So Curious Droid did a video recently on NASA's Space Shuttle replacement, the Lockheed Martin X-33/VentureStar, and I'm just blown completely away by the incredible engineering that is in this unique and futuristic shuttle. I've heard of the VentureStar before but never knew just how epic this thing really was. Lockheed Martin may not be the most honest or trustworthy aerospace company, but Skunk Works sure as hell can create an innovative, creative, and daring design.
I'm not gonna explain the whole video or the VentureStar Program, but basically it was supposed to be a replacement for NASA's Space Shuttle and LM/Skunk Works was chosen with their above-and-beyond (no pun intended) space shuttle design. It was incredibly innovative and it would have reduced launch costs as well as shuttle maintenance similar to what SpaceX has accomplished and perfected recently. But right as the X-33 prototype was nearing completion and a solution was found for the shuttle's main fuel tank drawback, politics and bureaucracy got in the way and NASA cancelled the X-33/VentureStar Project, and thus the Space Shuttle died without a successor. WAY TO GO NASA! Letting an awesome piece of engineering go to waste!
@Texasfam04
The best part about SpaceX is that flat earthers can't say "It's the government" in their case because SpaceX is a private company.
@Texasfam04
Wow how did I get to 10.4k so fast? I turned 10.3k just a few hours ago.
there was a video of theirs that went viral because their rocket seemed to hit “the dome”. they came out to address the issue and explained what really happened. they use some sort of counter weight that causes that abrupt stop like it hits a invisible wall. nasa would never do that they just leave the speculation alone like the astronauts all wearing a shoulder harness under their clothes when theyre doing the live feeds LOL @JohnnyBoythePilot
@Texasfam04
Yea, I love how transparent SpaceX is with the public.
ME TO!!! i like how they have live feeds with their launches. @JohnnyBoythePilot
@Texasfam04
Yea. At this point I'm rooting for SpaceX more than NASA.
NASA is well known for being the black hole of projects. i have a theory that some of these projects over the years are actually just “fronts” for other budgeting purposes. What other defense type contractors could continue getting contracts that go way over budget with little results? with all the $ nasa has been given we dont even have the best telescopes. i recently read that the vatican actually has the most advanced telescope on the planet called “lucifer”. Nasa is still living off the apollo missions fame in my opinion
@Texasfam04
The F-16 turns better but the F/A-18 can point it's nose tighter (can achieve higher-alpha). The F-16 dogfights better but the F/A-18 is better suited for A2G/strike missions.
The F-35 can turn like an Viper but point it's nose like a Hornet.
@Texasfam04
Both designs would run into problems. The YF-16 had problems with the P&W engine, and being the pioneer for fly-by-wire controls, that had major bugs as well. I think the YF-17/F-18 had problems with the vertical stabilizers (either being structurally weak or they fluttered at high-speeds). But I think both designs are fantastic (F-16 and the YF-17/F-18). Fun fact: the F/A-18/YF-17 traces it's roots back to the F-5 design.
i read that the LWFP , the program that GD won with their F16 was a politcal choice. everything ive read said the YF17 performed better. it eventually became the F18 anyways @JohnnyBoythePilot
@Texasfam04
No I think it was more Northrop/McDonnell Douglas neglected to perform a weapons test than the YF-23 not being able to perform it. In the JSF's case, yea Lockheed Martin had the better overall design. Boeing kept changing ideas on the X-32 to the point where Boeing's final "F-32" design was completely different than the X-32 in the fly-off at the time. At that point the X-35 was bound to win.
the 23 was unable to complete the weapons testing that the program required. theres a lot more reasons than just making a choice they actually have to pass certain tests or face elimination. boeing tried to beat lockheed for the jsf program, boeing hadnt made a fighter in over 60 years and they didnt have the knowledge that lockheed had in the industry and it showed with all of their poor decisions with everything from coatings, wings to engine choices. theres a great documentary on youtube called the battle of x planes that showcases this in detail. i personally think the 23 wouldve been a better choice but they werent able to showcase a complete aircraft, same with the x-32, boeing made a lot of “promised” changes to the plane that they couldnt showcase during testing @ForeverPie
''Thinking 100''
@Botfinder
@ForeverPie
The F-22 and F-35 are still pretty badass fighters but I agree the YF-23 should have won. It was a better overall design. Here's an excellent documentary on the YF-23 and why it was the better ATF design. In regards to the JSF, I think Lockheed Martin still had the better design with the X-35 over Boeing. The problem with Boeing's X-32 was that on paper the concept looked great, but when it came to the fly-off the X-32 had many issues and needed parts to be removed so it can even hover! I think the "F-32" would have had just as many, if not more problems than the F-35, but Boeing isn't as shady as LM so Boeing may have gotten the F-32 delivered faster.
Yea it really sucks when politics ruin good engineering feats.
@Botfinder The YF-23 should have won, but the F-22 was more customizable, not like they customized it anyway.