Slashdot Mirror
NASA Shuts Down X-33, X-34 Programs
abde writes: "Sad news on Space.com -- NASA has canceled the X-33 reusable launch vehicle program due to cost overruns and severe budget cuts. Looks like we are stuck with the aging Space Shuttle [?] and NASA has relinquished the quest for cheap space launch capability. But hey, at least rich people get a tax cut (even if they don't want one)..."
Government involvment in space exploration is a good thing...
I'm all for corporations getting involved in space, but without NASA real science will cease. Why? It makes no immediate financial sense. NEAR? Forget it, no one will go to a Gap on Eros. Pathfinder? Forget it, people want the SUVs, not the rover.
Without NASA, we'd have never gone to the moon. We'd not have had Hubble. WE'D NEVER KNOW IF ANTS COULD SORT TINY SCREWS IN SPACE!!!
The very least they could do is send that money to education, instead of spending it on some other frivolous cause.. More than likely that moeny will go to our wonderfully worthless space defense system. I know! Let's void treaties with our allies to protect ourselves against a non-existant threat!!
end communication
While you make a good point, it's just... wrong to use the word rich as you are using it, and the fact the media uses it that way is not an excuse. True rich people don't pay taxes, to any significant degree. They have accountants and lawyers and investments and lots of write-offs and loopholes - they aren't people that work for a good salary, they are people that have so much money IT supports them.
The people that pay the most taxes, and thus the ones that benefit most from tax cuts, are not rich people - they are upper middle-class people that work for a living at well above average wages. They are usually professionals that have worked their way to the top of their field, senior database analysts, network admins, engineers, etc. Lumping them together with people that never need to work, that make far more money than they are likely to ever even see, simply by sitting on their arse and letting their money work for them, is bizaare and I dare say absurd.
Sure, a guy that makes say, 100-160k/year is better off than the guy flipping burgers - but he's a world away from folks like Buffet, Turner, Gates or Bush. And he's the one shouldering the tax burden - not them.
"That old saw about the early bird just goes to show that the worm should have stayed in bed."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Refurbishing the vehicles can only go so far - the original design was a test and we've never moved beyond it. We've learnt a lot about high-performance hydrogen motors, thermal insulation, airframe requirements, etc. but it's all for naught if none of it is ever applied to a version two.
Limiting the Shuttle fleet to 6 flights a year won't help things much. Sure it's less wear & tear but they're still getting long in the tooth and could be greatly improved on. Unfortunately there's been a requirement for some sort of great-leap-forward when really much of what's required is a simple evolution and refinement.
Much of the basic question of course is why we're in space and what our goals are. I (and yes I'm not alone on this, no need for a poll) believe that there's incredible opportunity there. I also believe that a national program is a good because many of the costs are larger then industry is willing to pay (most of the supposed privatization is pay-us-we'll-do-it-for-you.)
I don't entirely believe the folks that claim privatization is the solution-to-all-problems (Ride British railways lately? Electricity in California?) If commercial space flight truly *is* viable then why aren't more companies investing their own dollars into it and not trying to pry open the public purse?
This seems one of those areas that public investment will yield benefits for everyone, much like hydro projects and managed public lands. Too big & long-term for companies to pursue independently but suited to governments.
I don't see it being too long before we'll be able to 'capture' one of the closer asteroids (presumably one whose orbit brings it near to Earth) and eventually steer it someplace convenient. with it in place as a source of material we'd be able to construct nifty things like cost-effective power satellites and tele-operated mining & refining of materials for use on Earth.
All of this requires however that we have a reasonable means of getting reliably and regularly to at least low Earth orbit and that is slowly slipping through our fingers. We know there's something like a .1% chance of an accident every launch, with only 4 aging orbiters we're putting a lot of eggs in very few baskets.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
I'm hoping that the Military will atleast get its act together and militarize space properly. We need obiting battlecrusiers. :)
The military is what kicked the airline industry into high gear. Before World War II, the airline industry was struggling to stay afloat transporting a few thousand passengers a year in old biplanes, hoping they didn't crash too often.
After WWII, the airlines got to use all the aircraft technology developed during the war. The first post-war airliners were converted bombers, which were larger, faster and more efficient. The airlines were now capable of the holy grail of Making Money! The military is much more interested in efficient development and use of technology, since the consequences of inefficiency are high (being blown to smithereens.) If the military decided they needed a much larger presence in space (for missile defense for instance,) chances are a cheap launch vehicle would be developed in a hurry. A few years later, the military technology would trickle down to the civilian market and we would have cheap spaceliners.
This almost makes me want a good Cold War style arms race between the U.S. and China, if it weren't for the risk of nuclear Armageddon. If Dubya decides to build a missile defense system, China and Russia would respond by building zillions of ICBMs, which would prompt the US to improve the missile defense, creating a higher demand for space launches, thus necessitating the development of a cheap, reusable, reliable, high-turnaround launch vehicle. Hopefully the civilian market for launches, manned spaceflight and colonization will develop before someone presses the Button.
Meldroc, Waster of Electrons
I actually would not even grace it that much. Reality check (with statistics from Time/Newsweek etc):
;-) (C'mon... I dare ya).
Myth: The poor pay most of the taxes in America
Reality: The lower classes in america do not pay any taxes. As you go up, the tax burden goes up.
Just look at the tax cut. The bottom run of the tax scheme goes from 15%->10%, a 33% cut. The top rung goes from 36%->33% about a 9% cut. Further realize that only about ~120 million american's even pay taxes in the first place. The others actually get money back, even though they never paid anything.
Myth: But they just deduct everything.
Reality: Ever heard of the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax?)The AMT is an amount that you can not deduct under, and as usual, it is a very high number in the higher brackets.
Here is a good argument about the mostly liberal billionairs that spoke up. The wealthy are conservitive, but right now, no changes is a liberal position.
BTW, Boeing and Lockheed Martin are about to loose the JSF. GE did make a bonaza on the air market a few years back, but that's clinton's territory, the defense industry is getting ready for another round of base cuts, and budget cuts (Bush's new money goes to get our millitary people off of food stamps... yes you read that right).
BTW, the Economist has a pretty good write up.
BTW, one of the things that Bush is trying to do is get rid of the hump in the tax code between 20k and 27k where there is strangly a 31% tax, surrounding two 16-16% ranges. Oh... yes.. now I remember why that is there, so the poor stay poor.
As for the rest and the entire argument about "payroll taxes" thoose taxes are social security and medicare, programs that are completly seperate. If you don't like that tax, repeal Social Security
Why should there be a tax cut? The percent of the GDP that is being eaten is the highest it has ever been.
But hey, at least rich people get a tax cut (even if they don't want one)..."
Not sure whether this is offtopic or a troll, but it's definitely not relevant to NASA. As someone pointed out, NASA got a 3% funding increase this year--the first in 7 years. I fail to see how Bush's tax plan has anything to do with the cancellation of X-33, X-34.
That said, the people trashing Bush's plan seem to have no knowledge of economics. First of all, really rich (and even some moderately rich) people will be unaffected by the plan. They already dodge estate and income taxes through tax loopholes and offshore investments, etc. I know this because my ex-girlfriend's parents sheltered a good chunk of money in Luxembourg, and now live happily on their yacht without paying any substantial taxes. If they die, no estate tax will touch any of that money. The only thing affected will be their house. In other words, with an estate tax, if you're rich and you want to leave a fortune to your kids, no problem. If you want to bequeath your farm or family home, tough luck.
So who does benefit from the tax cut? The middle class, primarily, especially professionals earning in the $50K - $150K range. Lower income people do benefit, too, just not as much.
Finally, I suggest you study the Laffer Curve to see why tax cuts can actually increase net tax revenue, as they did during the Reagan years. "What?" the liberals shriek, "the deficit increased during the 80's!" Yes, but that's because spending drastically increased. Tax revenues actually increased in response to tax cuts, just not enough to keep up with spending (Reagan poured tons of money into the military in an effort to win the Cold War). Look up the stats if you don't believe me.
One word: inflation. A budget increase of 3% is meaningless if inflation has increased by more than that amount over the past seven years (the time span since their last budget increase).
I expect a number of people will be distressed at this. I am not. The Space Station was an ill-designed nightmare. The US space program desperately needs on-orbit assembly capability. To do that we need space suits that don't require pre-breathing before use. NASA has known this for 20 years, and has had such suit designs available since 1980. I have a signature in my log book of a NASA test subject in a 12 psi above ambient suit, signed after about 6 hours in it, attesting to general comfort. Of course he was a 22 year old rigger not a 45 year old Ph.D. which is what NASA sends up. The whole manned space program is a shambles because we don't have decent suits.
Without on orbit assembly capability -- I mean real work in space done by riggers who can do a day's work -- things have to be pre-assembled and taken up in big chunks, which means shuttle which means a BILLION DOLLARS A FLIGHT for 50,000 pounds or so. What we need is 20 million a flight for 10,000 pounds and that would be achievable but "there is no urgent need for that" because -- well because the stupid space station ate it all. The shuttle and the space station ate the dream. Make no mistake about that. Those monsters need to GO and be replaced by smaller, operations driven, flexible re-usable designs.
- - -
In 1989 Gen. Daniel Graham, Max Hunter, and Jerry Pournelle went to then Chairman of the National Space Council VP Dan Quayle and persuaded him to start a small reusable rocket program. That became the DC/X and the concept was proved with 11 successful USAF flights before NASA took it over and destroyed in on the first flight, thus eliminating any threat to the Shuttle.
A fuller discussion of all of this by the same author is found here, entitled "Why Have NASA?"
But the bottom line is that NASA has gone the way of the boondoggle, and may in fact be committed to a body of technology that is in fact stopping us from getting the show on the road.
Gee, but this sounds very familiar in a slightly different context.
Understand, I want them to get going, and do it right. But are they going about it all wrong?
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
I am tired of all the DC-X supporters here: the DC-X was an unbelievably cool idea that was executed well, but had one major flaw: no failsafe, no possibility of recovery in case of failure (parachutes don't work if you're close to the ground) which was demonstrated by the loss of the DC-Y.
Now, the X-33 (I forget LM's moniker pre-approval) could glide back into earth, had craploads of power to get to orbit, and if successful, the technologies that would have been developed around it, would have revolutionized space travel (the aerospike engine would be enough).
The curse of the X-33 was those damn cryogenic tanks and that old foe of aero engineers: center of gravity. The X-33 is basically a triangle, with a CG at about 2/3 of the way back. Now, if those cryo tanks need to work, they need to be big and strong. And where can you fit big, heavy tanks? in the back of the plane of course, which will cause the CG to move even further back, say 70-75% of the fuselage length. That's, for all intents and purposes, unflyable.
However, the X-33 did develop some kick-ass new thermal tiles, it proved the concept of the aerospike engine and it will still give us great technology for the next generation of spacecraft. What was basically disproven (and it was its demise) was lifting-body spacecraft (that CG thing again).
My guess: Rockwell's entry to the old X-33 competition, which was basically an updated Space Shuttle, would have been the prudent, conservative choice. If that idea is combined with what NASA can salvage from the X-33 technologies (aerospike, monocoque design, thermal tiles) the 3rd generation (in effect) shuttle will simply kick ass.
I believe that most people (excluding /.) are not as interested in space anymore. Granted, there are those who salivate over the idea of mining asteroids and getting rich, but the general public really doesn't give a hoot about space. Space used to be a nationalistic thing. The moon landing (which did occur) is probably the one thing that really brought together the US as one nation. Since then, there's been interest in space, but it has been dwindling. Truly, there haven't been any large media events attributed to space, with the exception of the International Space Station.
But go out into the general public (which doesn't include /.) and I'll be you that there'll be more than one person who believes that tax dollars would be better spent on education and civil services than on space.
The government does have some business in space, but as of late, there have been a large number of private corporations that, I believe, will take over getting people and things into space and onto other celestial bodies. The government already depends on private contractors (Boeing, Lockheed-Martin), and it very well may relinquish its space influence to legislation.
However, I am all for space exploration, because once we kill Earth off with the various negative global influences, we're going to have to find somewhere else to live.
But hey, at least rich people get a tax cut (even if they don't want one)..."
From the article:
The decision to terminate both X-33 and X-34 were made internally by NASA and were not a White House decision, Stephenson said.
Just because you don't like the current administration doesnt mean that they are the root of all things evil, hell NASA just got its first budget increase in 7 Years. They felt that the funding nessecarry to fix what was obviously a flawed design from the beginning, could be put to better use on other projects.
NASA should be applauded for wanting to put thier funds where it could be more effective instead of throwing money at a project that doesn't work.
But hey, at least rich people get a tax cut (even if they don't want one)..."
So who is this mighty Timothy who deigns us with his apparently oh-so-correct opinion? Is it fair the wealthy pay more % in tax then you? Why? For what earthly reason? Or are we simply assuming they deserve to pay more simply because they must have obtained it through some improper means?
I come from a farm background, and if you look at the balance sheet (including assets) we would probably be classified as 'wealthy' to you. Does that mean it's fair we have to fork over 70% of those assets to the government if my father dies? Is it fair we are paying ~45%+ in taxes compared to your measly ~33%?
I seriously suggest you go somewhere and take your foot out of your ass.. and while you're there consider what actually makes our capitalist sociecty (in the US) actually work. If you continue to punish the wealthy you will stifly any true progress in this country (I would dare say we see some of that currently).
OBPotshot: Go tell Linus he owes more taxes. Doubt he'll give you a peck on the cheek.
.. but I'm only a dumb hick, so what do I know, right?
-'fester
You do, of course, realize that it was because a private venture failed that the X-33 was canned. Lockheed-Martin couldn't keep its contractual obligations, so NASA cut them off. So much for our savior, the private sector.
"The overall budget request is $14 billion, up from the $13.6 billion NASA got last year -- the first increase for the agency in seven years."
See!!! It's an increase, not a cut. Someone needs to go back to school and learn math. Not only is it an increase, it's the first one in 7 YEARS!!!!
But Nasa realized that they need to do a better job of spending their money, so they axed programs that were going nowhere fast.
Irrelevant. Government work done by private corporations is still government work. If Lockheed-Martin had been working on the X-33 with an aim towards using it for profit, rather than using it for getting money from the government, they'd have a much bigger reason to make the thing work right.
:-)
Well, speaking as a private contractor that works very closely with NASA, I can assure you that there is plenty of incentive to "make the thing work right." Beyond the ordinary professional pride, there's also this whole issue about bungling contractors having little chance to get future contracts.
At any rate, it just irks me when people (not you) try to portray NASA as some sort of Cash Black Hole where the taxpayers' money is sucked in, never to be seen again. The majority of that money is pumped right back out into the private sector.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
>But americans are "ignorant" - they haven't received a good education, they simply don't know stuff, because they haven't been told, or they haven't asked, or whatever.
Ignorant? Why you dad-blasted commie sumbitch faggit! We 'merkans aren't ignorant. We knew enough to come over here and kick the injuns off our God-given land (otta send 'em all back to Africa if you ask me!), and kicked the English off our God-given land (and whooped 'em again in Dubya Dubya 2!) and created the greatest nation in the world. If yer so dern smart, how comes Eye-re-land is still owned by the Russkies!?
Ignorant? That's the dern stoopidest thing I heard since Canada became a state. You otta stay in Eye-re-land with all those other commie pinkos and sit and eat weener schnitzel and surrender to Germans or whatever it is you do over in that sissy part of the world with yer pronography and yer wimmen with hairy armpits and eatin' snails and whatever.
Ignorant? It's a good thing you ain't here, 'cos me a Smith and Wesson got a few words for people like you. At least in 'merka we don't have no sissy king or queen or whatever. We got President Dubya, a real man with real principials and integruity... and if you don't like it we can just shove a noo-cyoo-lar missile up your nose like we shooda done to Saddom an' Kadoffy an' Hitler an' Krooshef an' George III....
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.