When they lost the crew contract to Boeing I was surprised they continued on at all.
I'm wondering if something like the Lockheed Martin X-33 (and scaled-up SSTO versions of it such as the VentureStar) could now be made to work as there have been great strides in the construction of reliable composite-material fuel tanks. However, I don't know that would be applicable to multi-lobed tanks. The aerospace materials technology just wasn't up to it 30 years ago, but it might be now.
I can't remember what the Venture Star was supposed to use as an engine, but I remember the X-33 was designed around a version of the Apollo J-2 modified as an aerospike, so maybe it just used more of them. i don't know how close they got to getting it working, but subsequent work on the J2-X for Ares and later SLS might have worked.
In the meantime I guess some work on comformal composite tanks continues:
The COCOLIH2T Project - COmposite COnformal LIquid H2 Tank
The safe & efficient storage of H2 on-board future aircraft is the essential enabler of H2 technologies & will be one of the most complex aerospace engineering challenges that the industry has ever faced
www.cocolih2t.eu
The VentureStar was supposedly going to use seven Rocketdyne RS-2200 linear aerospike engines. The RS-2200 was never built, but the XRS-2200 with about half the thrust was built and tested.I can't remember what the Venture Star was supposed to use as an engine, but I remember the X-33 was designed around a version of the Apollo J-2 modified as an aerospike, so maybe it just used more of them. i don't know how close they got to getting it working, but subsequent work on the J2-X for Ares and later SLS might have worked.
In the meantime I guess some work on comformal composite tanks continues:
The COCOLIH2T Project - COmposite COnformal LIquid H2 Tank
The safe & efficient storage of H2 on-board future aircraft is the essential enabler of H2 technologies & will be one of the most complex aerospace engineering challenges that the industry has ever faced
that makes sense. X-33 was a suborbital demonstrator and i don't think there was any way they'd get the J-2's ISP high enough for SSTO. Though the closest the US has ever got to SSTO was probably the original ATLAS ICBM
The final form of the VentureStar
www.flightglobal.com
SLS cost for EELV payloads? No thanks.
Wayne Ordway argued for a modular approach
New VentureStar design revealed
The latest configuration of Lockheed Martin's proposed VentureStar single-stage-to-orbit reusable launch vehicle has been revealed following a redesign. It includes an external payload bay. The piggyback transport method will give the VentureStar more versatility.Source: Flight International
www.flightglobal.com
SLS cost for EELV payloads? No thanks.
Wayne Ordway argued for a modular approach
It was so far removed from the original idea by 2000. That was part of the problem with X-33.. they wanted an all up test on everything. It's not what an X-plane is for. LockMart already had unlimited access to the feeding trough but they got even greedierThe final form of the VentureStar
New VentureStar design revealed
The latest configuration of Lockheed Martin's proposed VentureStar single-stage-to-orbit reusable launch vehicle has been revealed following a redesign. It includes an external payload bay. The piggyback transport method will give the VentureStar more versatility.Source: Flight International
SLS cost for EELV payloads? No thanks.
Wayne Ordway argued for a modular approach
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
