LESSON IN FAILED X-33'S BID NEW ENGINE PROMISING.

Byline: Jim Skeen Staff Writer

PALMDALE - Hailed as the key to dramatically lowering the cost of getting into space, the $1.3 billion X-33 rocket plane now sits three-quarters-finished in a Palmdale hangar while NASA and Lockheed Martin decide who gets its parts.

Finishing it would have cost another $1 billion - and at least two to three years more work - and NASA decided it wasn't worth it.

``On the whole, X-33 could serve as a textbook case on how not to develop a useful aerospace vehicle,'' said Henry Vanderbilt, executive director of the Space Access Society, a Phoenix-based space advocacy group that considered the X-33 too ambitious. ``I am relieved that the whole thing was finally over. I'm also disappointed they wasted all that time and money.''

The two factors that space officials said made the X-33 exciting - the boldness of its scope and the new relationship it was forging between NASA and the aerospace industry - contributed to its cancellation.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration officials say they are disappointed at having to kill the craft before it flew but assert that the program resulted in technological advances that could be useful in the future: Boeing Rocketdyne's revolutionary ``aerospike'' rocket engine, exterior heat shields more durable than the space shuttle's tiles and improvement in computer control system for unmanned craft.

NASA also learned to take a more active role in future joint efforts, saying that they didn't have as much authority over technical aspects as they would have liked.

The lessons are being applied to NASA's new effort to develop a reusable spaceship, the Space Launch Initiative.

Rather than trying for a big leap in technologies, Space Launch Initiative will focus on baby steps. That program will focus on developing technologies to the point where construction of a new spaceship can begin in 2005.

``The Space Launch Initiative is building on the experience of the X-33,'' said Dan Dumbacher, manager of NASA's Second-Generation Reusable Launch Vehicle program. ``We are purposefully setting up the program to take a systematic process to identifying and reducing risks.''

Lockheed Martin officials declined requests for interviews about the X- 33's demise, saying their top X-33 people are engaged in discussions with NASA about how to close the program. Program officials are also looking at what X-33 technologies might be applied to other space launch studies.

``They were surprised by the announcement (of the program's cancellation),'' said Lockheed Martin spokesman Evan McCollum. ``They are scrambling to see where to go from here.''

Lockheed Martin submitted several other proposals under the Space Launch Initiative. The company remains optimistic that it will ultimately be part of whatever reusable spacecraft is built.

Wingless, wedge-shaped and slightly smaller than the space shuttle, the X-33 was not intended to fly into space, but rather it was to test technologies for a future reusable spaceship.

The rocket plane was to make a series of extremely high-speed flights out of Edwards Air Force Base, reaching speeds greater than 10,000 mph before landing in Utah and Montana.

A $32 million launch facility built for the program sits dormant at Edwards Air Force Base with no prospects of ever being used.

Lockheed Martin planned to use the technologies from the X-33 in a spacecraft called VentureStar that would launch vertically, fly into space without the help of booster rockets, and later return to Earth, landing like a space shuttle. VentureStar would be a ``second-generation'' reusable spacecraft; the space shuttle was the first generation.

The X-33 program was to test key technologies such as lightweight fuel tanks, a new engine system, and the use of a metallic heat protection system that would be more durable and easier to maintain than the protective tiles on the space shuttles.

The manufacturing problems - and finally failure - in developing the lightweight fuel tanks made of composite materials signaled the program's death. The program took a major, and ultimately fatal, blow when cracks were found in one of the liquid hydrogen fuel tanks following a test in November 1999.

Without lightweight tanks, NASA officials said, the X-33 successor VentureStar would be too heavy to meet its goal of flying into space in a single stage.

Also ended, at least for the short term, is the use of cooperative agreements that allowed industry to take the technical lead on programs. NASA is insisting on having more oversight and more input on technical issues than the agency was allowed under its agreement with Lockheed Martin on the X-33.

The agreement prevented NASA from ensuring that technical issues were addressed to their satisfaction, officials said.

The cooperative agreement did have some benefits. When costs began to rise on the program, it was Lockheed Martin and its private partners, not NASA, that had to dig deeper into their pockets. The industry team's contribution climbed from just over $211 million originally to more than $350 million.

``It was a good deal to help cap government funding required to do the program,'' Dumbacher said. ``It also broke the mold to get government and industry to work more in a partnership.''

In terms of technology advancement, the X-33 program did advance a number of promising technologies, including the engine, metallic heat protection systems, composite structures, and navigation and guidance systems.

``From a technical perspective, we got a lot of demonstration and design work,'' Dumbacher said.

The construction of the composite tanks to hold the liquid hydrogen was a failure for the X-33, but the experience provided a wealth of information about the manufacturing and assembly of large composite structures, he said.

``We learned more from that than had the test gone good,'' Dumbacher said. ``There was a lot of good learning out of the program.''

One technology NASA is very interested in pursuing is the linear aerospike engines that were to power the X-33. The concept for the engine has been around for decades, but with the X-33 they were about to get their first real-world application.

The aerospike engine lacks the conventional bell-shaped exhaust nozzles of other rocket engines. Instead, ``ramps'' shape the exhaust, with help from the surrounding airflow that changes as the craft rises higher through the atmosphere.

Early in the program, there were problems in the engines' development, including warping of the ramps caused by temperature extremes during firing. Those problems were overcome by their developer, Boeing's Rocketdyne division in Canoga Park.

Toward the end, the aerospike engines were a bright spot as the overall X-33 program stalled after the tank failure.

One engine had completed a series of test firings and the X-33 team was about to start testing two engines at the same time, with tests to include simulated flight operations.

``They're great engines,'' said Rocketdyne spokesman Dan Beck. ``Hopefully, someday they might find their way into flight.''

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Huntington Beach, chairman of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee of the House Science Committee, sees lessons from the X-33's failure.

``The first lesson is before major corporations, like Lockheed, sign a contract they had better have more than computer models to work with,'' Rohrabacher said. ``Lockheed based their proposal on computer modeling. The computer models missed the tanks splitting.''

NASA is now taking the correct approach, Rohrabacher said. The money being allocated for Space Launch Initiative will result in the development of new technologies that will ultimately pay for themselves.

``I think rather than putting all their eggs in one basket, like they did with the X-33 program, they are giving more businesses and more players a chance to get into the game,'' Rohrabacher said. ``Whether it results in a new, revolutionary launch vehicle remains to be seen.''

X-33 ROCKET PLANE TIME LINE

--1994: Seeking to dramatically lower the cost of getting into space, NASA initiates its X-33 program to prove technologies for a reusable launch vehicle.

--March 1995: NASA signs cooperative agreements with Lockheed Martin, McDonnell Douglas (now part of Boeing) and Rockwell (also now part of Boeing) to refine concepts for the X-33 ``technology demonstrator'' craft.

--July 1996: NASA selects Lockheed Martin to build the X-33 technology demonstrator. Vice President Al Gore unveils a model of Lockheed Martin's X-33 concept during the contract announcement. First flight is targeted for March 1999.

--November 1997: Groundbreaking ceremony for the X-33 launch site at Edwards Air Force Base.

--February 1998: The first major component, a liquid oxygen fuel tank, arrives in Palmdale for assembly into the X-33. The scheduled first flight has slid from March 1999 to July 1999.

--April 1998: NASA says X-33 test flights will be delayed by development problems with the liquid hydrogen tank and the linear aerospike engine.

--March 1999: The $32 million, 3-acre launch site at Edwards is dedicated. NASA Administrator Dan Goldin travels from Washington D.C. to attend.

--April 1999: Alliant Techsystems ships a composite hydrogen fuel tank from Utah to NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama for testing. First flight is now scheduled for mid-2000. The delay is attributed to problems in the liquid hydrogen tanks, including manufacturing flaws that made the first tank Alliant produced useless for flight.

--September 1999: Boeing Rocketdyne's aerospike rocket engine begins tests at NASA's Stennis Space Center in Mississippi.

--November 1999: A fuel tank develops cracks during testing at Marshall. An investigation team is appointed to look into the failure.

--August 2000: Tank investigation team releases report. The tank failure will delay test flights until at least 2003. ``I don't see any indication from NASA or Lockheed Martin to withdraw from the program,'' says Gene Austin, NASA's X-33 program manager. ``This is a learning experience, and we're moving ahead.''

--September 2000: The NASA Advisory Council learns that it will cost $1 billion and take at least two or three years to complete the X-33. The council recommends an orderly shut down of the program.

A few days later, NASA and Lockheed Martin announce an agreement which will require Lockheed Martin to compete for funds under the Space Launch Initiative program to complete X-33. NASA officials said they will not contribute any more funding to the cooperative agreement, slated to expire March 31.

Lockheed Martin officials say they will press on with the program and that they have dropped the development of the composite tanks in favor of traditional aluminum tanks.

--March 2001: NASA announces it will no longer provide funding for the X-33 program, saying the benefits to be gained from finishing and flying the craft don't justify additional spending. Negotiations begin on closing out the program and determining who owns the components.

CAPTION(S):

photo, box

Photo:

NASA says much was learned from the recently canceled X-33 program.

Box: X-33 Rocket Plane Time Line (see text)