[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
starship-design: Fwd: Articale on the status of the X-33 program.
In a message dated 3/20/00 10:29:41 AM, kgstarks@crnotes.collins.rockwell.com
writes:
>
>
>Articale on the status of the X-33 program. Aerospike engines are working
>great. Heat tiles were certified a year ago. BUT the composite hydrogen
>tank
>is considered a near write off. Without the composite tank VentureStar
>was
>thought to be impractical. Lockheed now thinks it might be doable with
>Aluminum, but some in congress are geting upset. Course its Gores baby,
>so
>expect the Whitehouse tand dems to defend it.
> ;/
>
>http://www.orlandosentinel.com/automagic/news/2000-03-19/NWSSPACE19031900.htm
l
>
>Will it fly? A
> drawing shows how
> the X-33 would look
> in flight.
>
> LOCKHEED MARTIN
>
> Rocket ship of future still
> grounded by problems
>
> Michael Cabbage
> Sentinel Space Editor
>
> Published in The Orlando Sentinel on March 19, 2000
>
> CAPE CANAVERAL -- Nobody thought building the
> prototype for a revolutionary new spaceship was going
> to be easy.
>
> But few suspected that four years after winning a $941
> million contract from the National Aeronautics and
> Space Administration, Lockheed Martin's troubled
> X-33 project might still be another two years from
> flying. In fact, there is growing concern about whether
> the wedge-shaped experimental craft will ever fly.
>
> A new technology once billed as the key to the
> ambitious program is on the verge of being abandoned.
> The project is running out of money. And additional
> government funds could be delayed by election-year
> politics.
>
> As a result, the dream seems more distant than ever that
> X-33 might evolve into VentureStar -- a full-scale
> reusable vehicle designed to take off and land similar
>to
> the space shuttle, but without jettisoning spent boosters
> or fuel tanks. Touted as a potential replacement for the
> shuttle, a privately owned VentureStar fleet could cut
> current launch costs up to 90 percent. That's if it gets
> built.
>
> Fifteen states continue to jockey for two planned
> VentureStar launch and landing sites despite the
> program's uncertain future. Many, however, including
> Florida, are hedging their bets. What began as
> campaigns to land VentureStar have broadened into
> more generic efforts to bring home any next-generation
> vehicle.
>
> "Whether VentureStar goes the course or we end up
> with a new vehicle remains to be seen," said Edward
> O'Connor, executive director of Spaceport Florida
> Authority. "VentureStar was always considered by us to
> be a very aggressive program."
>
> Part of that aggressive program calls for flight testing
> cutting-edge technologies on X-33 once deemed critical
> to making VentureStar work: lightweight fuel tanks made
> of a graphite composite material, advanced rocket
> engines and new metallic heat tiles designed to protect
> the ship during its fiery return through Earth's
> atmosphere. The tiles were cleared for flight last year.
>
> The liquid-hydrogen fuel tanks originally were
> considered the breakthrough the project hinged on,
> crucial to making VentureStar light enough to reach orbit
> as a single-stage rocket. They have proved to be the
> biggest headache.
>
> After months of delays caused by manufacturing
> problems, one of X-33's fuel tanks was flown to
> NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama last
> April for checkout. On Nov. 3, the tank's outer skin
> fractured and split open along a seam during testing.
> X-33's long-delayed first flight -- scheduled for this
>July
> -- was postponed again, probably until 2002.
>
> Program managers have begun piecing together a
> recovery plan in recent weeks to cope with the setback.
> But the failure investigation has dragged on for months
> amid concerns by NASA administrator Dan Goldin that
> the report was being rushed. The latest release date is
> near the end of March.
>
> Preliminary findings are being kept under wraps. But
> NASA sources told The Orlando Sentinel the tank
> failure was caused by a combination of forces: pressure
> applied to the tank's exterior, internal fuel pressure
>and a
> phenomenon known as cryopumping.
>
> The tanks are made of several layers bonded together
> like a sandwich. Engineers theorize that during the test,
> air was drawn through permeable parts of the skin and
> collected between layers. That air then was liquefied by
> super-cold temperatures needed to keep the hydrogen
> fuel in a liquid state. When the tank warmed after being
> drained of fuel at the test's conclusion, the trapped liquid
> air boiled off, creating pressure between the layers.
>
> In addition, more than a dozen pneumatic jacks applied
> pressure to the outside of the tank to simulate loads from
> an adjacent liquid oxygen tank. Plus, the inside of the
> tank was pressurized with 29,000 gallons of frigid liquid
> hydrogen. The tank's composite material couldn't handle
> all the stresses.
>
> Lockheed Martin already has redesigned VentureStar to
> use heavier but proven aluminum tanks because of
> X-33's problems and the lack of facilities large enough
> to build a full-scale composite tank. Besides being less
> risky, the switch to aluminum could have other
> advantages.
>
> Aluminum tanks could be built to more precisely fill the
> spacecraft's interior volume, meaning less wasted space
> and more room for fuel. And protective heat tiles could
> be bonded directly to the aluminum, reducing weight.
> The result could be enough weight savings to still allow
>a
> single-stage spacecraft.
>
> Lockheed Martin has not announced a move to
> aluminum tanks on X-33 yet, although a source close to
> the project told the Sentinel the switch was imminent.
> Mark Messick, composite structures manager for tank
> subcontractor Alliant Techsystems, said no final decision
> has been made. He remains optimistic a composite-tank
> design could work.
>
> "I think the lessons learned can get us there," Messick
> said.
>
> While project managers grapple with the tank problem,
> tests on another critical system, X-33's rocket engines,
> have gone remarkably well. Unlike standard engines that
> direct thrust with bell-shaped nozzles, X-33's engines
> feature two rows of small combustion chambers that fire
> down the sides of a V-shaped ramp or spike.
>
> A test aerospike engine has been fired 10 times so far
>at
> NASA's Stennis Space Center in Mississippi. A
> software glitch shut down a March 9 firing early, but
> other tests have been mostly trouble-free. After at least
> five more firings of the experimental engine, technicians
> plan to mate X-33's two flight engines and begin testing
> them around July.
>
> "Everybody is not just pleasantly surprised, but it's
> beyond our wildest expectations," said Pat Mooney,
> X-33's project manager at Stennis.
>
> Despite good news on the engines, Lockheed Martin
> officials are concerned X-33 still won't eliminate enough
> technical risk to justify sinking an estimated $7.2 billion
> of company funds into a fleet of VentureStars.
> Discussions are under way on a possible X-33B project
> to serve as a stepping stone.
>
> Under the plan, X-33 would be upgraded after it
> completes its test-flight program. Possible add-ons
> include new ramps for the aerospike engines, improved
> computer systems, lighter-weight heat shielding and
> more sophisticated monitoring of the spacecraft's
> systems.
>
> The company would finance X-33B work through a
> NASA initiative aimed at developing new technologies
> for next-generation vehicles. NASA plans to spend $4.5
> billion on the program during the next five years,
> although Goldin told Congress last week that the
> initiative would be one of the first things scaled back
>if
> the space agency's budget is cut.
>
> There are far more immediate financial worries for
> X-33, however. NASA already has paid Lockheed
> Martin almost 90 percent of the contract's money. No
> new funds are earmarked in NASA's proposed 2001
> budget.
>
> Lockheed Martin and its industry partners have kicked
> in $365 million and are committed to spending $50
> million more this year and an additional $50 million in
> 2001 -- if progress justifies it. But under the terms of
>the
> X-33 agreement, the company can walk away at any
> time.
>
> To cover the expense of building aluminum fuel tanks,
> Lockheed Martin reportedly has asked NASA to
> advance the company the remaining $115 million in the
> contract. But about $75 million is award money tied to
> successful completion of up to 15 suborbital test flights,
> technology demonstrations and quick launch
> turnarounds.
>
> "From what I understand, there have been some friendly
> discussions on Capitol Hill about that as long as
> Lockheed Martin is willing to do its share," said Robert
> Walker, a former chairman of the House science
> committee who now lobbies Congress on behalf of
> VentureStar.
>
> Not everyone has signed on, however. Some in
> Congress are still steamed by a report from the General
> Accounting Office last August that found X-33 was over
> budget, behind schedule and wouldn't meet its original
> goals. Others want to see progress before shelling out
> more taxpayer dollars.
>
> "The time has come that we don't spend any more
> money on this project until Lockheed Martin has proved
> the project can be successful," said Dana Rohrabacher,
> R-Calif., the influential chairman of the House's space
> subcommittee. "Lockheed Martin is a profitable
> company. It obviously had confidence it could do what it
> claimed it could do. It's now time for it to prove to us
> that it can."
>
> Election-year politics also could factor into the debate.
> Vice President Al Gore, the Democratic presidential
> nominee, has been closely associated with X-33 from
> the start. Gore participated in the selection process and
> personally announced the contract award in 1996.
>
> As a result, the Clinton administration and NASA are
> expected to step up efforts to keep the project on track.
> But the Republican-controlled Congress could oppose
> any deals until after the November election to make the
> troubled program a campaign issue.
>
> That effort may already be under way.
>
> "This is Al Gore's baby, and it's not flying," Rohrabacher
> said. "He's the one who unveiled it. He's the one who
> selected it. He's the one who dominated the process,
> and it doesn't work."
>
> "Gore's eccentricities in space will certainly be an issue."
>
> Posted Mar 18 2000 9:45PM
---- Begin included message ----
Articale on the status of the X-33 program. Aerospike engines are working
great. Heat tiles were certified a year ago. BUT the composite hydrogen tank
is considered a near write off. Without the composite tank VentureStar was
thought to be impractical. Lockheed now thinks it might be doable with
Aluminum, but some in congress are geting upset. Course its Gores baby, so
expect the Whitehouse tand dems to defend it.
;/
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/automagic/news/2000-03-19/NWSSPACE19031900.html
Will it fly? A
drawing shows how
the X-33 would look
in flight.
LOCKHEED MARTIN
Rocket ship of future still
grounded by problems
Michael Cabbage
Sentinel Space Editor
Published in The Orlando Sentinel on March 19, 2000
CAPE CANAVERAL -- Nobody thought building the
prototype for a revolutionary new spaceship was going
to be easy.
But few suspected that four years after winning a $941
million contract from the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, Lockheed Martin's troubled
X-33 project might still be another two years from
flying. In fact, there is growing concern about whether
the wedge-shaped experimental craft will ever fly.
A new technology once billed as the key to the
ambitious program is on the verge of being abandoned.
The project is running out of money. And additional
government funds could be delayed by election-year
politics.
As a result, the dream seems more distant than ever that
X-33 might evolve into VentureStar -- a full-scale
reusable vehicle designed to take off and land similar to
the space shuttle, but without jettisoning spent boosters
or fuel tanks. Touted as a potential replacement for the
shuttle, a privately owned VentureStar fleet could cut
current launch costs up to 90 percent. That's if it gets
built.
Fifteen states continue to jockey for two planned
VentureStar launch and landing sites despite the
program's uncertain future. Many, however, including
Florida, are hedging their bets. What began as
campaigns to land VentureStar have broadened into
more generic efforts to bring home any next-generation
vehicle.
"Whether VentureStar goes the course or we end up
with a new vehicle remains to be seen," said Edward
O'Connor, executive director of Spaceport Florida
Authority. "VentureStar was always considered by us to
be a very aggressive program."
Part of that aggressive program calls for flight testing
cutting-edge technologies on X-33 once deemed critical
to making VentureStar work: lightweight fuel tanks made
of a graphite composite material, advanced rocket
engines and new metallic heat tiles designed to protect
the ship during its fiery return through Earth's
atmosphere. The tiles were cleared for flight last year.
The liquid-hydrogen fuel tanks originally were
considered the breakthrough the project hinged on,
crucial to making VentureStar light enough to reach orbit
as a single-stage rocket. They have proved to be the
biggest headache.
After months of delays caused by manufacturing
problems, one of X-33's fuel tanks was flown to
NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama last
April for checkout. On Nov. 3, the tank's outer skin
fractured and split open along a seam during testing.
X-33's long-delayed first flight -- scheduled for this July
-- was postponed again, probably until 2002.
Program managers have begun piecing together a
recovery plan in recent weeks to cope with the setback.
But the failure investigation has dragged on for months
amid concerns by NASA administrator Dan Goldin that
the report was being rushed. The latest release date is
near the end of March.
Preliminary findings are being kept under wraps. But
NASA sources told The Orlando Sentinel the tank
failure was caused by a combination of forces: pressure
applied to the tank's exterior, internal fuel pressure and a
phenomenon known as cryopumping.
The tanks are made of several layers bonded together
like a sandwich. Engineers theorize that during the test,
air was drawn through permeable parts of the skin and
collected between layers. That air then was liquefied by
super-cold temperatures needed to keep the hydrogen
fuel in a liquid state. When the tank warmed after being
drained of fuel at the test's conclusion, the trapped liquid
air boiled off, creating pressure between the layers.
In addition, more than a dozen pneumatic jacks applied
pressure to the outside of the tank to simulate loads from
an adjacent liquid oxygen tank. Plus, the inside of the
tank was pressurized with 29,000 gallons of frigid liquid
hydrogen. The tank's composite material couldn't handle
all the stresses.
Lockheed Martin already has redesigned VentureStar to
use heavier but proven aluminum tanks because of
X-33's problems and the lack of facilities large enough
to build a full-scale composite tank. Besides being less
risky, the switch to aluminum could have other
advantages.
Aluminum tanks could be built to more precisely fill the
spacecraft's interior volume, meaning less wasted space
and more room for fuel. And protective heat tiles could
be bonded directly to the aluminum, reducing weight.
The result could be enough weight savings to still allow a
single-stage spacecraft.
Lockheed Martin has not announced a move to
aluminum tanks on X-33 yet, although a source close to
the project told the Sentinel the switch was imminent.
Mark Messick, composite structures manager for tank
subcontractor Alliant Techsystems, said no final decision
has been made. He remains optimistic a composite-tank
design could work.
"I think the lessons learned can get us there," Messick
said.
While project managers grapple with the tank problem,
tests on another critical system, X-33's rocket engines,
have gone remarkably well. Unlike standard engines that
direct thrust with bell-shaped nozzles, X-33's engines
feature two rows of small combustion chambers that fire
down the sides of a V-shaped ramp or spike.
A test aerospike engine has been fired 10 times so far at
NASA's Stennis Space Center in Mississippi. A
software glitch shut down a March 9 firing early, but
other tests have been mostly trouble-free. After at least
five more firings of the experimental engine, technicians
plan to mate X-33's two flight engines and begin testing
them around July.
"Everybody is not just pleasantly surprised, but it's
beyond our wildest expectations," said Pat Mooney,
X-33's project manager at Stennis.
Despite good news on the engines, Lockheed Martin
officials are concerned X-33 still won't eliminate enough
technical risk to justify sinking an estimated $7.2 billion
of company funds into a fleet of VentureStars.
Discussions are under way on a possible X-33B project
to serve as a stepping stone.
Under the plan, X-33 would be upgraded after it
completes its test-flight program. Possible add-ons
include new ramps for the aerospike engines, improved
computer systems, lighter-weight heat shielding and
more sophisticated monitoring of the spacecraft's
systems.
The company would finance X-33B work through a
NASA initiative aimed at developing new technologies
for next-generation vehicles. NASA plans to spend $4.5
billion on the program during the next five years,
although Goldin told Congress last week that the
initiative would be one of the first things scaled back if
the space agency's budget is cut.
There are far more immediate financial worries for
X-33, however. NASA already has paid Lockheed
Martin almost 90 percent of the contract's money. No
new funds are earmarked in NASA's proposed 2001
budget.
Lockheed Martin and its industry partners have kicked
in $365 million and are committed to spending $50
million more this year and an additional $50 million in
2001 -- if progress justifies it. But under the terms of the
X-33 agreement, the company can walk away at any
time.
To cover the expense of building aluminum fuel tanks,
Lockheed Martin reportedly has asked NASA to
advance the company the remaining $115 million in the
contract. But about $75 million is award money tied to
successful completion of up to 15 suborbital test flights,
technology demonstrations and quick launch
turnarounds.
"From what I understand, there have been some friendly
discussions on Capitol Hill about that as long as
Lockheed Martin is willing to do its share," said Robert
Walker, a former chairman of the House science
committee who now lobbies Congress on behalf of
VentureStar.
Not everyone has signed on, however. Some in
Congress are still steamed by a report from the General
Accounting Office last August that found X-33 was over
budget, behind schedule and wouldn't meet its original
goals. Others want to see progress before shelling out
more taxpayer dollars.
"The time has come that we don't spend any more
money on this project until Lockheed Martin has proved
the project can be successful," said Dana Rohrabacher,
R-Calif., the influential chairman of the House's space
subcommittee. "Lockheed Martin is a profitable
company. It obviously had confidence it could do what it
claimed it could do. It's now time for it to prove to us
that it can."
Election-year politics also could factor into the debate.
Vice President Al Gore, the Democratic presidential
nominee, has been closely associated with X-33 from
the start. Gore participated in the selection process and
personally announced the contract award in 1996.
As a result, the Clinton administration and NASA are
expected to step up efforts to keep the project on track.
But the Republican-controlled Congress could oppose
any deals until after the November election to make the
troubled program a campaign issue.
That effort may already be under way.
"This is Al Gore's baby, and it's not flying," Rohrabacher
said. "He's the one who unveiled it. He's the one who
selected it. He's the one who dominated the process,
and it doesn't work."
"Gore's eccentricities in space will certainly be an issue."
Posted Mar 18 2000 9:45PM
---- End included message ----