http://www.metafilter.com/tags/delta_clipper Posts tagged with 'delta_clipper' at MetaFilter. Sun, 02 Feb 2003 09:30:34 -0800 Sun, 02 Feb 2003 09:30:34 -0800 en-us http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss 60 http://www.metafilter.com/23254/History%2Dof%2DFailed%2DShuttle%2DReplacements So, why hasn't the Shuttle been replaced? Because it hasn't been easy. In the late 80's and early '90s, the cold-war-fantasy-cum-shuttle-replacement was the <a title="Was the NASP really a 21st century strategic bomber or a new Shuttle? probably both..." href="http://www.fas.org/irp/mystery/nasp.htm">X-30 National Aerospace Plane (NASP)</a> that was supposed to take off and land like a plane flying on super-fast <a title="Super combusting ramjets are engines without moving parts that combust fuel-air mixtures flowing at supersonic speeds... yes, it's as hard as it sounds..." href="http://www.aviation-history.com/engines/ramjet.htm">Scramjet engines</a> that, alas, were never really successful... In the late '90s, the New Economy, space-exploration-on-VC-money shuttle replacement was the <a _top title="This link has some nice diagrams and pictures" href="http://www.fas.org/spp/guide/usa/launch/x-33.htm">X-33 VentureStar</a> program which was eventually <a title="Along with the X-33, the less-glamorous but probably more useful X-34 was cancelled as well; the X-34 was an updated version of the Pegasus launch vehicle" href="http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/x33_x34end.htm">cancelled</a>, after a long and turbulent <a title="LONG but detailed and accurate post-mortem of the X-33/VentureStar effort" href="http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6dee564a.0301201205.9ec8fba%40posting.google.com&output=gplain">history</a>. The X-33/VentureStar was one of the most technologically daring machines ever built --albeit <i>too</i> daring. I cannot mention the X-33 without mentioning the ingenious-but-untested <a title="Regular rocket engines perform optimally only at or near sea level; aerospike engines OTOH should perform optimally at any altitude which means a lot less fuel and weight to carry to orbit" href="http://www1.msfc.nasa.gov/NEWSROOM/background/facts/aerospike.html">linear aerospike engine</a> that was going to take it to orbit. If the US is now (again) considering a Shuttle replacement, maybe the <a href="http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/x-33/dc-xa.htm" title="Yes, this spacecraft was actually built at 1/3 scale and flown succesfully, even though it looks like it came off a bad sci-fi movie">Delta Clipper</a> is worth a second look. The DC-X was a competitor for the X-33 program that was eventually scrapped, for <a title="True, the DC-XA exploded on a landing attempt, and there were concerns about its reliance on software for maneuverability; but at least the Clipper flew before it even lost the X-33 competition, whereas the VentureStar didn't, ever..." href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&threadm=34D4FC26.1EAB%40bellsouth.net&rnum=5&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26safe%3Doff%26selm%3D34D4FC26.1EAB%2540bellsouth.net%26rnum%3D5">technological and other reasons</a>. At least the Russians and Europeans liked it so much better than the other New Shuttle options that they <a title="The paper (Google cache) introduces an early version of the ORYOL V7 vehicle (a DC-X knock-off) which was never-built for reasons I couldn't find out; probably cost and reliance on complex avionics that the Russians aren't too comfortable with as a rule" href="http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:cxBJ2Sd87wMC:www.spacefuture.com/archive/a_cost_engineered_launch_vehicle_for_space_tourism.shtml+oryol+rocket&hl=en&ie=UTF-8">copied it</a>. tag:metafilter.com,2003:site.23254 Sun, 02 Feb 2003 09:30:34 -0800 aerospike delta_clipper shuttle space x30 costas