Nasa Lockheed Martin X-33 spaceplane

[1006christopher]

They cancelled it because the US is trying to keep people from commercialising space, due to with this then it wouldn't be far before some person figured out a bigger version which would eventually lead to discoverys of materials on other planets by other countries and resulting in more pointless wars than we already got.....

[whitelancer64]

@1006christopher no, it was cancelled because it went over budget, was overweight, and they could not complete the composite fuel tank, which was one of the critical technologies they wanted to test.

[1006christopher]

@whitelancer64 notice how there are no major space corps at all, no new innovation beecause it's not open to the public because NASA always undercuts price since they just have to go and tell the government they want more money.

[HumanCompound]

Those wheels doesnt look like woulda hold that thing.

[xskatrjakex]

It's cancelled as far as we know, for all we know Nasa is havng tea parties on Mars, while dancing with Aliens

[USAmilitarypower]

is this the htv-2

[ryanscottweise]

There's tests still running though in 2007 and 2009 and they were both a success so it hasn't been canceled completely . If it works they might get it working again .

[Chuckqnit]

Lovely, elegant little craft.  It's a shame the materials necessary for the honeycombed fuel compartments didn't pan out.

[tehatemachine]

@Chuckqnit THEY WORK NOW!!! but it was ironically done by lockheeds competitor, northrop. lol

[t0p0l1eve4]

2:43 maximum warp !!!

[EuroSon99]

This was such a beautiful spacecraft. A big shame it was cancelled. Even though it had problems the timeline could have easily been pushed back to address all aspects. It would have been ready by now to replace the Space Shuttle.

[xxxxxHavocxxxxx]

are the wheels little too small for an aircraft this size

[Gertywow]

Thumbs up for no reason. BTW, that plane looks like a penis

[Werner312]

qual o nome da musica?

[AWSOMEBEN]

canceled. :(

[MetalMonarchy]

i hope this isnt ur average conspiracy rumor but i heard (and i really did) that this thing has either never secretly been cancled or is reactivated. lets pray to god. i think we should be using ramjets and scramjets for suborbital-orbital flights. my friend went to see discovery and he said the ground shakes when it launches. and i can believe that. because that shuttle (and the solid rocket boosters) give enough power to shoot the titanic around the worlds oceans in less than a DAY lol awesome

[vincewansink]

@MetalMonarchy It's highly unlikely that they would look at this new technology and just say "Nah. Let's just stick with the old stuff". Surely there is a secret space program, using technology that they don't want others to know about.

The space shuttle is a joke. Using brute force like that to break away from the earth has got to be the most inefficient and most expensive way to get into space. I can't believe they wasted so much money on it.

[whitelancer64]

@MetalMonarchy Lockheed Martin continued working on the technologies, certainly. they may have completed the craft and even flight tested it in 2007 and 2009, but that has not been confirmed. they may have launched a different craft entirely.

[narutocaprirequest2]

@007bond66

Then please tell us why NASA keeps canceling cool things ?

[fhsaeuiofsaef]

yeah, nice work dude.

[LuMagazine]

Is that James Coburn narrating?

[wtuanmu]

test

[jag9998]

When will they understand that no matter what configuration it (Rockets) is in, it is still the same technology. Being such, it is only possible to improve its design in marginal ways. Something (anything) new is needed to increase the efficiency of space flight by an order of magnitude or greater.

I've been thinking about it for years, and I truly believe that there is an indescribably clever way to put a man into space that is cheaper than any proposal thus far.

[MetalMonarchy]

@jag9998 what is it? pm me so u can explain the whole thing. and i got some brains; il likely not be going "ugghhh...GEEK lol". what is it? whats the possible trick?



[billbitt96]

This is all total crap. It's just too expensive to fix the heat tiles on the bottom. Nobody will do this and nobody will do the Concorde again either. They don't care about achievements like sailing around the world and they just want larger profit margins for businesses without any risk at all. Spineless Jellyfish not bravery. The kool generation has past over already and gone to retire in Florida.

[MetalMonarchy]

@billbitt96 ...TO FLORIDA

[10thPrestigeLobbies1]

where can i get one of those? lol

[Kapitananime]

@10thPrestigeLobbies1

Ask Obama.

[ti994apc]

If we had only picked the Rockwell design back in 1996 rather than going with Lockheed martin. Its a mistake we keep making.

[g25a25c]

it shoot off into the space by a rocket...

[mrjustin5]

What happened?! I am utterly disappointed the Space Race is long gone. At the rate we were going we would've had many, large orbiting space stations, a moon base and a man on mars by 1985. Today, we have dying, tiny little "rovers" on mars and its almost mid-way through 2010.

The new "Apollo" program is a joke, designed to kill interest. What happened to the X-33 Space Plane? Will we ever find out of there is LIFE under the ICE of EUROPA? Or on Mars? - NEVER. We should have 500 X-33's.

[YDDES]

@mrjustin5

The X-33 was too optimistic. We didn' have the technique to build it. The materials choosen to make it light, were too weak. I'm surprised that NASA has wasted so much money on the X-33, the X-38 "lifeboat" and several other projects leading nowhere. Bad planning!

[TheJamesrocket]

@YDDES The X-33 failed because a single stage to orbit vehicle is impossible! 91% of your ships mass would have to be fuel! You either need multiple expendable stages (like the saturn 5), pre air cooled engines, or assisted launch via sky ramp technology-which I think would be the optimal solution above all others.

[YDDES]

Since you, due to the atmospheric friction, have to be on a high altitude before you can accelerate to orbital speed, a vertical take-off is preferable.

[thecontemptuous]

@YDDES wrong

[eisasss]

It is not an economical way to take-off by today's technologies, it should take-off as a plane if way want to achieve economical solution, or they have to achieve technological jump in the propulsion.

[endgame2154]

The government most likely has secret space planes that will make this look obsolete. Most publicly known aircraft are 30 to 40 years behind most secret government aircraft. And NASA is nothing more than a public front for a secret government space program. That's why NASA hasn't publicly developed anything more advanced then the Saturn 5 rocket or the space shuttle in decades.

[YDDES]

There are most likely no "secret space planes", since it's impossible to hide a vehicle in space, and there is no military use for manned spaceships. Unmanned satellites do a much more efficient job.

[Frapazoid]

There's the X-37 which is no secret and flies in a few months.

[YDDES]

Yes, there are military spaceprograms (photo-satellites for example). Yes there is a small X-37 "spaceplane", but it is unmanned, and not a secret.

Military spacecrafts can be secret until they lift off. Then every nation can track them, even if their true mission can be kept secret.

[Frapazoid]

I strongly doubt the military has any secret _space planes_. I was pointing out the X-37 because they did not bother keeping it secret.

Anyway, there was a bit of a kerfuffle a few years back where the US revealed some French satellite orbits, and the French threatened to reveal orbits of American sats using their recently upgraded radar systems. Things in LEO are pretty blatant but observational capabilities are finite. Not everyone can see everything. Hence the dispute.

[sammair]

wrong

[Frapazoid]

You do know we have multiple government space programs right? NRO? NASA doesn't need to be a front for anything, the Pentagon does their own stuff. NASA is a political football.

[mikeyphoenix1]

Look at NASA's funding. They haven't spent anything on space travel for decades now. Civil organizations spend more money on developing space travel vehicles than NASA and the military. That's just not their priority anymore. Develping cool cell phones with touch screen lameness is where all the funding is going. Technology that sells to the common man is the focus.

[v12tommy]

@endgame2154 there is no need for secret space aircraft. Back in the 1960's there was a need for planes like the U-2 and SR-71, but their role has been mostly replaced by satellites. There are definately classified satellites, but they are not hidden secrets...their existance is well known and just the details are classified. Sure the shuttle first flew in the 1980's, but they have made improvements as recently as 2007, and the russians are still flying Soyuz capsules from the 1960's.

[YDDES]

@endgame2154 Yes, probably impossible with a useful payload. The closest "one stage to orbit" I know about was "Project SCORE", launced in December 1958. It was an Atlas ICBM, that dropped only two of its three engines before reaching a low orbit. The payload was only 150 pound; a tape-recorder and a transmitter.

[dummman]

@endgame2154 as sad as it is.. there are no "secret space planes". NASA's policy after the Space Shuttle was to develope space technology "better and cheaper" because of the tremendous costs of Apollo and the Space Shuttle. And because we all know that becoming better and cheaper at the same time is a nice goal but hardly possible, space technology has hardly evolved in the past decades. Just look at the ISS..

[deathmetalshredify]

Not a big fan of the music though.....

But that is a very good idea

[TheAmericanRifleman]

How old is this video?

[j03l5k1]

@TheAmericanRifleman lol good question

[shamandgg]

it will be ~10 years old

[azezel2311]

why isn't it launched out of a tube and then the burners kick on to get it to the moon?

[9009PC]

@cktice wow talk about depressing mood here. nasa hasnt just given up they want privite company's to get into space so it will be cheaper. they recently had a contest between them to make a plane that does this virgin galactic won it. go and have a look at that it will put you in a better mood.

[robiracing]

peccato rimarrà solo un prototipo e mai verrà usato.

[oilers1go1]

This shuttle was designed to endure the upcoming events of 2012.

Numerous types of these shuttles are currently being built deep underground for use as quick and easy transport to the upper atmoshphere and beyond to escape the upcoming disaster.

Our world as we know it, will forever be changed several years from now.

[SuperMagnetizer]

Another reason X-33 was canceled was because it had no crew, was to be test-flown by remote control from California to Montana, and it was feared it might crash.

[scphuris]

those little wings could never carry that fat ass for a landing like that

[sopps]

Lifting hull design.

[g25a25c]

@sopps lifting body

[clnmyjts]

this concept is old crap..

[adam3176]

UM WTF happened to this thing.. I hear nasa is going to fly a lame Capsul rocet called the Orian or some stipud shit like that.. HMMM maks you wonder... Did the government take over this project as a Secret military job? HMMM

[mj1234321]

It's a shame that we've given up on advancing, and now NASA is going back to capsules and expendable launchers.

[pepefour]

I think this is the pinnacle of technical achievements (bit more cash would fix H2 tank problem). But like many of these things, it is too advanced in its time to be sucessful...

[Muthsera80]

Nah, this LOE vehicle is not needed. Although a flexible and cheap concept is needed to make orbit transport more accessible.

[MadMichigander1313]

What killed X-33 and ultimately Venturestar was that they couldn't get the composite liquid hydrogen tank to work. When they filled it with LH2, the material would become EXTREAMLY BRITTLE and fail spectaularly. Considering the tanks were intended to be a major structural element, the problem was a show killer. I couldn't understand why they tried to use composites in the first place.

[fcycles]

what about the reactor? They were making progress but very little to make it last long enough to reach space... from what I remember...?

[MadMichigander1313]

What reactor.

The X-33 / Venturestar was slated to use an aerospike variant of the Apollo-era J-2 cryogenic rocket engine.

[kirkmach32]

Great, trying to make you think this is a dignified and sophisticated concept, by playing classical music. Nothing could save this white elephant from failure though.

[Nogrounds]

x-33 will now show you how it lands, by crashing into a moutain.

[jupitorman]

looks to me we ha=ve come to the end of space dreams concord cancelled shuttle canccelled i fink we have come as far as we re ment to go now we are back to rockets /and mars i dont think we will go there the problem is geting back off mars you would need a massive rocket to get off mars and back to earth  it aint goin to happen soz

[risuperman90]

wish this wasn't canceled

[keirsunishi]

lol looks like it shouldn't fly

[adrastea99]

Spaceplane concept cannot be built since it infringes on a treaty with Russia

They had a similar concept called "Spiral"

[IFIRIEIEID]

by "they" u mean the russians?

[adrastea99]

yeah

[surethom]

If proves how useless NASA is this should be the replacement for the shuttle & what are they going to build a new rocket similar to the Saturn 5 rocket. Idiots

[PonThePony]

You dumb fuck.

[chrisblue77]

This thing came from Skunk Works, it was spouse 2 incorporate stealth technology. You'd be surprised how much stuff was invented in the 70s that are only now being sold.

[mrjustin5]

This is what were SUPPOSE to have 30 years ago!

1979!! The original shuttle was purported to have $1,000 per pound AND be a single vehicle. No big orange hydrogen+oxygen tank in the middle, NO SOLID ROCKET boosters!

Then they canceled this in 2001! Its all just a big joke. Since the space-race, TRILLIONS have been used by NASA and they HORDE and CONCEAL all the best technology, because we're tax-paying swine and they're big government blood sucking LEACHES!

We'll NEVER even go to mars!

[glotzeer]

the launch looked really real.

and the wheels (gear) looks a bit to small for this monster. XD

[ZemplinTemplar]

It was a good concept and will surely be reused some time in the further future (will need more reusable orbital cargo-carrying spacecraft). Alas, the engines and fuel tanks of the X-33 proved unreliably in tests. The whole project would have needed even more funding and a few more years to get fully tested. Honestly, I think it was a good decision to cancel it for now - it could've busted NASA's budget for good and there wouldn't probably be any funding left for Project Constellation.

[korgri]

The decision to swap the lithium aluminum tank for the composite tank still baffles many, plus the cost of full system new concept development story (or the projected cost reduction theory of developing all new stuff in one shot, which was part of the original selling points to obtain funding) seems kind of a strange trade-off considering what would've been delivered. Methinks it was a nat'l security issue. Seeing a cheap SSO flying might give baddies a

few ideas.

[gopherbar]

Its time for anti-gravity...

[lockjaw1968]

Let's keep hope alive. We may have this type of shuttle in the near future. We need to get our priorities straight!!!!

[Ginji989]

tiny wheels :P

but im dissapointed that they are unable to make giant space shuttles now that we have the technology..

[glotzeer]

i like the spaceshuttles desing too sad that the shuttle will never fly again after2010 :'(

[theinsane102]

the shuttle killed people

[crispset]

It's utterly amazing Apollo 13 did not. Trust me, when the people that you work for, can get keys to your place and wake you after/during a hang-over, and they still want/need you, then you know that your job involves something called 'mission critical'. Going out of the earths atmosphere is risky business.

[korgri]

Much much riskier than what is commonly known. No way is anyone going to Mars unless a method is found to get there within at most twenty days each way. Going there now with current technology would be like trying to cross the Pacific Ocean in two watertight 55 gallon drums lashed together with one end open, the pilot with a paddle, fresh water and food in the other drum. Of course, you can always find a score of brave souls who will gladly give it a try; they'll fight for the chance.

[korgri]

They would need to build new shuttles, the airframes are getting too worn out, heightens the risk. Time for new toys!

The shuttle was really just a plan to keep NASA alive and provide lots of jobs. Lots and lots of jobs, that's the key. A lot of other variables involved as well.

[crispset]

I saw something on this recently, on NASA TV, it was related to the HYPER-X program.

[robinladen63915]

That was the runway at the Area51

[patman1485]

This is just silly. The space shuttle proved that this was neither inexpensive nor capable of fast turn around. A reusable spaceplane is not feasable. And, as others have said, moot, due to cancelation

[zataflex]

X33 was projected to be much more useful and not as expensive as a space shuttle. The only problem is that the materials to build the fuel tanks are not still available. They projected hoping to have the materials ready in time.

[XAndrogynousPoisonX]

That would be awesome. However, I think Ares/Orion will be the reusable craft's undoing.

[frankton98]

I still prefer Concorde but thats cos I'm a Brit

[FanFisique]

CANCELLED

[EdadDeOro777]

PLASMA TEGNOLOGIAS ONLY MY jmhb !!!

[satweavers]

I heard it was the lagging material science of the composite fuel tanks that killed the project. The Aerospike engine is nice. I really wanted to see this thing fly. Someday.

[Ronsmytheiii]

If they had used a simple conventional aluminum tank, this problem would not have happened. The sad truth is poor management killed the X-33. However Venturestar never would have worked as advertised, but the X-33 development and testing part should have continued.

Sadly the same thing is happening with the Ares rocket now.

[Arcmate]

So this got canned and NASA are going to use single use rocket crap? Until someone has the balls to build an SSTO then we're still going to be living in the 60s.

[returntoiceland]

faster than mach 13!! how the fuck do handle that during flight

[eloidor]

1970's tecnology thats why it got canceled. now nasa is gonna us a renovated space capsule which makes space travel more realisticly possible in term of budget.

[mdotwills]

too bad the whole project was scrapped!

[Joe35983]

That looks kick ass.

[popezmark]

Aerospike rocket engines! Great.

[WilliamDurocher]

The x 33 was an awesome ship, too bad it got canceled.

[newmanfrigan]

@WilliamDurocher It's just a demonstrator. That knowledge gained making it is surely being applied!

[zianemadani]

i like the animation ..

[Belgianflyboy]

Can it transport people to?

[littlemrbandmanjr]

That thing has pretty tiny landing gear forsuch a big plane.

[vharshyde]

Its a shuttle, and the best thing about it is, the shuttle will be nearly featherweight by the time it re-enters. The ship is something like 80% fuel tanks.

[450LTR]

there is no comet for 2012. but one will come very close in 2029 ( i think that is the year)

[blktooth5150]

dude, the whole 2012 meteor thing's just a myth. what we really have to worry about is a meteor scientists predict we'll cross paths with in 2029

[DinadanX]

the x-33 project was cancelled. It will be remplaced by the Orion, which looks like just some space module if you ask me :(

[Franciszek64]

Yeah DinadanX: It´s like back to a big and unconfortable tuna fish can... another setback for NASA

[tacoman202]

dude Thats suposed commet isnt real. That doomsday isnt real! we wont need it. and there si no moonbase

[ChuckManiac]

Going straight up is not effecient.

[Ares289]

yea they made it seem alot bigger though.

[theworacle]

Yep - at least it made it into a book. It was owned by CERN, wasn't it? (in the book, that is)

[PeterGoDeees]

I believe so

[PeterGoDeees]

this plane is in Dan Browns Angels and Demons