Talk:Lockheed Martin X-33
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. | ||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| Related projects: | ||
 |
WikiProject Spaceflight | Importance to Spaceflight: Unassessed |
|
This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
||
The VentureStar & the X-33 are two completely different spacecraft. This article is about the Lockheed Martin's X-33, IT SHOULD STRICKLY BE ABOUT THE X-33, NOT THE VENTURESTAR! References to VentureStar should been kept to an absolute minimum.--aceslead 03:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] The Other Bids
Boeing & McDonald Douglas each had a seperate bid for the X-33. More of the bids should be mentioned.--aceslead 03:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reliability
Conventional airplanes are 0.9999999999 reliable? That's 1 accident in 10 billion flights, which would mean 1 mishap in 100 years of flight, assuming there were 274,000 flights daily. 71.205.107.239 00:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Stub Article?
The stub article heading has been removed since "14:59, 24 November 2006", but the article was still in the "1990s aircraft stubs" category.Annekcm 15:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] X-33 in Fiction
An X-33 type SSTO project is central to Michael Flynn's "Firestar" novel, with many references to the X-33 and its cancellation.
BobShair 04:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] X-33 / VentureStar confusion
(Originally posted on User talk:Fnlayson)
The "confusion" I see in the article includes:
First Photo with caption: “Simulated view of the X-33 in low earth orbit”
(Not at <75.8 km altitude and < Mach 13 of X-33 Environmental Impact Statement!)
While the X-33 would not approach airplane-like safety, the X-33 would attempt to demonstrate 0.997 reliability, or 3 mishaps out of 1,000 launches, which would be an order of magnitude more reliable than the Space Shuttle system.
(This reliability can't be demonstrated during the 15 flights covered by the EIS)
The X-33 was to be the first unmanned commercial aircraft to fly into space (75.8 km altitude).[3] It also was to be the first aircraft with a ballistic trajectory. It was to be launched upright like a rocket and rather than having a straight flight path it would fly diagonally up for half the flight, reaching extremely high altitudes, and then back down for the rest of the flight. It was intended for long inter-continental flights and supposed to be in service by 2012, but unfortunately the project was ceased.[citation needed]
(With my additions (unmanned and 75.8 km altitude). Is there such a thing as an “Unmanned Commercial Aircraft”, let alone a commercial aircraft flown on only 15 experimental NASA hops? Space is not normally expected to include flights below 75.8 km (from the EIS), although one official definition sets 50 km as the boundary. The EIS for the EXPERIMENTAL X-33 certainly does not include inter-continental flights let alone “in service by 2012.)
Construction of the prototype was some 85% complete ...
(An X-Plane doesn't HAVE a PROTOTYPE, since it is the Prototype, a one off (or small number of copies) assembly to prove a theory or investigate an idea.)
The X-33 in fiction...
(Every application in fiction built on the confusion LM deliberately generated between the funded X-33 suborbital project, and the unfunded, hypothetical VentureStar project.)
I confess to being hypersensitive to this error, having worked with a group in Texas who spent a great deal of time, effort and money on a Spaceport proposal (one of more than 20 nationwide) fully believing that the X-33 WAS the prototype for an ORBITAL vehicle, and that the development of a Space Shuttle replacement was well underway. These professionals could never believe my telling them that the funded X-33 project was for an unmanned, radio control model which would never go into space.
Beyond this, the LM planted confusion is widespread today, with the large majority of people believing that the X-33 was to be an orbital system (not a technology demonstrator which, if successful, could lead to the design and funding of an actual orbital test vehicle, which, if also successful, could lead to the funding and development of a vehicle which could actually carry passengers into space.
This article is actually very informative and well written. It does describe the X-33 reality, but the image and other comments noted serve to sustain the confusion deliberately created by LM rather than correct the misunderstanding. I see that my prior statement was a exaggeration, but I would like the Wiki article to end the LM intentional confusion with clear truth. Rpspeck (talk) 03:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
