Slashdot Mirror
NASA's X-37
jacobm wrote with a story about the NASA/Boeing project. Called
the X-37, it's not like other X-class planes - it can actually stay in orbit. The purpose of the plane is to test "new reusable rocket technologies".
Apparently, it designed to reach only a mere Mach 25, but a Boeing VP says another goal is to make
space travel as affordable as travelling by plane. The article also includes a neat little insert with pictures of the other X-class planes.
Of the projects you mentioned...
Some were failures. NASP spent years in development, and was eventually given up as infeasable as designed. Perhaps the same should have happened with the shuttle. But the others...
DC-X (aka Delta Clipper) was not originally a government project, but rather a privately funded testbed. The DC-X was built as a proof-of-concept, to show that the idea had merit, then the companies involved went looking for money for step two (of three), the DC-Y. Neither the DC-X nor the DC-Y were designed or intended to be orbital -- that would have been the third step.
When no money was forthcoming, NASA bought it, and tested it to (unintentional) destruction -- a landing strut failed on the planned final landing, causing the vehicle to fall over and burn. It successfully served its function as a testbed and proof-of-concept vehicle.
The DC-Y was pitched as a potential candidate for the X-33 project, but was turned down in favor of the Lockheed project. X-33 is also supposed to be a testbed, instead of an orbital vehicle. It's goal is not to -be- the Shuttle replacement, but to be a prototype for the RLV.
Similarly, the X-34 appears to again be a testbed and demonstrator, not an cheap-to-orbit vehicle. The X-37 is also a testbed, not a cheap-to-orbit vehicle.
I expect that the various technologies pioneered and tested in these various projects will be used in future full-scale project. Those projects will likely have lower development and operating costs because when they are designed and built, we will -know- what will work already, rather than trying to forge lots of new ground.
In a way, I think that NASA learned from the Shuttle and NASP projects. Instead of one giant, expensive, project like the Shuttle or NASP, which are great if they work, and a big boondoggle if they don't, they are funding many less expensive, demonstration projects, each with modest goals. If they fail, it's less of a problem, and they've spend less money to find out what doesn't work.
The biggest reason is because there's no real need to do so. NASA doesn't want to spend the time needed to strip the insulation off the tank safely, and if noone else does it, it will flake off, providing a massive debris hazard.
the Shuttle is cool and all, but its not designed NEARLY as well as it should have been imho. Too expensive for what it does!
The shuttle design process was full of tradeoffs... the decision to go with solid boosters a prime one. Still, it represents the triumph of 1970s technology.
As for publicity... there's a reason why they bumped up the next mission so it launches on the 20th. (Most shuttle missions launch on Thursday, BTW... so they can do a 3 day countdown w/o overtime. This one's going up on a Tuesday, and the 30th anniversary of something important...)