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)..."
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.
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.
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