Posted on 04/06/2006 7:46:37 AM PDT by KevinDavis
MOJAVE, Calif., April 6 /PRNewswire/ -- XCOR Aerospace announced today successful testing of its new thermoplastic fluoropolymer composite material. NASA White Sands Test Facility located in southwest New Mexico conducted ignition and oxygen compatibility testing of XCOR's material.
"We have been researching this technology since early 2004, and we continue to develop under NASA contract for composite liquid oxygen (LOX) tanks," said XCOR's President, Jeff Greason. "Shortly after NASA engaged XCOR on this project, we were able to demonstrate materials that were far superior to initial specifications. Indeed, a NASA test lab failed to make it burn in 100% oxygen atmosphere."
XCOR expects the new composite material's superior performance will resolve existing problems with cryogenic and liquid oxygen materials. The material can be used by the aerospace industry in production of LOX tanks for fuel cells, life support systems, and small secondary propulsion systems such as attitude control thrusters. Its thermal insulating properties, nonflammability, as well as the high strength-to-weight ratio typical of composites, make it an enabling technology for building lighter, cheaper, more robust structures and systems.
(Excerpt) Read more at prnewswire.com ...
It was then inability to build a suitable composite LOX tank that contributed to killing the X-33 project.
Now I can keep my LOX and Bagels together............
Too bad this material wasn't available for the External Tank design back in the 70's early 80's. The lighter weight likely could have made it a snap to put those spent fuel tanks into Low Earth Orbit, rather than letting them fall into the ocean. The Orbiter could just park them in a reasonable orbit. And a subsequent 'space tug' could come along and bundle them for in-orbit recycling into exterior pressure structures of major space stations. They would have to be ferried to higher orbit ultimately however, as we saw with Skylab. Even a 265 mile high orbit was not high enough. What a stupid loss.
Nooooooooo! XCOR is taking government money. Now they're tainted. :)
Acually, the Shuttle takes the ET so far into space before jettisoning, there is very little payload penalty to take it all the way into orbit, and in missions with less than a full payload, there is no penalty at all.
The problems involved with purging the tanks of remaining volatiles, having to rendezvous with a "storage area" for the ETs and then trying to perform the main mission, and the fact that the tanks are so flimsy anyway, all added up to "nice idea, but not practical."
Just infected with Trichinosis - slow death by government pork.
No, it was the hydrogen tank that was the problem I believe. Much colder.
Xerus space plane is being designed to handle sounding rocket experiments, hurl microsatellites into low Earth orbit, and support a nacent suborbital space tourism market. Artwork: Mike Massee/XCOR Aerospace
So Buzz Aldrin is wrong? Seems to me that purging is a simple design retrofit. Space takes care of the rest.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained. We should have tried.
They had to fight very, very hard to get Marshall to give them a fixed-fee contract, rather than cost plus. By doing so, they avoided getting wrapped up in all of the nonsensical DCAA accounting issues.
That is no easy task. NASA isn't doing many fixed-fees with Congress breathing down their neck on cost control. They must have demonstrated to MSFC a very compelling technology that NASA really, really wanted.
I meant fixed price, not fixed fee. Sorry. But it was still like pulling teeth with Marshall. They didn't even know how to write that kind of contract.
Either way, MSFC must have seriously wanted this lightweight cryogenic pressure vessel technology. Either the technology looks very promising, or someone at MSFC got badly snowed (which seems unlikely).
I guess I still don't understand your comment. What is it that's risky about a fixed-price contract? From a price standpoint, it's the least risky contract you can have, by definition. The only risk is that the contractor doesn't deliver, but if that's the case you're out nothing, except you don't get the product.
NASA is risk averse, but a reluctance to grant a fixed price contract takes it to ridiculous extremes, unless they think the fate of the world hinges on XCOR delivering an experimental oxidizer tank.
No, the problem isn't risk aversion, but culture, in which no one at MSFC procurement has had any experience with the real world in which contractors deliver a product at a fixed price, and expect to make a profit. Most of their contractors view R&D as a profit center from which they milk the taxpayers for their inefficiencies, rather than a cost of doing business.
XCOR had already made their investment, and wanted to provide a product to a customer with a healthy markup (with the acceptance of some risk on their own part). That's heresy in the traditional aerospace business. At least if you're a government contractor.
That's pretty much all I was saying. NASA doesn't issue fixed price contracts unless they are very confident in getting the product.
NASA is risk averse, but a reluctance to grant a fixed price contract takes it to ridiculous extremes, unless they think the fate of the world hinges on XCOR delivering an experimental oxidizer tank. .
I definitely agree.
No, the problem isn't risk aversion, but culture, in which no one at MSFC procurement has had any experience with the real world in which contractors deliver a product at a fixed price, and expect to make a profit. Most of their contractors view R&D as a profit center from which they milk the taxpayers for their inefficiencies, rather than a cost of doing business.
At one time NASAs contractors were the well compensated envy of the space program, and government contractors in general. That is no longer the case. The contractors are the disposable employees. Expected to perform just as the civil servants at two-thirds of the salary, and no job security. Most of NASAs contracts are now cost plus award fee, and the contractors are getting screwed on the award fee.
XCOR had already made their investment, and wanted to provide a product to a customer with a healthy markup (with the acceptance of some risk on their own part). That's heresy in the traditional aerospace business. At least if you're a government contractor.
NASAs contractors are no longer even comparable to the rest of the aerospace industry. Until they lost the engineering support services contract at JSC, Lockeed Martin was considering selling or spinning off the business due to it's low profitability (or so it was rumored).
My hat's off to XCOR, they appear to have accomplished something that NASA/Lockeed were completely unable to do with rather significant government funding.
The next Nike shoe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
