Discussion VentureStar, could they do this?

[SpaceNut123]

Hey guys,

Ive been a long time forum reader but first time poster. This caught my attention and being a fan of the original project I had to discuss it.

I found it here: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/350372166/restart-the-venturestar-cheap-reuseable-access-to

I'm a big fan of the VentureStar program so it is exciting to see something like this pop up. I wonder if they could use existing work from Lockheed-Martin (if there is anything left?) I would imagine a second go around would mean that development would happen at a faster pace.

It is a very interesting proposal and with smaller projects (like indie games) getting millions of dollars, perhaps this could be a new contender in the private space industry? What do you guys think?

 

[RGClark]

IF SpaceX succeeds in reusabilty then I predict there will be a push to resurrect the DC-X and VentureStar.

Note for a glideback stage, the shape doesn't have to be that of the VentureStar/X-33. The Boeing X-37B design would work and even ESA's IXV would work.

An X-37B version though would be easier since then you could use cylindrical tanks. Recall the non-cylindrical shaped tanks are what killed the X-33 test vehicle for the VentureStar.

Like with the VentureStar, they would be best to do a suborbital test vehicle first. I would also suggest using dense fuels such as kerosene, rather than hydrogen. It turns out dense propellants are better for a SSTO.

One thing not done though with the VentureStar program was to note that the reusable suborbital test vehicle, the X-33, would have a key profitable use besides just a test vehicle. It could be used as a reusable first stage that could cut costs down to 1/4th current costs. This fact needs to be emphasized to get funding to start with the suborbital test vehicle.

As to whether this kickstarter campaign could get this going I'm doubtful. You would need some big money backers or partnerships with Boeing, owner of the X-37B, or ESA, owner of the IXV, to make this feasible.

Bob Clark

 

[Urwumpe]

The better is always the enemy of the good.... :rofl:

 

[orbitingpluto]

With the resources they can hope to harness, verses the problems they want to tackle, I think most likely outcome is petering out early. It would take at least a billion dollar effort to re-develop and build even a X-33 demonstrator, let alone a full size VentureStar, and I don't see them getting that far. "Guy on the internet wants to kickstart the VentureStar program" sounds more legit than "Guy on the internet want to build the Star Trek's Enterprise", but not by enough to make the VentureStar guy less of a kook.

 

[jedidia]

$10,000 - You may be wondering why there is such a low initial goal. Basically with this amount of funding it will allow two things.

1) Reaching this goal shows there is an interest in starting such a project.

2) This money will allow us to embark on further fundraising ventures (i.e. addressing financial institutions, governments and private investors/firms).

It's too low even for that. You don't prove sufficient interest in a multi-billion project by raising 10'000 bucks. you don't get the private sector interested with that kind of money. And you certainly can't use it as a colateral with "financial institutions" (make no mistakes, "addressing financial institutions" only means one thing in these cases: Getting a loan).

You can launch a halfway decent marketing campaign, but that's about it.

 

[TachyonDriver]

Only 3 dollars pledged with a month to go. That amount might get you a small picture of the VentureStar. Would the aerospace corporations involved in the original venture (no pun intended) allow the kickstarter program access their old data?

 

[Urwumpe]

Only 3 dollars pledged with a month to go. That amount might get you a small picture of the VentureStar. Would the aerospace corporations involved in the original venture (no pun intended) allow the kickstarter program access their old data?

No, only the NASA stuff would be available. corporate "secrets" only if you are lucky and the companies decide to be so benevolent to dump their archives on you.

And then, there would also be the known problems.

 

[Ravenous]

Isn't this just an exercise to raise $10,000 for someone's hobby project? Once they get the funding they can spend it on expenses visiting all the necessary institutions.

 

[Admiral_Ritt]

Even if there was some interest by some institutions to try to
restart this engineering puzzle. You will still be hampered by
a complicated landing gear, complex control surfaces, Heat Shield,
Additionally if you actually man rate this thing, you will need
TWO pilots, that's always expensive.

So, yes everyone has figured out that if Space x Suceeds at landing
an automated expended booster vertically not too far from the processing facility just about everything else will be a money loser in the market.

Theres one Exception:

Sled Launching high on a mountain at the Equator over a track several miles long. You only need solid very dumb boosters to speed you up. That would probably beat Space X, at this point in costs, if you amortized the launch track construction costs over several decades of business.