparative analysis of the two VTHL X-33 configurations by Rockwell and LM, and the Skunk Works design ended up having a larger combined wing and body wetted area (and associated structural mass) than the classical Rockwell cylindrical body with wings for the same design mission. If you want a sensible POD for an air droppable RLV design, the fairly recently aborted DARPA/Boeing XSP/XS-1 concept, which still had some of the Rockwell X-33 DNA baked into it, is IMHO currently your best bet. Stratolaunch is on the right track with their winged Black Ice concept.

 

[Archibald]

NASA - X-33 fact sheet

 

[abheiden]

Just a simple pipe dream, start up the x33 venture star program again and launch it from the stratolaunch.
You can scale up the X33 startweight to 250 tons, so who nows it wil make it to orbit.

The LM X-33 was an engineering abomination with a needlessly complicated non-cylindrical composite liquid hydrogen tank structure that ultimately tanked (pun fully intended) the concept. As I stated before in this forum, the Rockwell concept was the most logical and credible of the X-33 contenders, since it was based on real world Space Shuttle experience and a fairly conventional wing/body design. If you look at the evolution of the competing Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas designs, the Lockheed "Aeroballistic Rocket" over time started sprouting sizeable wings with winglets that belied the lifting body qualities, and both aerodynamic surface and body surface per (squashed instead of circular/cylindrical) body volume grew higher than that of a classical wing body design, while the nominally ballistic son of DC-X all of a sudden also needed wing stubs for reentry - a phenomenon that reappeared on Musk's BFR/Starship as well. I once did a quantitative comparative analysis of the two VTHL X-33 configurations by Rockwell and LM, and the Skunk Works design ended up having a larger combined wing and body wetted area (and associated structural mass) than the classical Rockwell cylindrical body with wings for the same design mission. If you want a sensible POD for an air droppable RLV design, the fairly recently aborted DARPA/Boeing XSP/XS-1 concept, which still had some of the Rockwell X-33 DNA baked into it, is IMHO currently your best bet. Stratolaunch is on the right track with their winged Black Ice concept.

Well i am not going to the defend the LM X33 here, but to return to the idea to hung it under the Stratolaunch.
The LM X33 had one bonus thing going that it is much more stubby and less bending.
The Rockwell X33 and the XS 1 was much longer cylindrical wich you have to reinforce and add weight much more if you launch it horizontal with loaded fuel tanks from the Stratolaunch.

 

[martinbayer]

Bottom line is that the X-33 was an engineering failure, so I'd rather go with a conventional cylindrical fuselage that may or may not weigh a little more than a pie in the sky lifting body complex multilobe design that demonstrably failed. And if your design fails, it does not matter whether it theoretically has lower bending properties. Once again, note that Stratolaunch has chosen a wing-body design for their Black Ice reusable orbiter concept, and I'm pretty sure they're aware of the whole X-33 saga.

 

[Byeman]

Just a simple pipe dream, start up the x33 venture star program again and launch it from the stratolaunch.
You can scale up the X33 startweight to 250 tons, so who nows it wil make it to orbit.

The LM X-33 was an engineering abomination with a needlessly complicated non-cylindrical composite liquid hydrogen tank structure that ultimately tanked (pun fully intended) the concept. As I stated before in this forum, the Rockwell concept was the most logical and credible of the X-33 contenders, .

Not true

 

[martinbayer]

Just a simple pipe dream, start up the x33 venture star program again and launch it from the stratolaunch.
You can scale up the X33 startweight to 250 tons, so who nows it wil make it to orbit.

The LM X-33 was an engineering abomination with a needlessly complicated non-cylindrical composite liquid hydrogen tank structure that ultimately tanked (pun fully intended) the concept. As I stated before in this forum, the Rockwell concept was the most logical and credible of the X-33 contenders, .

Not true

Taking into account the widely evidenced actual fact records as for example decribed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_X-33, what exactly is your supporting documented evidence for your simpleton unsubstantiated bald-faced two word counter factual assertion?

 

[Byeman]

Just a simple pipe dream, start up the x33 venture star program again and launch it from the stratolaunch.
You can scale up the X33 startweight to 250 tons, so who nows it wil make it to orbit.

The LM X-33 was an engineering abomination with a needlessly complicated non-cylindrical composite liquid hydrogen tank structure that ultimately tanked (pun fully intended) the concept. As I stated before in this forum, the Rockwell concept was the most logical and credible of the X-33 contenders, .

Not true

Taking into account the widely evidenced actual fact records as for example decribed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_X-33, what exactly is your supporting documented evidence for your simpleton unsubstantiated bald-faced two word counter factual assertion?

My statement is just as valid and substantiated as yours that the "Rockwell concept was the most logical and credible".