NASA's Big Mistake - The X-33 VentureStar Replacement Shuttle

The X-33 was the prototype replacement for the Space Shuttle and would feature a range of cutting-edge technologies that would make much cheaper to operate and quicker to turn around with much less personal.
Although 95% of the components had been made and delivered and a new flight centre had been built it was cancelled in a shock decision that would put back the reusable space program years.
Was this NASA's biggest mistake of recent years or was it just too advanced for the time, in this video we look at the X-33 and the reason why it ended up being scrapped.
Patreon : / curiousdroid
Sponsored by
Luke
Tumas Vindziulis
Muhammad Tauha Ali
Pascal Hausammann
Florian Hesse
And : Morten Granvold, Tim Allen, David Thomas, Robert Goldwein,
Oscar Anderson, Collin Copfer, coolascats, Katy, Blair Leduc,
Lajszla Antal, Chad Mellor, Bjorn Nyblad, Giacomo Catenazzi, AMIR BLACHMAN, Larry Ackerman, Ara Kirakosyan, Tayar Jundi, Johan Rombaut, Tobias Pettersson, Kevin Hinnen, Mitchel J. Mullin II, Hunter Schwisow, Peter Cote, Cody Belichesky, Mogoreanu Daniel,
Douglas Gustafson, Marcus Chiado, Jorn Magnus Karlsen.
This episodes shirt is the GARAGEFLOWER
by Mapcap England available from
www.atomretro.com/madcap_england
Get 10% off with the code DROID10
Presented by
Paul Shillito
Written & Reseached by
Paul Shillito
Intro music by
Mike Mullen BMI
www.positrosmic.com
Images and footage
NASA, Rockwell,
Lockhead Martin
McDonnell Douglas
White House

[@nairbvel]

Speaking as a former NASA contractor (not on this project), I want to cry over what this country's science & engineering have devolved into.

[@slow330xi3]

Any credentials, just curious 🤷‍♂️

[@Nightdreaux22647]

Go Join SpaceX

[@sartainja]

Really sad.

[@LichaelMewis]

So has the society and it will continue until drastic changes are made. But we are likely beyond critical mass and there is no going back.

[@robdc4829]

I'd bet we can see where the devolution started if we graph the number of lawyers/lobbyists vs number of scientists/engineers on a time scale.

[@TBone-bz9mp]

We could probably get to Mars by printing out all the proposals and stacking them on top of each other.

[@kineticdeath]

if the paychecks of these politicians was pooled there would be enough funding to build a small planet, we'll call it Death Star 1

[@kornkernel2232]

Building the Death Star will make them obsolete, so they don't want to progress on that. The only problem is that exhaust port.

[@MrJagbolet]

hahahaha!

[@holycow666]

Lol, let's do it!

[@alexs1972]

Interesting proposal... Bring it to board on Monday and we'll review it

[@kennethelliott9248]

This video depresses me. I remember seeing venture Starr as a kid and being very hopeful of the future.

[@RobinDobbie]

Same. This spacecraft was in my imagination just like the Countach.

[@mednona5719]

Me too.

[@syd_luna]

When I saw this as a kid from a documentary I watched on the Discovery channel back in the 90's, I too was very hopeful. Then I heard it was cancelled, and I was sad. Then later hearing how it got cancelled, and then hearing further details with this video, I'm infuriated now. All that progress... gone.

[@MasterDayTrader]

lol, same

[@BBitri]

Well, on the bright side we have SpaceX and Elon Musk in the game now.

[@michaelbanach3741]

X-33 was a single stage to orbit concept, that was pretty challenging. Flying it to test out the aerospike engine alone would have been worth the continued investment and test flights.

[@stevencoardvenice]

I thought that was some sort of mathematical impossibility

[@nerd1000ify]

@@stevencoardvenice SSTO is possible but requires the best possible engine performance and an incredibly high fuel mass fraction. If Earth was much bigger it would be impossible.

[@johnwang9914]

Hence requiring the use of composite tanks was an unnecessary mistake.

[@mrnickbig1]

Aerospike engines are not very efficient in a vacuum. They are best as high altitude hypersonic engines.Bells are cheaper, lighter, and more reliable at low altitudes and in space. Now, at high altitudes and high speeds, and combined with supercritical airfoils, aerospike engines may be efficient for point to point transport on Earth, or Mars.

[@johnwang9914]

@@mrnickbig1 It's more a matter of an aerospike nozzle being more efficient than a bell nozzle in a vacuum as you can't have a bell that expands forever. You're using the exhaust itself to act as the nozzle with the aerospike and it does expand to a vacuum technically forever. And high temperatures is a weakness not an advantage for aerospikes as there's no surfaces to dissipate the heat and the throat where the most cooling is needed is much larger. Cooling the throat was specifically mentioned in the video as a significant problem. Airfoils have to do with aerodynamic control surfaces and lift, nothing to do with the rocket engines and indeed RCS engines are using rockets to replace the control functions of airfoils. The aerospike advantage is to the transitions in altitude and air pressure thereof not in high altitude and aerospikes would be of less advantage in Mars where the atmospheric pressure is less than 1/100tg of Earths. You couldn't possibly be more wrong in your post than you are. Everything about aerospikes went right over your head.

[@kennethworkman5244]

I worked on the X-33 and it consumed me like nothing else. I was on the Al-Li alloy and carbon fiber team. I solved many material problems but the when we were so close Congress pulled the plug on the funding. WHY WHY WHY ?? 1 BILLION Down the drain !

[@taraswertelecki7874]

I agree, this program should have not only been funded, it should have been expanded with the goal of creating a second generation successor to the Space Shuttle. Now we have a small company operating in the U.S. and Romania who is trying to turn the aerospike from a successful experiment into a flight proven rocket engine.

[@joshwizardguy7662]

I guess the moral of the story is that you'll never get anything done with government as proven with many successful projects that have had their funding pulled.

[@JFrazer4303]

@@joshwizardguy7662 Bullshit. We get lots done with government, but NASA has not been in the business of being anything but a graft plum and jobs program. That's why the X-33 was selected instead of the DC-Y. That's why we went back the Shuttle instead of building the HL-20. Government is how, we get things done.

[@jackgunn1480]

@@joshwizardguy7662 Yup. The Avro Arrow the greatest example in Canada. A plane decades ahead of its time, cancelled by the government for no good reason.

[@dougiequick1]

Tell me that the original design was not literally destroyed like a lot of military designs have been? Tell me it is still all there and that the pieces could be picked back up !?!

[@karmamaker3378]

This video makes me think of finding those managers and politicians and Interfere with their structural integrity.

[@ChoralSea]

Karma Maker , You Got It.

[@jetgamer5386]

What integrity?

[@NemoBlank]

You'll find them in their mansions or chalets. They all got super rich somehow on their government paychecks.

[@nuckerball1259]

I especially love how the x33 got assfucked out of existence for around 1 billiion because the tech "was too ancient with metal tanks" YETTTTT... the sls using ALL dinosaur technology plus numerous delays is receiving BILLIONS of dollars?!?!?! FACEPALM

[@someotherdude]

Don't worry about those O-rings!

[@AugmentedGravity]

This is what happens when someone who doesn't have a clue of what they're doing, makes a decision on the behalf of people who know what they're doing, without having any say in the matter what so ever.

[@BeKindToBirds]

Or there could be another rea$on....

[@AugmentedGravity]

@@BeKindToBirds Nop

[@royalspin]

Politicians doing what they do best , absolutely nothing besides holding up progress and lying for votes

[@ethericboy]

"We need to cancel the X33 project because it simply isn"t expensive enough"

[@GuilhermeM1]

Ambatukaaaaaaaammmm eeeeeeeuuuuuuuugggghhh a augh euuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuggggggghhhhhhhh

[@plxton]

I saw the Venturestar in a book when I was a kid in primary school, it always fascinated me and i'd always open that book just to look at the picture... saddened me even further when a few years later our household got internet and I discovered it was scrapped :'(

[@matthewhudson7883]

Sometime between 1989 and 1991 I first saw a video featuring what I believe to be the X-30. Naturally I thought, _"Cool. Now our space program is getting somewhere."_ Years went by and they kept using the same old shuttles. Then in 2003 the space shuttle Columbia disaster rocked NASA and the country. If there was ever a time to greenlight a project to finally produce those new space planes we were virtually promised more than a decade earlier you would have figured this was it. ... Nope! The Russians ferried our stuff into space while NASA and the government drug their heels on ordering anything new and improved while also trying desperately to devise a quick-fix to a long outdated shuttle system. --- Uhhhg! I really hate our government.

[@blurglide]

I saw the partially assembled X-33 back in 2004. It, and its hanger, we're already abandoned and it was getting covered in owl shit. It's right here... www.google.com/maps/place/Edwards+AFB,+CA/@34.8748126,-117.6206444,585m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x80c24ab03a29c3eb:0xdf7023bbd91346e8!8m2!3d34.9240314!4d-117.8912085

[@theawakeningofjohnnynewsom9072]

Why SpaceX is maeking all this shit today?!

[@firstnamelastname1543]

Dude...I know the book. I remember it. It said done date was 2013 I remember thinking how far away that was. The same book had other versions like one for dinosuars. Hahaha which 20 years later is not actually accurate anymore:)

[@chatteyj]

I don't get it where does the payload go if the fuel tanks take up all the space within the craft?

[@nonyabeeznuss304]

Hearing about the X-33 STILL pisses me off.

[@oreandr4512]

@Jorn Navarre what a dick

[@wesleywalls7582]

Same.

[@Rocket_scientist_88]

I worked on this project from start to end. The decision to end this never made sense to any of us and was a surprise. The Composite LH2 tanks were being replaced by Al-Li and would have been lighter than the original design, so that wasn’t a viable reason to cancel the program when we had come so far. The decision appeared to be political in nature, considering the timing. Everyone involved knew it, too. Also, Ivan Bekey was too obsessed with the composite tanks. We were testing many other technologies on it for him to be so focused on one part of it. He made a historic blunder with his speech to Congress and put hundreds of people out of work and set our country’s space program back by many years with his ridiculous comments.

[@patrickday4206]

Too many good projects have gone this way! Aerospikes are likely the future unless some completely new idea takes its place but it needs time for engineers to improve it!

[@doltBmB]

Try decades, it's amazing that now shuttle concepts and SSTO's have been abandoned completely and they're going back to pods and solid boosters of all things.

[@michaelroth2783]

OK, but isn't it true, that a rocket being used on Planet Earth should really be a two-stage rocket, given the otherwise low payload capacity?

[@doltBmB]

@@michaelroth2783 The maximum payload would have been somewhat smaller than on the shuttle as I understand, but it would still more than make up for it in the low cost due to lower maintenance and full reusability.

[@michaelroth2783]

@@doltBmB But isn't Elon Musk pointing out, that Starship could fly as SSTO, but would barely have margin to carry a heat-shield, landing-legs and landing-fuel, let alone any payload?

[@macjonte]

“Some problems are technical, all problems are human.” :)

[@Elliandr]

Cancelling a project that is 95% paid for isn't a big mistake. It's gross incompetence. The fact that the original technical issues have since been solved by modern technology means that continued refusal to continue to project is continued incompetence and a continued waste of our tax dollars.

[@CheapSushi]

And now they're spending billions on the SLS because it's a jobs program.

[@nunyabusiness4651]

@@CheapSushi Your right except that its not just a jobs program but a retirement plan for friends in high places, I'll get you this project with a bottomless cash stream if you put me and my congressional friends on "payroll" when we retire from government work...

[@lucasbowering]

Considering the success of spacex it is actually good in retrospect that this was cancelled. If this was being developed in the 2000s Elon might not have had any reason to start spacex.

[@theatom7264]

@@CheapSushi & SLS will probably get canceled before or right after it flies. Space technology development is better left in the hands of private companies like SpaceX who don't completely depend on government funding to complete a project & make their own money to pay for it.

[@theatom7264]

@@lucasbowering Um Mars? Musks primary goal for SpaceX is getting humans to Mars. If anything the X-33 only would have wanted him to create SpaceX even more considering the X-33 would be limited to low earth orbit. Musk started SpaceX because he was frustrated that NASA had no plans to actually send humans to Mars.

[@bat2293]

So, instead of funding continued R&D on a high risk, high reward new design. They continued to fund the SLS. Sheeesh.

[@Sovek86]

Which is being outdone by Space X, NASA has yet to get its SLS system to launch, and a single test of the orion capsule, meanwhile Space X is launching a manned mission NEXT MONTH. And they got Falcon Heavy to launch two years before that.

[@nuckerball1259]

@About Me Spacex couldn't afford to use a largely untested technology. The x33 was important because it WAS going to prove the areospike as a legitimate propulsion system. Unfortunately corruption cockblocked the whole project and now nasa us being cuckheld by the overpriced sls system soon to be rendered irrelevant by the bfr system. NASA really shot themselves in the foot with this one.

[@mbox314]

The SLS is the least innovative launch system ever conceived, it is using stretched shuttle boosters and tanks, spare shuttle engines, an apollo style crew module and a delta IV 2nd stage and still somehow has taken more time to develop than apollo program.

[@EddyKorgo]

Politics

[@LOLHAMMER45678]

SLS is COTS, with all that implies

[@camillecirrus3977]

"So, hey, the X-33 is almost finished but we cant use the composite tanks and need to use aluminium ones-" *"NOOOOOOO! TOO PRIMITIVE! CANCEL! CANCEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEL!!!"*

[@KATIA95]

Usa people is so noice

[@theperfectpeanutbutterjell7553]

@@KATIA95 american politicians.

[@khhnator]

is very obvious that it is a excuse

[@BeKindToBirds]

Translation: we got paid to cancel this project

[@davidelliott5843]

The dots are not hard to join. Shuttle was not really reusable. The costs to rebuild it for every new launch was huge. X-33 cost less = less work for the zombie outfits that sucked off NASA’s space shuttle budgets. SLS keeps those same zombies in business. Sorted.

[@GreatistheWorld]

I had no idea how far this project got. This is...prettyyyy infuriating not gonna lie

[@adub1300]

11:29 "In much the same way Apollo had done 50 years earlier" How pathetic we have become. We've let politics and greed get in the way of science. Had we stayed with the Saturn V who knows where we'd be. Had we developed the X-33 who knows where we'd be. But we all know one thing: sticking with politics and greed will always get us nowhere.

[@neithere]

Politics created Saturn V, politics destroyed it, so it is, so it has always been.

[@kitirena_koneko]

Just as pro is the opposite of con, PROgress is the opposite of CONgress.

[@neithere]

@@kitirena_koneko though I get the joke, let's not forget that the negative "cons" comes from Latin "contra" (against), while the one in "congress" comes from Latin "cum" (with, together). So "congress" means "coming/stepping together", "progress" = "stepping forward".

[@kitirena_koneko]

@@neithere Point taken, and I can see where the Founding Fathers wanted Congress to be a place where bad ideas died in committee while good ones were turned into laws that worked for the greater good of the country as a whole. Unfortunately, since Nixon, politics has become a zero-sum game where when I win, you lose, and compromise means "my way or nothing", which is why we have frequent gridlock and occasional shutdowns. It's a shame, because great things, such as the Apollo mission, Hoover Dam, and the Panama Canal all came about through huge groups of people working to turn a brilliant vision into a wonderful reality. If congress weren't so busy scoring points off each other, we'd have colonized Mars by now, and be looking to see if there's life under the ice of Europa.

[@Pa-1]

Obsessing with space will also get us nowhere - look at our vehicles - they are still running on a century old tech... Improve the life of an average man - the technology might be hidden somewhere there even for space exploration...

[@jeremycastro8223]

This is why space flight and the government shouldn't go together. The fact that they would give 42 Billion dollars to make the sls, a rocket primary made up of old parts, but not fund the venture star, that was a completely new launch vehicle, shows just how incompatent the government is.

[@abatos1146]

Except SLS can get payloads and humans to the moon and beyond. This new shuttle would get payloads to earth orbit. So Nasa is forward thinking in their destination's but stuck with older tech which is rapidly becoming obsolete. :/

[@jeremycastro8223]

Abatos 11 except sls, will be out preformed and out priced in a couple of years after its inaugural launch.

[@nightlightabcd]

Republicans got involved! It's always that way. Especially with the current administration!!

[@jeremycastro8223]

nightlightabcd everyone always gets involved it's not only republicanas, dont forget a republican started the program

[@dougmc666]

Abatos 11 If you'd like to get many payloads and humans to the moon and beyond the cost needs to come down. The X-33 was designed to do that, the SLS is not.

[@Brixxter]

I really love the X-33 concept. Absolute shame it got canceled.

[@peepsightgaming7257]

So the west missed a chance at a new re-usable space craft because Dick and Al don't get along in any other industry that would get you fired.

[@phantomechelon3628]

Thats politics for you. 🙄

[@macrumpton]

Cheney was a genius at not getting fired for screwing up. His incompetence basically created the whole Middle East and Afghanistan disaster of the last 20 years, wasting trillions of dollars making the entire Muslim world hate the US.

[@SeanHollingsworth]

I was so crushed when they destroyed this project. I still have an X-33 Venture Star T-Shirt. Now with the advent of graphene, the hydrogen tank is technically within reach. It needs to be started over.

[@jackvernian7779]

+Sean Hollingsworth when politics kill a project, there's little hope

[@jeremycastro8223]

I doubt it'll happen during this presidential cycle. Trump is trying to cut government spending and for good reason. I think it's time for private companies to show the government whose boss. Though I think the design should be released completely if it isn't already to allow the private sector to use the technology or even make thier own versions.

[@kaitlyn__L]

if any company like spacex does anything like build aerospike rockets i will eat my hat. i don't have a hat. ok, i will go and buy a hat to eat.

[@SeanHollingsworth]

@@kaitlyn__L Lookup ARCA Space Corporation. :-)

[@spicykorean104]

nah... guess BFR (?) Will do better

[@rickyt11]

Back in the day, when I worked for Lockheed, the word of the day was, "Look to Lockheed for leadership, Look to Boeing for aircraft."

[@TERRY72763]

BOEING would be an innovator too... If they were Funded By American STOLEN (Black Budget) Monies, Without Limit... just an observation

[@charlie7mason]

TERRY WOODS - You're trying too hard.

[@YoMoMiSsOhOt]

This is much the same today,

[@24kGoldenRocket]

Boeing is subsidized enough through Cost Overruns. There is no innovation because of bureaucratic and corporate Red Tape. Boeing hires automatons, corporate minded hive mentality flunkies, from the Universities, who will "fit in", rather than seeking out the creative. Nobody had better rock the establishment's boat over at Boeing, or they will be looking for employment elsewhere.. And "Well, it is the same way over at the other aerospace firms.", although it is true for most dinosaus, is not an excuse. Go Space-X

[@anthonybeasley3924]

rickyt11 Being that you were a Lockheed employee, would you say that there were ulterior motives, deployed by the deep state here? Just a ploy... tactics implented to squash a PUBLICLY funded, therefore publicly REVIEWED, space program? Not to say that ALL black projects are not publicly funded...just not publicly REVIEWED. I'm not trying to put words in to your mouth. These are MY words and thoughts. What, pray tell, are YOUR thoughts and words?

[@Astromatter]

I remember seeing the x33 in a picture book in second or third grade and getting super excited because of how futuristic it looked 😂;so sad that that thing never took off

[@ViewpointProd]

i had a small toy of this, weird to think a cancled project had merchandise

[@orbitalowen7388]

I have 2 😂

[@jamesbanas1815]

@@orbitalowen7388 I was one of the Range Safety Officers at Utah Test and Training Range (2nd half of flight to landing at Dugway Proving Grounds (Michael Army Airfield)). I would have had responsibility for pushing the destruct button if the X-33 went off course. I too have one of the small models but also have the mini plastic bottles of distilled water that was labeled, "X-33 Exhaust Product."

[@MaxCE]

@@jamesbanas1815 drink it

[@rodrigogonzalez7858]

Me too. I had one (or two) from Hot Wheels and other from Matchbox. I’m looking for a model kit but buying it is impossible.

[@donaldbadowski290]

Yeah, we can blame Dick Cheney, and maybe Al Gore. But the NASA director and his testimony to Congress sounds like the killer to me.

[@user-kp5ps7gj8b]

Wait why in which scenario would you blame Al Gore???

[@donaldbadowski290]

It was his funding plan, wasn't it? Not that it was a bad plan, but in the political climate, he probably pushed for the wrong strategy.

[@andrewmorris483]

Donald Badowski I think we should blame some guy named Kevin.

[@GrahamCStrouse]

Andrew Morris Fuckin’ Kevin...

[@dalecarpenter8359]

Donald Badowski No you can blame the vatican one world bankster and their agents in our government ! All the ass holes mentioned are vatican bankster agents ( that lied to get into office )

[@JohnnyZenith]

I was angry when they cancelled this. I'm still angry at the way all these programs were and are handled. I was very excited for this and collected info on it. Just like with the Space shuttle it was totally buggered up. Sure they had problems but they should have pressed on.

[@capnbilll2913]

The space shuttle worked just fine until Bill Clinton signed an executive order to substitute organic foam. The old foam applied with freon repelled water, and didn't form ice chunks.

[@evanbarnes9984]

What a beautiful craft that would have been! A single stage to orbit low maintenance shuttle replacement that uses the cleanest fuels would be a totally amazing thing to have now!

[@carlkinder8201]

The composite tanks on the X33 failed because of their lobed shape, which meant that they had to epoxy multiple pieces together. You can't really say that engineers have since solved the problem, because modern functional composite tank designs have all been tube or spherical shaped, which can be constructed as a single piece without epoxied seams that will rupture under pressure.

[@carlkinder8201]

@@TS-nt8eg I think the re-engineered x-33 tanks were a lithium-aluminum compound like the one used in the advanced light-weight disposable shuttle tanks that were sometimes used toward the end of the program. The re-engineered li-al tanks supposedly ended up being lighter than the composites due to welded seams vs the glued seems with more surface area built into the seam for more glue adhesion area. I heard another big issue for the program was that the experimental linear aerospike engine was severely over weight which would have screwed up the craft's center of gravity and killed its payload capacity.

[@carlkinder8201]

@@TS-nt8eg i think what they should have built is a thin wall lithium-aluminum substructure with internal baffling, and then wrap the entire assembly with a continuous carbon fiber strand like a spider web. That way you eliminate the seams, you save on expensive li-al materials, and you have the superior thermal insulating properties of the carbon fiber to prevent the cryogenic H2 & LOX from absorbing heat through the outer walls

[@sconiglio]

Thanks for the overview of the X33 and its precursor projects. I worked on the DC-X program at McDonnell Douglas. The vehicle flew successfully 8 times as a DoD program, and 4 times as a NASA program. Like any experimental program, failures happen, and we learned from them. We rebuilt and continued testing. The last failure was an accident of an engineer forgetting to remove a safety pin from the fourth landing gear. It's final flight was flawless. The X33 program was all politics from start to finish. Why choose a contender with a working, flying prototype, when you can force the use of too many bleeding edge (and unproven) tech at the same time? Also, McDonnell Douglas was losing military contracts at the time as Lockheed lobbied and underbid everyone. McDonnell Douglas ended up merging with Boeing not long after the X-33 project winner was announced. Dan Goldin, NASA Director in the 1990's, was inspired by the "Faster, Better, Cheaper" model of the DC-X project and took it on as the new motto for NASA. History shows how that turned out. At least the success of DC-X and DC-XA inspired new space startups like Blue Origin and SpaceX and Virgin Galactic to push the reusability concepts further into reality.

[@jeffk464]

Thanks man, engineers and technicians are what truly makes America great, I would say again, but we have kicked ass in the past. We need 10 times more engineering and science majors and 20 times less social studies majors.

[@lucasbowering]

That's the real tragedy, that they choose to fund Venture Star instead of DC-X. Funny that last flight has a spacex equivalent where the booster tips over due to one leg not locking in.

[@KearnuPhoenix]

Are you telling us that you don't know that these projects were covers for funnelling funds into black projects or that you are pretending not to know? I'm curious.

[@piotrd.4850]

@@lucasbowering with large peace dividend from end of cold war, both programs could been founded replete - one by NASA, one by Air Force and even partially with contributions from industry. Really, by that time fighter wing or armoured division less wouldn't hurt USA a bit. Anyway, US equivalent of LHC also paid a price that time...

[@geohiekim8705]

Frankly, faster, better, cheaper is a great motto - when not having to deal with politics. That's the difference between spacex and nasa.

[@CybranM]

I hate when stupid politics get in the way of advancing technology

[@syd_luna]

I remember hearing a story from one of the engineers on the X-33 project. The director at the time was a jackass, and basically "sabotaged" the whole project with his speech to congress alone. I feel for the people who worked on this project. Highly infuriating when politics affected this project.

[@pegasusted2504]

It's the reason we all ended up using fast breeder reactors instead of molten salt ones. Politician wanting the jobs in his state simple as that.

[@AgentjeOrange]

@@pegasusted2504 No that was to supply the Airforce and Navy with nukes.

[@ecniv2207]

Yeah my dad worked on the project but left shortly before it was canceled

[@JUSTENization]

I worked on the actual X-33 demonstrator at Rohr Industries (Collins Aerospace now) 1998 in San Diego. Rohr got the contract for the thermo protection systems (composite leeward and metallic windward panels). I designed 12 of the 18 leeward composite panels; most engineering was done until we got a complete stop due to the oxygen tank tests failure. Venturestar, meant to replace the space shuttles, is officially dead. Although space shuttles were before my time, i personally thought it was a great piece of engineering, as a retired aerospace engineer, i salute to all my mentors. This video is very cool; that external tank would be way too heavy for those Aerospike engines. Salute to all engineers, past present and future! Learn from failures, never give up! ✈️ From San Diego with ❤

[@maxbrandt6]

So much promised in the late 80s and early 90s for space vehicles, I looked forward to the 21st century but it turned out very different then what I hoped for.

[@dzonikg]

Who remember a show call "beyond 2000| ..for me growing in 80s 21 century looked wow...now that i am in 21 century nothing special ...actually many things were better in 80s

[@johnbash-on-ger]

The 21st century runs from and including 2001 until and including the year 2100. The century is still young!

[@David-dl6zg]

I thought I'd have the kitchen re-decorated in a couple of weekends and it took me a couple of months, Everything's harder than you think it's going to be.

[@herbertkeithmiller]

I remember following the Ventura star program and then suddenly it being cancelled. I know that there was a bad decision behind that. Thank you for finally explaining what went wrong.

[@chrisy2128]

I remember going on vacation to Houston as a young boy in the 90's, we spent a day at Johnson space center, I clearly remember seeing a scale model of the X-33 in a room with a lot of people working on it. The tour guide said something about it being the next shuttle. I had no idea what it was at the time, but it looked amazing. I always wondered what happened to it.

[@seanobrien2183]

An excellent design that could still be valid today

[@rogeriopenna9014]

Lockheed: "Ok, this amazing thing, which is cheap and is 95% ready, has a single piece of tech that isn´t mature yet" NASA: "Any solution to that?" Lockheed: "Engineers suggested using alluminum tanks. It will work. It will still be cheap" NASA: "NO! It will be cheap and simple. CANCEL IT NOW!" Lockheed: "Agreed. We won´t secure funding from the Congress..." NASA: "Of course, it's too cheap. The money can´t be distributed" Lockheed: "Exactly." NASA: "We already have other plans. We will start with Constellation Program. After spending billions and billions we will cancel it and go for Space Launch System, which will enable us to spend even more billions for nothing! VentureStar THREATENS all that spending bonanza!!"

[@danielpohnert6268]

The composite cryogenic tank failure due to water in the shell material should have ended the composite tank program not the X33 program. The decision to not go forward with the aluminum tank was among the most irrational NASA decisions in the agencies history. We still have not returned to manned space flight in the post shuttle era. We abandoned reusable lifting body for old school capsule technology. What a loss.

[@OompaL0ompa]

Stop spreading democracy and you will have enough money. Or stop voting for idiots who cut the taxes of the rich and start economic wars. And btw,if lockhead was that smart,why they didnt just finished the job without NASA? Imo,the x33 just wasnt good enough, not enough transport capabilities

[@DenisKz]

@@OompaL0ompa , Your opinion ain't worth shit.

[@777jones]

NASA does not have a reputation for competence. Its best work was GENERATIONS ago. It is not even a space exploration agency. It is a bureaucracy and political office.

[@zincfinger3817]

Well said. Except for one thing. Lockheed's driving. Not NASA. NASA does what its told. ...Mostly. The COTS program was a serious case of disobedience.

[@FPVREVIEWS]

thoroughly enjoyed this episode. It was such a cool project, only BFR is this exciting, but there is something special about space planes. thanks!

[@Etheoma]

Well BFR is kind of a Space Plane... Well I should say the second stage is kind of a space plane. It's a real shame about the VS, if it had delivered on it's promises it would have delivered Falcon 9 like launch cost per Kg much earlier, but then there wouldn't have been a market for private enterprise so I suppose maybe in the long run it will be better.

[@josephgroves3176]

BFR will go the same way as venture star. They gain little over human rating Falcon Heavy and orbital assembly, for a huge increase in development cost and time

[@Etheoma]

You misunderstand the reasons why VS was cancelled, did you watch the video? The reason why VS was cancelled was because of political reasons as the technical challenges had already been overcame by the time it was cancelled. SpaceX doesn't have to deal with politics for BFR as they are funding it off Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, so they don't need specific funding from the government to develop BFR. While SpaceX has plenty of reason to develop BFR, which is cost reduction per Kg which means they can take more market share from there competitors while also being able to reduce cost on there side leading to much greater profits.

[@Etheoma]

While the goverment has reasons to keep space travel expensive, because they want to give states a reason to keep reauthorizing NASA's budget because it provides jobs. The more expensive the vehicle the better.

[@HouseJawn]

NASA is the kid that always get picked on when they make the budget. Every single admin cuts it every year just like the NPS!!!

[@trwsandford]

My father led the design team for the Rockwell bid. The Lockheed team looked at the bid requirements and ignored them entirely. It was supposed to be designed with existing technology. He told NASA that Lockheed couldn't build what they said they could. We barbecued when they failed.

[@antonisantoniou783]

I worked on the x-33 fuel tank research during my studies at the University of New Orleans. I was very disappointed when NASA canceled it. IT WAS A BIG PROMISE.

[@jackvernian7779]

This is infuriatingly stupid. Their decision, that is.

[@kruleworld]

the only way around it is to keep the same people in power for 20 years or more, rather than 4 years at a time. Could you live in that world?

[@jackvernian7779]

+Tidal Yacht once you're in LEO you're halfway to anywhere. So I disagree. Ten times drop in costs seems worth it. Hell, several launches of Venture Star and assembly in orbit are probably cheaper than one launch of dedicated launch vehicle, if the figures are to be trusted.

[@jackvernian7779]

+Tidal Yacht Don't you think that by making LEO substantially cheaper it would incentivize us to go more frequently beyond the LEO?

[@jackvernian7779]

+Tidal Yacht Putting future of space exploration into private companies is not a good idea. Because it can go bankrupt, and nobody will tank it. Government agency, on the other hand, won't go down, because the whole country is ready to back it up if things go wrong. SpaceX only has to rely on itself. Don't get me wrong, using private companies to push into space is good, but what isn't good is expecting them to establish a lasting presence in space. It risks creating an unsustainable monopoly, at best, and will fail, at worst. There has to be a neutral non-private entity to establish a lasting presence.

[@RawSpaceVideos]

It's a real tragedy that humanity's advancement is limited not by our technical ability, but by funding (as a result of politics). Why haven't we been back to the Moon? Too expensive. Why don't we have X-33? Too expensive. Why haven't we been to Mars? Too expensive. If not for the comparatively anemic funding of the world's space programs, we could have multiple huge stations in orbit, bases on the Moon and Mars, and major missions throughout our solar system.

[@johnlongwang5715]

Could you actually focus at practical use of space advancements instead of your sci-fi fantasy? These money doesn’t actually magically appear in government’s pocket, but from tax payers which is average people like you and I. If it has no practical aid to our lives, then it is a waste of money.

[@methanesprings4085]

Why waste money on this when you already have this technology in a black project. You really think the elites are not interested in space? My opinion, they never stopped you just don’t know about it.

[@Renuclous]

+John Longwang I can guarantee that you used at least 5-10 things this very day that were developed by or pushed to widespread usability through government funded space research. The camera in your phone, anything with an LED, Sports shoes, Water filters, Wireless headphones, foam matresses and Laptops just to name a few. Add to that the long term value of the hundreds and thousands of research projects in probes and spacelabs as well as the potential for insane amounts of almost every non-organic rescource and you have one of the most influencial parts of government spending on the day to day lives of your average tax payer. This has nothing to do with Sci-Fi fantasies, or do you believe that BlueOrigin, Lockheed, Virgin and SpaceX are just idiots who love to burn money with no potential return?

[@Clayton240183]

However: Want to kill some people in a cave somewhere? Hold my beer and take my money!

[@brianoconnell6459]

Well, if I may sound like a total liberal, because we've been spending trillions on endless wars and defense and not on the space program?

[@zenzen9131]

Paint it green and call it Thunderbird 2 :)

[@scasey1960]

This is called “the wisdom of crowds” combined with “Monday morning quarterback”.

[@hunterjones9822]

Whenever NASA says it will cut the cost by 50% go ahead and triple the budget

[@ImperativeGames]

No... just simply triple the budget every time ^^

[@matthewpan2380]

Things are not always coming in perfect expectation. Especially for those program that's on early stage of development. It sounds a lot when you look at the cost of program itself, but did you know that total budget of NASA is less than 0.5 percent of total US budget.

[@hunterjones9822]

Matthew Pan I'm well aware of the fact that the NASA budget is a fraction of a percent of the total budget expenditures but 20 Billion/year is not pocket change and even at that fraction NASA is a bloated government agency just like the rest of them. And I stand by my assertion that whenever NASA or ANY government agency says "Cost Savings" it ends up running way over budget, probably more than we know as they all have fun ways of "tweaking" the numbers without repercussion. I'm all for Space Exploration etc but we've done low earth orbit for 40 years now, we dont need another low earth orbit reusable shuttle gimmic, the private sector has already proven it can do that at a fraction of the cost the government can because unlike the government they have to be profitable to stay in business. If they want to go to Mars then go to Mars but quit coming up with stuff to do just for the sake of doing it to justify your existence. As far as the Manned Space Program, NASA has gone backwards not forwards since the days of the Apollo program and since then NASA has spread out into all kinds of fields it was never intended to be involved in. NASA (National Aeronautic and Space Administration) doesn't need to be studying climate change, tsunamis, swamp gas, glaciers, etc. We have plenty of other bloated government agencies that already have that in their mandate. NASA needs to stick with "Aeronautics and Space" and get their asses in gear.

[@matthewpan2380]

Hunter Jones I agree with what you saying that NASA should force more on space exploration. However, as you know this is a long term project that require massive finding with few useful outcome. Although this is necessary cost to moving forward, investors and government doesn't want to pay those cost. NASA is different from the period of space competition as the government gave full support to NASA to sent man to the moon. Right now, NASA focus more on using their research to benefit our lives as the return of investment(ROI). Otherwise, NASA will further lose their funding.

[@matthewpan2380]

Hunter Jones interesting fact: average American think the NASA gets 1/4 of total US budget, which is awesome if it is true. Think about all the research and programs we can have at the same time. But, it's impossible.

[@mj1234321]

One key clarification: the vehicle components and launch facility were for a subscale, suborbital demonstrator. We were nowhere near that close to having a single stage to orbit vehicle. Still, it's a real shame that the program was abandoned.

[@geekhands8968]

Find your content both informative and extremely entertaining to my inquisitive mind. Thank you for putting forth the effort!

[@brassysounds]

The whole story really makes me feel very disappointed.

[@WestOfEarth]

Thank you for this in depth report! I've always wondered at the details of its cancellation. It makes me sad to learn that stupid political wranglings stifled innovation.

[@tkreshman]

not sure this is the whole history. x-33 used hybrid , I remember the lithium, but not the aluminum it probably was a mix of the two ,supposedly they bought this tank form Russia !! I know sounds ridiculous, but who owned the tank suppliers corporations then.in the the x-33 was flying higher almost every time till it crashed

[@theJellyjoker]

As far as I'm concerned NASA's biggest mistake was building the shuttle and not doing the Venus flyby using Apollo derived hardware.

[@swmark78]

What would a Venus flyby have accomplished?

[@seanbush5313]

science!

[@The1Green4Man]

A Venus fly by would have been so impressive to see.

[@whitehorse1959]

Those Venus flytraps are creepy af

[@laredobenjamin7438]

By cancelling the Shuttle they could also have landed on Mars.

[@timothyroberts1217]

From someone on the X-30 NASP program from 1985 to 1991 - we were ahead of the narrator's timeline by about 2-3 years. I worked the scramjet engines (with GE) and vehicle subsystems for the five years I was there. We made some amazing breakthroughs, especially in high-temperature materials and high-speed air cooling for the engines - prototypes were built and tested but never in an integrated system. After NASP, I worked at HQ Air Force Space Command and saw (but didn't participate in) the Command's attempts to take on VentureStar. I would note that VS was always two-stage-to-orbit (TSTO) and that it's payload was dismally small. I also oversaw the Command's interest in the Delta Clipper, which was actually an SDI project. I didn't know but am pleased to find out that some Delta Clipper engineers did get over to Blue Origin.

[@MrBlueSkyMrNight]

Would it have been possible to add a couple of Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters o the X33? That would have shrunk down the internal fuel tanks a lot - so that a larger payload bay is possible. Basically a better Space Shuttle with no need for an external fuel tank. And the two added SRBs still keep the X33 - 100% re-usable.

[@ThornsOfOurTime]

8:10 nah...I'm just seeing things

[@geometric2944]

Bruh

[@zed1stwizard]

Curious Droid I've been hoping you would cover this , great work. Spot on.

[@cokeforever]

Very professional presentation, as usual. Love your channel.

[@JRS-iq9pz]

According to Wikipedia - The program was cancelled in February 2001. The main reason for this was reported as being a delay caused in completing the fuel tanks. Construction of the prototype was some 85% assembled with 96% of the parts and the launch facility 100%complete when the program was canceled by NASA in 2001, after a long series of technical difficulties including flight instability and excess weight.

[@remyschrader9286]

10:00 "Because the VentureStar was to be privately funded, if it were to go ahead with the aluminium tanks it would be confirming that the technology was simply to difficult to do." No, you can't go to space with what we got because it means maybe we'll never get what we don't got... Cool -- checks out. If you live to be 1000 will that ever make any kind of sense?

[@nicksalvatore5717]

If we lived to 1000 maybe we’d be a bit more wise.

[@laxpors]

The SLS is the lamest new rocket. NASA is stuck in the past man!

[@benderrodriguez142]

The SLS being the main project is because of politics... it is built and designed by Boeing, United Launch Alliance, Orbital ATK and Aerojet Rocketdyne. All those lobbied the shit out of their respective congressmen to have the project be as is. This is one Congress and not NASA.

[@laxpors]

Well still, the fact that NASA is a government organization leads to this slow progress.

[@ThisNoName]

NASA hedged their bet heavily on SpaceX ... they are not all that dumb.

[@chadcastagana9181]

Maybe not anymore, checkout: newatlas.com/first-phantom-express-engine/54925/#gallery

[@kornkernel2232]

The issue is mainly political though. NASA is nothing without the funding from the government, so NASA will just have to use whatever is available, more practical, tested and ordinary. Private space aeronautics like Space-X will be the ones who will take the risk of using newer technologies. But NASA will still be the forefront of researching completely new technologies if only they will be funded and without much political mess.

[@TheRadiastral]

My goodness, I could watch your videos non-stop, for weeks lol Great content, spot-on narrative.

[@gregorykotoch5045]

This story is so tragic. So close to something amazing. I would absolutely love to see someone resume work on the Venture Star.

[@WalkerChristopher11]

My grandmother bought me a hot wheels sized version of the venture star and I was obsessed with it then on out. It looked so futuristic as a kid. Of course it was thrown away before it even had a chance.

[@dtgs4502]

I'm not a fan of SSTO's, but it's hard to deny this could have kicked the shuttle's ass. I was just doing some quick math on them, and here's the notes. VentureStar: Shuttle: F9: Payload to gross mass ratio: .02 .014 .03 Fuel type: LOX/LH2 LOX/LH2+? LOX/RP-1 LEO payload: 20T 27.5T 18.5T Stages: 1 2 2

[@WhereNerdyisCool]

Alright whose up for a GoFundMe and make it ourselves. 🙂

[@mattice5685]

Where Nerdy is Cool! do it

[@OompaL0ompa]

Nah,there are better blueprints

[@michaelfixedsys7463]

this isn't actually the worst idea. you've got my vote and about 2 dollars and 59 cents in change

[@Salvavideocrack]

KZbin should add a "totally love this marvel" button, keep going.

[@danielpohnert6268]

I was working with people at NASA. at the time and it was NASA that pulled the plug. The composite tank for cryogenics was a failure due to the in ability to remove 100% of water from the composite material. The entrapped water turned to ice and expanded when the tank was filled. Lockheed offered an aluminium design with approximately the same weight, but NASA said no and cancelled the program.

[@PyroXVuurwerk]

Shame shame shame shame Why do Nasa and Roskosmos always come up with such genius ideas, and than, while it’s all going fantastically, stop the projects?

[@PyroXVuurwerk]

Tidal Yacht falcon 9 is still not fully reusable... consider that if you respond. You don’t even give good arguments

[@RedLP5000S]

Aliens

[@Ohmloud]

All abouth money... Wat would generate more $ fore example NASA 1 Finish a current ongoing project that is already 80/90 completed. 2 Starting a brand new project from scrach. And when the us military is you competition fore govermet funding, you cant even be that angry at them fore this.. (garantied governent funding for 2 years if you finishing the curent project, or 10 years of funding if you cancel it and start all over again)

[@WilliamJones-Halibut-vq1fs]

I think there is an agreement between the Russians and Americans not to achieve anything too much. If someone actually did so they other guy would have to as well.

[@MiniMotoAlliance]

PyroX because they are both tied to political bullshit. If you uncoupled then from politics this wouldn’t be a problem

[@anthonydomanico8274]

The more I think about the X-33 and the VentureStar the more I get upset. People in the comments are saying it’s about money, but it’s not. The SLS and Orion’s budgets dwarf the X-33’s. It was like Paul said, it was political. The VentureStar would have been absolutely incredible. Frankly, I’m disappointed in both NASA and LM for not continuing the project. If it worked as intended, LM would have owned the launch market for at least a decade and a half or more. Once all the other launch providers around the world caught up, our species would have really been out amongst the planets. Most of the risk was retired by the time it was cancelled so that was a lack of foresight by all involved parties. The more I ponder this the more I wonder why the Soviets or Russians didn’t develop a comparable vehicle. They certainly had, and have, the expertise. I also get more and more pissed off that the guy representing NASA said the X-33 needed to fly with the carbon composite fuel tank before the space and science committee of the House. Either he knew something we don’t or he just flat out made one of the worst decisions in human history. Even though staging has become pretty reliable I still have an affinity for SSTO’s. Why is that? Does anyone else share that preference?

[@piotrd.4850]

Soviet Union was on the ropes - sorry. Just compare F-15 and Su-27, Space Shuttle and Buran- later were just as good. Now compare next gen hardware YF-22 and YF-23 to original Soviet counterpart, Eurofighter-like MiG-1.42. They dropped off. Energia was awesome, but expensive as hell and reusable version looked not that efficient. Soviet disparity in computer technology, composites and quality control was really beginning to tell by end of 80s. Note: they were able to crank out MiG-25s and 31s, Tu-22Ms and Tu-160s... but Concorde or SR-71 equivalents were out of their league.

[@Betrix5060]

Lest theoretical waste combined with a more classically sci-fi feel.

[@leftcoaster67]

I've always loved the SSTO and DSTO concepts. My only gripe is that it was supposed to be automated. I understand that weight is everything. But it would have been cool to have a small cockpit with 2-4 astronauts. I still don't buy the argument that "Composite tanks or the project makes the testing invalid". The had new metal tiles, aerospike engines, automated control, and a true lifting body design. I'm sorry that's NOT enough new technology? Worse is it was 90% complete when they cancelled it. Why not just complete it then?

[@zabercrombie24]

Exactly there's plenty of money in the Black budget to have funded the x-33 .

[@davidstinger1134]

Because the Soviet Union collapsed and the country fell into a deep economic crisis, they had far bigger things to worry about than space exploration.

[@animatewithdermot]

On a flight from LA to Ireland in the late 90s the passenger in the seat next to me was an aerospace worker. With JPL and Caltech in Pasadena, not uncommon. I mentioned the Venturestar, and he said "That thing is never going to fly". Laid out many of the problems, said that it was too ambitious, and had zero chance of working.

[@gweflj]

Who would downvote these brilliantly researched and presented videos? Some weird people out there.

[@funkymunky7935]

People who don't like when political biases get inserted into videos

[@datathunderstorm]

The very stooges who thwarted the Venture Star project in the first place....😡

[@station240]

Flat earthers, climate change denialists, Trump voters, Oil Lobby groups, and anti science morons in general. I'm not even a proper scientist, but I've done more good in one day than any of them will do in a lifetime. Pay them no heed, they deserve nothing.

[@ahaveland]

Bots. Programmed to act like an authentic human to make it more difficult for them to be identified and removed.

[@JOESMITH-qs8ue]

It's probably just the shirt. :)

[@sauerkraut14]

Great, informative video!! X-33 was cancelled without a viable alternative. Actually, as the Shuttle was not meeting expectations and had already resulted in a lost crew, its successor should have been planned earlier. Failure to do so resulted in the Columbia tragedy. While the X-33 was cancelled, the US was at war in Iraq. The Saturn V was cancelled during the Vietnam War.

[@JFrazer4303]

X-33 wasn't meant to producer a working vehicle. If it were, then it would have been the DC-Y. Or, we'd have built the HL-20. Fans of this fiasco graft machine don't even know about those two very much better proposals. They spent money on this because it wouldn't work. They didn't spend on those because they would have.

[@lkurowic]

I'm glad there are people who actually worked on this project that have commented. I recall watching live cameras as this vehicle and the launch pad were being assembled. Then one day poof all gone. I always thought the project went military and therefore black. Afterall I had been taken on a behind the scene interview/tour of the Johnson space center some years before by Ford Aerospace and saw some operations rooms full of military personnel. I was told there was a fleet of military shuttles. Saw a bit of talk about that in Aviation Week & Space Technology at the time but nothing in the mainstream news.

[@DrKnow-ye6rv]

NASA had two debacles in a row... That's how we ended up thumbing rides from the Russians.

[@kitirena_koneko]

NASA had two debacles, true. As opposed to how many by the Department of Defense in the same timeframe?

[@Fred_the_1996]

@@kitirena_koneko how much funding does NASA get? And how much funding does the military get? Oh right, the army gets 600 billion!

[@kitirena_koneko]

@@Fred_the_1996 $22.6 billion, or 0.48% of our GDP, according to Wikipedia. The military gets $622 billion, or roughly 27.5 times as much as NASA. Imagine how many space shuttles we could buy for the cost of a single Joint Defense Fighter, especially since the JDF performs worse than most fighters half its age...

[@Jagger2020]

Capitão Explosã

[@iknklst]

Using 1960's technology too boot. Might as well have taken all the Mercury capsules out of museums and used them instead.

[@rlic9206]

We know how to blow each other up but we do not know how to explore and reach for the future.

[@padcarr1183]

Human progress has been founded on the development of more efficient ways of killing each other.

[@jshepard152]

Apollo was done out of competition, not cooperation.

[@altrag]

Fear is a stronger motivator than curiosity.

[@ImperativeGames]

Actually, most inventions were made by very passionate and curious people.

[@altrag]

+Imperative Games True, but those passionate and curious people tend to invent more things when they aren't starving.. Money certainly doesn't invent things on its own, and you can't just give a million bucks to any random stooge and expect a world-changing invention to appear.. but money can support the people who are inventing anyway, and give them the time to focus on their passion rather than having it be a spare time project.

[@xponen]

The aerospike engine, the lifting body, and the composite tank; the core technology of X-33... at least SpaceX will test 2 out of 3 technology; the composite tank and lifting body for its BFR

[@chadcastagana9181]

xponen_. New aerospike engine tested & launched in WA state! newatlas.com/first-phantom-express-engine/54925/

[@totalermist]

Chad Castagana - the AR-22 is a SSME-derived, conventional bell-nozzle engine, not an aerospike engine...

[@elephant35e]

I was reading a book (Angels and Demons) where this plane was used to quickly transport people from New York to Geneva. The pilot in the book said that the plane would probably be very common in the future. It's such a disappointment that he was wrong!

[@samarvora7185]

And Dan Brown's description of the plane is reminiscent of the X33 too.

[@tocu9808]

Everything of this man is quite impressive. Voice, appearance, esp the shirt.

[@abatos1146]

The X-33 looks like a great project for Virgin Galactic to take over...

[@175griffin]

Their Spaceship 2 is far simpler than the x-33, suborbital, and flies like garbage. It would be a massive step up for Virgin Galactic. Both SpaceX and Blue Origin are better equipped to develop the x-33. Still, I think it would be best as a NASA funded project given how experimental it is. Private companies don't want to take that kind of risk, especially when they're deeply invested in their own projects that should make the x-33 obsolete. A fully reusable multistage rocket could carry to orbit far more payload than the x-33 for the same amount of fuel.

[@mattsoup4121]

Abatos 11 If I remember correctly lockheed is gearing up to continue the project

[@zachcrawford5]

The only place Virgin Galactic will ever get to, is a hole in the desert.

[@JohnnyZenith]

Mattsoup Please show any links?

[@Patchuchan]

Or Vulcan Aerospace as Paul Allen has enough money to fund it.

[@thecapacitor1395]

The X-33 ThiccStar

[@JohnnyZenith]

The Capacitor Language is fascinating. We never had the word Thicc then.

[@kieranh2005]

Oooh yeah.

[@davidkak1354]

Peizxcv oh and it 'permeates' it because of meme culture, the word thicc initially referred to the size of someone's ass but now it is used when talking about anything with a visibly large mass

[@Peizxcv]

david kak The word origin is from ghetto culture and was spread by hip pop and then online meme

[@thecapacitor1395]

Peizxcv Because it's lit xD

[@charleswagner1724]

This is awesome information. Thank you for making this content.

[@R00k81]

Did a report on this in college (roughly 2002) and haven't seen or heard anything about this in years. Thx.

[@DonnerPassWhisky]

Question sir. At 6:02 you say Incanel was developed for the SR-71, Wasn't this material developed for the X-15 ? I worked on the instrumentation system of the SR-71 in the USAF from 1984-1989 and never saw the name in any technical manuals. I have heard this material named in many documentary's about the X-15 program. Your videos are excellent and really enjoy watching. Thanks

[@sdalt14]

I believe the spelling is Inconel. This might help your searching, but be aware Inconel is a product name not a chemical name and Inconel products have different alloy compositions such as 600/625/718. One of these alloys was used for characteristics desirable for atmospheric friction heating on the SR-71, a google search found Inconel-X might be the product you want to track down.

[@chadcastagana9181]

Didn't they use heat resistant Cobalt alloys in these X-planes?

[@Oodain]

for the exhaust parts they used rene-41 and hastalloy-X, the first included cobalt, the skin and several other parts were made from titanium alloys but AFAIK none included cobalt. though cobalt and titanium will happily alloy and form crystals, i use TiO in my crystal glazes on ceramics and cobalt to turn them blue and change the crystallization.

[@HAMlLTON]

Politics man... Politics

[@andymontoya]

Your videos are inspiring and educational. Thank you

[@kestutissnieska]

This story reminded me of the Boeing Super Sonic Airliner program -- the most advanced proposal won and was not finished.

[@LOLHAMMER45678]

The cancellation of Boeing's SST was for the best. The oil crises killed SSTs stone dead right after it got the axe

[@davidsi5376]

The shirt!!!!

[@DrWoodyII]

David Si: "I'm Paul Shillito. . . with . . . some of the loudest shirts on KZbin . . . ." [Curious Droid] It's a British thing.

[@TheGodParticle]

Kind of retro

[@josephgroves3176]

I love it. Takes some balls to wear it in public tho

[@slowpoke3102]

DT's always on the prowel.

[@Axemantitan]

The credits at the beginning of the video tell you which shirt it is and how to order it.

[@SC-mq1eh]

when politics and government ruin the advancement of science

[@funkymunky7935]

Hence why space should be privatized

[@sagethelemur]

when conservative* Politcs and government ruin the advancement of science *FTFY as far as I know the only leadership interested in policy that mirrors actual science are liberals, which today means Democrats. this is what you get when you vote republican sadly.

[@SC-mq1eh]

+Robert Sage During the time period of the x-33 the aerospace industry was almost all part of the military complex - and the military complex was generally the domain of conservative politicians - For whatever reasons the x-33 didn't tick enough boxes that directly had a positive impact the senators and representatives home districts, probably the main reason why it died

[@theexplosionist2019]

Advancement of space exploration you mean?

[@SC-mq1eh]

TheExplosionist i dont know how much the x-33 wouldve really done for actual space exploration as it wouldve been used mostly for LEO? but more for the advancement of rocket science itself

[@a32k57]

Instead we get Dream Chaser, and that's not even here yet. Very sad.

[@DuffyWayne]

dream chaser would have been a much better commercial crew choice to go along with dragon than boeing's starliner

[@kenparnell4297]

Lockheed learned many years ago that having the project come in on time and on budget didn't make nearly as much money for them in the long run.

[@maxbootstrap7397]

The problem with these stories is... usually a great many important details are never widely known. The Space Shuttle was supposed to be quick and cheap to turn around for subsequent flights and supposedly had many advantages of the X33... but in the end was a royal mess and maybe even "a lemon". While I would have loved to see this taken to completing *IF* all was as portrayed in this video, I don't think we really know what the real case was. And... something smells.

[@jdsd744]

You

[@kenetickups6146]

it smells like ula

[@johnsteiner3417]

The death of Venturestar isn't just a tragedy, it's a goddamn crime.

[@bobgarr6246]

It astounds me that an Englishman knows more about NASA and the inner workings of the space program than 99% of Americans, most of which could not even tell you where the JPL, Mission Control, Kennedy Space Center or the Ames Research Center are located.

[@jontallman3878]

California, Texas, Florida, and California?

[@johnwang9914]

I so wanted the contract to go to the Delta Clipper, it just seemed so much better to go with something simple that works than to try and develop multiple concepts at the same time .

[@pgabrieli]

as usual excellent video. just one thing: inconel-x was developed for the X-15, not the SR-71

[@MrOskaren]

damn politics

[@jtiss_1023]

More like damn early 2000s republicans

[@LeiCal69]

Saying that there's no reason to keep exploring is short sighted, we did not get to where we are by saying we have no reason to keep advancing.

[@woooweee]

naw, may have inadvertently been right, this looks cool, but the payload, and ultimate practicality is dubious, you know its true. We already have a better system for re-usability with spacex rockets, why carry everything up and back all in one when it doesn't make sense. This was a small scale test platform, the full ship with payload capability would have likely bloated endlessly with cost and weight over runs, ending up as shuttle 2.0, a false dream costing money and lives because it looks cool. They probably should have funded the engines alone though, the rest is meh.

[@MeoithTheSecond]

jtiss _ its been republicans mode of operation right up to this day, if it's done under their watch it's awesome north korea peace treaty for instance, if it's done under democrats republicans do their best to destroy it, there is no way democrats would have been allowed to get the peace treaty passed that trump passed. America's days are numbered it's slowly ripping itself apart people's bubbles are only going to get smaller from now on..

[@paulgracey4697]

Actually 1980's Republicans. It was a Supreme Court stacked with partisan justices by Bush Sr. who caused the outcome of the 2000 election to go to his son.

[@scwaty180]

Another great video and another cool shirt. Love your videos

[@antoniosantoniou3247]

I was working on the external fuel tank research when I was doing my PhD at UNO. It was a project sponsored by Lockheed Martin. It was a big disappointment when NASA canceled the project. There were many opportunities to expand the technology to civil aviation with tremendous benefits like eco-friendly, fast, and cheap flights

[@alphaadhito]

I hate when politics intervene science and research

[@disky01]

Here's hoping that we'll be able to restart this project, soon. Clean, reusable SSTO is the dream.

[@jamesgardner2101]

Call Elon, he'll have it done by summer.

[@simonm1447]

The Starship will be the successor of this vehicle - making rockets like the SLS looking like artefacts of a long gone world.

[@SuperVstech]

3:00 it’s the ship from “flight of the navigator”

[@JLanc1982]

I was mad when this program get cancelled! I was 16 at the time and my subscription to POP SCI keep me informed...

[@EdricLysharae]

Imagine what NASA could do if it had military-level funding...

[@MundaneMuser]

Or even 10% of military funding.

[@bocahdongo7769]

They did They did push someone into the moon and back with 1960s technology.