How many DC-Y's could have been developed for the ammount spent on X-33 to date? The failsafe for a cheap, reusable vehicle is to have another cheap, reusuable vehicle. There is a nasty tendancy for launch vehicle failures to result in large explosions or short showers of metal... a gliding body doesn't help much there:-)
I stand by my opinion that Lockheed Martin's X-33 was trying to do too much, and the selection process was flawed by a desire for high tech gimicry and 'gee-whiz' appeal.
Faster, cheaper and safer ?
I don't think so.
The selection of Lockheed Martin for the X-33 was contraversial at the time. I believe NASA even stated that it chose that proposal _because_ it was the most technically challenging. It is perhaps not suprising that it turned out this way, the only pity is the ammount of money spent. If they just demonstrated aerospike engines, or just developed composite LH2 tanks or just worked on a lifting body design we may have got value for money. But X-33 was to be all things for all people.
One of the other proposals was based on the DC-X (Delta Clipper) which concentrated on price and reusability rather than cutting edge technology. If that had been selected we might now have a reusuable unmanned launch vehicle for Space Station cargo runs instead of being tied to the Russian Soyuz LV and Progress cargo vessel.
If life was present on Mars it is not totally implausible that it remains in some areas. On Earth life is found in the most inaccessible and inhospitable places, whenever it is looked for it is found.
One, ironic, indiction of this is the concern that is raised that stowaway bacteria on previous Mars probes may have contaminated the planet. I say we genetically engineer bacteria for life on Mars and deliver it post-haste. That way the next time somebody asks
The comments on magnetite in that link specifically mention that it is possible they produced by inorganic means. The new indications of life are not based on the presence of magnetite, they are based on its arrangement.
The problem with this argument 'Before x we should y' is...
1. It assumes it is impossible to do x and y at the same time.
2. It assumes there is no way that y will help us achieve x
3. It is applied to a particular 'x' that the poster views as unimportant, and ignores all others.
Suppose you wanted to go to the cinema, and were told that first you should solve Third World debt:-)
The actual proportion of the American, and other budgets spent on space is very small. If you want problems on this planet fixed work towards that, you do not aid your cause by picking on one particular expenditure you can do without.
Slashdot Mirror
How many DC-Y's could have been developed for the ammount spent on X-33 to date? The failsafe for a cheap, reusable vehicle is to have another cheap, reusuable vehicle. There is a nasty tendancy for launch vehicle failures to result in large explosions or short showers of metal ... a gliding body doesn't help much there :-)
I stand by my opinion that Lockheed Martin's X-33 was trying to do too much, and the selection process was flawed by a desire for high tech gimicry and 'gee-whiz' appeal.
Faster, cheaper and safer ?
I don't think so.
The selection of Lockheed Martin for the X-33 was contraversial at the time. I believe NASA even stated that it chose that proposal _because_ it was the most technically challenging. It is perhaps not suprising that it turned out this way, the only pity is the ammount of money spent. If they just demonstrated aerospike engines, or just developed composite LH2 tanks or just worked on a lifting body design we may have got value for money. But X-33 was to be all things for all people.
One of the other proposals was based on the DC-X (Delta Clipper) which concentrated on price and reusability rather than cutting edge technology. If that had been selected we might now have a reusuable unmanned launch vehicle for Space Station cargo runs instead of being tied to the Russian Soyuz LV and Progress cargo vessel.
If life was present on Mars it is not totally implausible that it remains in some areas. On Earth life is found in the most inaccessible and inhospitable places, whenever it is looked for it is found.
:-)
One, ironic, indiction of this is the concern that is raised that stowaway bacteria on previous Mars probes may have contaminated the planet. I say we genetically engineer bacteria for life on Mars and deliver it post-haste. That way the next time somebody asks
"Is there life on Mars?"
We can reply
"There is NOW"
The comments on magnetite in that link specifically mention that it is possible they produced by inorganic means. The new indications of life are not based on the presence of magnetite, they are based on its arrangement.
The problem with this argument 'Before x we should y' is ...
:-)
1. It assumes it is impossible to do x and y at the same time.
2. It assumes there is no way that y will help us achieve x
3. It is applied to a particular 'x' that the poster views as unimportant, and ignores all others.
Suppose you wanted to go to the cinema, and were told that first you should solve Third World debt
The actual proportion of the American, and other budgets spent on space is very small. If you want problems on this planet fixed work towards that, you do not aid your cause by picking on one particular expenditure you can do without.